I have enjoyed reading the series. Jordan does use a lot of fantasy tropes, but the way he mix and matches them together is different from how other authors do it, and he borrows from many real-world cultures too. I think that remixing is just as much an art as coming up with something that looks more original at first glance.
The writing bogs down around book 9, almost grinding to a standstill. Book 1 is one of the best-paced books in the series, so if it was bothering you, you'd probably be annoyed by the later ones. Also, the relationships between men and women sometimes make me feel like rolling my eyes.
Nevertheless, I have read the books, and enjoyed them, and even though Jordan borrows from many sources, there's nothing quite like the series. I think describing them as derivative is too harsh, or at least, incomplete.
The best thing I could see coming from you reading any of The Song of Ice and Fire books is me laughing through your review. I have read them. The first three were given to me. Meh, I'll read the rest if he lives long enough. I won't be too heartbroken if he kicks off either.
The person who gave them had never read them, her game geek friends all had. They have also read the Wheel of Time stuff I do so hope she doesn't inflict those upon me.
I actually like Eddings better due to the humor. Both this and Eddings' books I thought had good characterization b/c I was actually able to remember the names of everyone - I'm bad at names so in most books with only a couple characters I can't remember those names, and to me it takes clear strong personalities for me to remember them, especially in such an ensemble cast
( ... )
Those big fat fantasies series are a weighty burden to carry, and are the primary reason I read so little of fantasy now (I read a lot of it when I was younger). I mean, why read 1000 pages of rewritten Tolkien when I could read four history books in the same time?
Having said that, I have read the five books of "Songs of Ice and Fire" and most of the "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" both of which, I believe, are arguments with Tolkien instead of imitations. Martin's books aren't about black and white moralities, they are about shades of gray; they are, in part, about getting over the illusions of myth and legend. Donaldson's "Chronicles" invert Tolkien: instead of purity winning, power is tied to guilt, instead of magic being by blood, it is by training, instead of kings, his world has a Council... you get the idea.
The family got this one as an audio-book for a road trip back in middle school. None of us ever had the slightest inclination to look up any more books in the series, and that from a family of fantasy fans.
It seems like anytime someone wants to give a good review to a fantasy book, they say it's the 'next tolkien' or the 'successor to tolkien' whenever I see that it's usually either a) a blatantly and tediously derivative copy like Wheel of Time, Eragon, Fionavar Tapestry etc. or b) an excellent fantasy story that actually bears very little similarity to Tolkien (Deed of Paksenarrion, Song of Ice and Fire, I've even seen plenty of Harry Potter book covers that describe it as the "heir" to tolkien). The only story I can think of that is both a strong spiritual successor to tolkien both in the nature of the plot and the strengths of the story while being an original and powerful work in itself is Avatar the Last Airbender.
Comments 7
The writing bogs down around book 9, almost grinding to a standstill. Book 1 is one of the best-paced books in the series, so if it was bothering you, you'd probably be annoyed by the later ones. Also, the relationships between men and women sometimes make me feel like rolling my eyes.
Nevertheless, I have read the books, and enjoyed them, and even though Jordan borrows from many sources, there's nothing quite like the series. I think describing them as derivative is too harsh, or at least, incomplete.
Reply
Reply
The person who gave them had never read them, her game geek friends all had. They have also read the Wheel of Time stuff I do so hope she doesn't inflict those upon me.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Having said that, I have read the five books of "Songs of Ice and Fire" and most of the "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" both of which, I believe, are arguments with Tolkien instead of imitations. Martin's books aren't about black and white moralities, they are about shades of gray; they are, in part, about getting over the illusions of myth and legend. Donaldson's "Chronicles" invert Tolkien: instead of purity winning, power is tied to guilt, instead of magic being by blood, it is by training, instead of kings, his world has a Council... you get the idea.
Reply
It seems like anytime someone wants to give a good review to a fantasy book, they say it's the 'next tolkien' or the 'successor to tolkien' whenever I see that it's usually either a) a blatantly and tediously derivative copy like Wheel of Time, Eragon, Fionavar Tapestry etc. or b) an excellent fantasy story that actually bears very little similarity to Tolkien (Deed of Paksenarrion, Song of Ice and Fire, I've even seen plenty of Harry Potter book covers that describe it as the "heir" to tolkien). The only story I can think of that is both a strong spiritual successor to tolkien both in the nature of the plot and the strengths of the story while being an original and powerful work in itself is Avatar the Last Airbender.
Reply
Leave a comment