The Ultimate Author Bashing/Defense Thread

[Bazzlebane]

I've defended Eddings on this board before so I won't go into lengthy detail, but the essence of it is that he is the perfect gateway-to-fantasy for preteen readers. Don't judge him by the standards of Martin or Bakker, their books are meant for adult minds. Eddings is good, exciting fun for 12 year olds. It worked for me, anyway.

I've got 28 year old friends I'm not sure are mature enough for Martin and Bakker.

[Hark]

I find Douglas Adams to be NOT FUNNY.

You musta read him too old. Gotta read him just after your reading skills are sufficient, but before your thinking skills are too developed.

[Seventh Pup]

Yes, it's wonderful. But it's never going to be anywhere near the scale of HP. The beauty of HP is that it gradually becomes darker, and gradually introduces (badly, usually) mature topics. It starts out as a pure whimsical fantasy designed entirely to appeal to a child's imagination and desire to be there. This is the hook. This is what gets people into it. This is why HP is so goddamn popular - because that aspect of the first book was absolutely top-notch. The gradual introduction of mature themes eases a young reader onto a path that would be horrifying and shocking were they to just be handed HDM.

Of course, I now recognize HDM for the greatness that it is, and it's certainly much better than Potter, but it's not a better children's introduction to reading/fantasy. Nothing I know of compares, really.

Well first off I have never read HDM. But I will say this much for Harry Potter. They are wonderful books to reintroduce you back to fanasty. I had Tolkien read to me when I was 8-9. I read Eddings, then Feist, then McCaffery, the Jordan, then Rawn then Brooks, then Hobb. By the time I got Goodkind at about 14 I was burnt out on bad writing. (Have you ever read Goodkind? That's enough to poison anybody against fanasty). At 18 I found Harry Potter. And it was a wonderful reinduction to fanasty.

I don't think they are amazingly well written, and the last book Half Blood Prince was aweful. But the story is a good story. After that with Williams and Martin restored my faith in the genere.

As for authors I think are aweful... Meliane Rawn bored me to tears, Hobb did the same, and I beleive Terry Goodkind needs to have some aweful happen to him for unleashing his "talents" on the world.

Also Robert Jodarn need to to stop writing, get a good editor par that fucker of a story down before he ever even thinks of writing another book. With a really good editor, and some plot reconstruction WOT would be a fanstastic series....

[Martin Silenus]

As for Eddings, Adams, Pratchett, Rowling and Anthony being good intro fantasy authors for kids... is there no love for Earthsea? Ursula K LeGuin is not only a fantastic author, Earthsea would make a great introduction to fantasy lit. for interested kids. Minimalist writing so it's not too difficult, and interesting, thought provoking concepts about death, gender, responsibility, the power of language, etc. It's neither cretinous (Eddings), stuck in the '80s (Adams), veddy British (Pratchett), a synergasm of mass marketing (Rowling) or just plain terrible (Anthony). Just sayin' consider UKL as a stocking stuffer for your nephews and cousins.

[VerySmallMonster]

Hear hear on Earthsea! That was one of my earliest fantasy expeditions (along with the hobbit and His Dark Materials) and I'd say it's a wonderful entry point for younger readers. But the best part for me is that it is complex enough, that while it is entertaining for young readers, it remains a good read years later. The same goes for His Dark Materials. Actually, with HDM, I think a young reader would miss a lot (I was ten when the first book came out, so by the time I got to the last and most complex book, I was old enough to be able to appreciate it).

Rowling on the other hand... *shudders* I admit, it is fairly captivating, but so's Jordan. I've read all the installments in both series, but I feel like they are pure brain candy. Like, it's fun for awhile, but if you aren't careful you'll start getting cavities.

[Bazzlebane]

I did also read Earthsea around the same age as Eddings, and liked it very much.

[emberling]

I was directed to Earthsea as a child and found it completely, utterly uninteresting. I finished the series, because it was there, but I didn't particularly like it, and I can't remember a damn thing about it. I've always meant to go back and read it again someday and see what all the fuss was about, but I never get around to it.

It wasn't at all like my reaction to HDM, by the way - I liked the first book quite well, but it didn't particularly stand out and I eventually forgot about it before the second book came out. Earthsea was just utterly blah.

Same thing with McCaffrey, though I retained and reread those, having actually received my own copy of the books, so I know why they were uninteresting.

[Bazzlebane]

McCaffery is the one I found utterly and completely disinteresting.

[Lord Qwerty]

I hereby diss Stephen R. Donaldson. Mainly on the basis that my ex-girlfriend liked his work and was far more interested in him than me by the end of our relationship, but still...

Damn you, Donaldson, for taking her away!!

[Vestrit]

I find Tad Williams to be endlessly boring.

Imagine Tad is your father and he's telling you a bedtime story. The good news is you'll be asleep real quick. The bad news is you'll wake up the next day and his story will still be going!

so you've read Otherland then...

Would have been great if it had only been two books. How much filler does one series need?

[beniowa]

You musta read him too old. Gotta read him just after your reading skills are sufficient, but before your thinking skills are too developed

I agree. Adams' books aren't meant to be serious. You almost have to read them without using your brain. If you do, they're pretty fun.

McCaffery is the one I found utterly and completely disinteresting.

Many of her earlier books are pretty good. The later ones though seem redundant, or geared toward very young girls, or like the ones she wrote with her son, just boring.

I was directed to Earthsea as a child and found it completely, utterly uninteresting.

Same here. I didn't care for it all and never got around to trying it again.

Anyone here ever read the Ring of Five Dragons books by Eric van Lustbader? I got thru the first two books just fine and thought they were okay. As long as you don't care how to pronounce the V'ronn names. But then I couldn't get thru the last one for even fifty pages.

[Ashara]

I dunno why, but it is by some reason female writers that put me on the edge of screaming: "Never write again!" Maybe it's because female Mary Sues try to do all the things male Mary-Sues do, only stay gorgeously beautiful as well while at it. So, this is my bash for

Katherine Kerr, for the 12 book saga that is *less* appealing than Jordan's WoT

Elaine Cunnigham for those few hours I will never get back wasted on her book about some idiotic half-elven girl, that she should have paid me for reading.

Also for the never read, but said to be a horrid and the most unfairily published person in the literary world, Ph. Athens.

[Galactus]

Hey, don't diss Kerr! Sure, just like Jordan she kept on writing far beyond when she should have, but the first Four or so books are excellent. Her world is a bit different than usual (taking celtic society and evolving it to the middle-ages without outside influences) and she has some very good characters, and the plot-point about different incarnations was pretty cool.

Also, Nevyn rocks. One of my favourite takes on the "Old Wizard" archetype