A Load of RubbishThis series by George R.R. Martin is one of the worst fantasies I have read in years with wooden stock characters that resemble those in a high school drama, horrid prose, soap opera-like plot, cartoon violence, rapes (I guess for the adolescent boys and not so mature men who have a certain mental condition). I wasted enough time ploughing through over 1600 in two books.
This series is ranking with the Dragonlance Chronicles and the Belgariad as the worst books I have ever read.
Yes, the War of the Roses is an interesting period. This fantasy tale, however, is just beyond redemption, truly insipid. Sure, it will sell truckloads, it will make the author money in licensing and merchandising. The collectible card game, the artbook, the boardgames and expansion, the RPG and other associated material are already available. The horror!
Who knows? After the success of the Lord of the Rings, Narnia and Harry Potter...
5 comments:
Don't know about bad, but as we grow older, books previously held in high esteem suddenly seem not so cool or sophisticated. Nostalgia is like that. One particular semi-fantasy story I still recall strongly is "Thumitak of the Corridors", written in the 30s/40s? and published in an SF anthology (Before the Golden Age, Vol ?) that I first read in the late 80s. For a non-fan of fantasy books, that story was very evocative of a post-apocalyptic alien invasion scenario with humans barely surviving in underground tunnels... until hero Thumitak ventures out and slays the dragons. However, I wonder if I'd still be impressed if I can find the story to read again today.
Another case: The Lensmen series by E.E. Doc Smith. Very gung-ho space opera when I read them as a kid, but now I cringe a little at the ultra macho characterisations and swooning red-headed heroine...
I dunno man. I kind of liked the story, if only because important characters died like flies.
I suppose a lot of the graphic rape and incest was rather unnecessary though.
Anthony, you're not alone in liking them. There are literally millions of people who liked them. Yes, the characters do die often. And there are multiple points of view. I think most RPGers like them.
Kelvin, I share those sentiments. I believe if I were to read Raymond E. Feist today, I would be appalled. Similarly for a few other books. I think even Gibson dated badly. For instance, Neuromancer and telephone booths? Imagine a world without mobile phones? And for that matter, in some SF?
I guess some golden age SF don't age well.
Lensman is pure pulp. Planet-busters, ray guns. I can't knock it because it is what it is. SF pulp. Space opera. To be enjoyed at that level. There is no pretension otherwise. I mean if you were to read John Carter of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs, well, it is not dissimilar.
As for those characters-go-on-a-quest-to-defeat-the-dark-lord books, well, you know... A formula! Some are better execution than others. Today, there are those many-characters-caught-in-a-war-between-several-sides-kind-of-soap-opera. Ack.
Erk, you've hit on some badly dated material. Raymond Feist I liked for a while - but starting stinking badly. David Eddings I've always hated. Ditto Salvatore.
I guess the older I get, the less I like vanilla fantasy, and prefer something with more characterisation and narrative elements.
'better executed'
Damn. I hate typos.
Post a Comment