Sean Williams and Shane Dix's Force Heretic I: Remnant - I DON'T FUCKING KNOW BECAUSE Destiny's Way ISN'T FUCKING OUT IN PAPERBACK YET. FUCK HARDBACK.
Tomorrow I start Goodkind's Stone of Tears. [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: DU ]
It's not something people hear about.
unless you're into the whole BDSM/Rape and Torture thing, the series really isn't worth it.
quote:
We were all impressed when Santa Gee wrote:
the series gets very bad after the second book. the third is just kinda bleh,
Oddly enough, I've heard completely different from a much more reliable source.
It's not something people hear about.
indifferent to 5
Despised 3 and 7
edit: put my and in the right place [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Ragabash ]
The whole series is hilarious. I read those books, and I just burst out laughing at the ridiculousness of the things his characters do. I mean, to me anyways, they aren't believable at all. One of the things I like most about fantasy, is when the characters have some shortcomings. It always seemed to me Richard was about as perfect as you could get, and of course, he always keeps getting more powerful. 
The first one (Gardens of the Moon) is a bit confusing but very good while the second one (Memories of Ice) is excellent 
I'm just reading the third one (Deadhouse Gates) at the moment 
And the first book irritated me, because after waiting five hundred odd pages to find out what exactly Confessor powers were, I thought the whole thing was stupid. [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: MorbId ]
quote:
MorbId wrote this stupid crap:
I agree with Elethi. The characters have little depth, which just doesn't appeal after reading stuff like the Black Company and David Gemmell's work. There's also just too many convenient occurences, and I've only read two books.And the first book irritated me, because after waiting five hundred odd pages to find out what exactly Confessor powers were, I thought the whole thing was stupid.
There is that, and thier is also the fact they are nearly perfect rip off of Wheel of Time, with name changes, but no where near as interesting. Also, like Gee said, books 3 and 4 are just like one really long rape scene. Every major event revolves around some rape event or S/M like getting your nipples cut off. Perverse, degrading, twisted, and not in a good way. The man litterally has no talent in my opinion.
Characters have no depth, personality, or growth in the entire series. Some of the cliche occurances are more than just a little annoying. Now while cliche is expected, and can be sometimes a good thing. The ones here just plain suck.
The storytelling is backasswords in appeal, and for many stints doesn't even appear to GO anywhere, and when it does, it's just a big letdown.
In my opinion, probably one of the biggest piles of shit in the fantasy literature area. You want a really good epic on those scales, you read David Eddings. Now THAT is an author.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
In my opinion, probably one of the biggest piles of shit in the fantasy literature area. You want a really good epic on those scales, you read David Eddings. Now THAT is an author.
YES!
i'm re-reading the Belgariad and the Mallorean again (i think this'll be somewhere over 10 times i've read through it). i'm kinda sad cause i lost the third book in the Mallorean, but that's fairly minor.
Edding's is probably everything that Goodkind isn't in an author. Specifically, the characters are incredibly indearing and have incredible depth to them.
David Eddings is DAMN good.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
There is that, and thier is also the fact they are nearly perfect rip off of Wheel of Time, with name changes, but no where near as interesting. Also, like Gee said, books 3 and 4 are just like one really long rape scene. Every major event revolves around some rape event or S/M like getting your nipples cut off. Perverse, degrading, twisted, and not in a good way. The man litterally has no talent in my opinion.Characters have no depth, personality, or growth in the entire series. Some of the cliche occurances are more than just a little annoying. Now while cliche is expected, and can be sometimes a good thing. The ones here just plain suck.
The storytelling is backasswords in appeal, and for many stints doesn't even appear to GO anywhere, and when it does, it's just a big letdown.
In my opinion, probably one of the biggest piles of shit in the fantasy literature area. You want a really good epic on those scales, you read David Eddings. Now THAT is an author.
I disagree. As for the no weaknesses thing, preferring Eddings is silly in that case. Eddings tends to place no restrictions at all on his heroes - usually they're more powerful than their enemies combined. And the restrictions/rules that exist in his first book series about Belgarion and Sparrowhawk (Direct translations here) suddenly dissapeared in the second series.
How far have you actually read in Goodkind's series? Nothing but tiny tiny details is a ripoff of WOT.
As for saying that the SoT series is an excuse to write about rape and such... seriously, that's incredibly dumb. The current series I'm reading has people killing each other left and right. How is that any less twisted than rape, if you think about it? Sex is just so much more taboo to write about/show than people gutting each other. [ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Zaza ]
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about dark elf butts:
There is that, and thier is also the fact they are nearly perfect rip off of Wheel of Time, with name changes, but no where near as interesting.
You know, I got that vibe too, but I thought it was just me.
quote:
Zaza thought about the meaning of life:
I disagree. As for the no weaknesses thing, preferring Eddings is silly in that case. Eddings tends to place no restrictions at all on his heroes - usually they're more powerful than their enemies combined. And the restrictions/rules that exist in his first book series about Belgarion and Sparrowhawk (Direct translations here) suddenly dissapeared in the second series.How far have you actually read in Goodkind's series? Nothing but tiny tiny details is a ripoff of WOT.
As for saying that the SoT series is an excuse to write about rape and such... seriously, that's incredibly dumb. The current series I'm reading has people killing each other left and right. How is that any less twisted than rape, if you think about it? Sex is just so much more taboo to write about/show than people gutting each other.
I actually have the entire series Za, although after Blood of the Fold I only half asses went through em so they took me some time.
And the difference between Eddings characters and Goodkind's are. You cared about them, they weren't trite, and you actually felt involved. Richard is just a full out lame hero in my opinion and I could care enough about any of the others, all his character to me are stale, flat, and one sided.
Those "tiny" details that you say are a rip off of WoT are major plot points. Such as the sisters of the Dark and thier crusades. Incarnations of fallen heroes come back. All those things are major turning points.
It not so much that sex is taboo, is that at one point you couldn't go one paragraph without reading, in full out detail, about the molestation and rape of some female character. One where the major villian went around malesting and mutilating women and prostitutes. It's just sick and twisted. It's beyond just murder and killing someone, and descriptions of a battlefield. It's just perverse. And hearing, seeing, reading about someone being ritualistically raped, mutilated, and then in some cases murdered on top of that, IS worse that reading about someone gutting someone else. By comparison though, a book that goes overboard on describing and reveling in murder isn't all that interesting to me either. Violence is okay, murder is okay, even sex is okay if done tastefully in a series. Goodkind just has none of those qualities in my opinion. Besides, a better form of writing is leaving some to the imagination of the reader.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris thought about the meaning of life:
I actually have the entire series Za, although after Blood of the Fold I only half asses went through em so they took me some time.And the difference between Eddings characters and Goodkind's are. You cared about them, they weren't trite, and you actually felt involved. Richard is just a full out lame hero in my opinion and I could care enough about any of the others, all his character to me are stale, flat, and one sided.
Those "tiny" details that you say are a rip off of WoT are major plot points. Such as the sisters of the Dark and thier crusades. Incarnations of fallen heroes come back. All those things are major turning points.
It not so much that sex is taboo, is that at one point you couldn't go one paragraph without reading, in full out detail, about the molestation and rape of some female character. One where the major villian went around malesting and mutilating women and prostitutes. It's just sick and twisted. It's beyond just murder and killing someone, and descriptions of a battlefield. It's just perverse. And hearing, seeing, reading about someone being ritualistically raped, mutilated, and then in some cases murdered on top of that, IS worse that reading about someone gutting someone else. By comparison though, a book that goes overboard on describing and reveling in murder isn't all that interesting to me either. Violence is okay, murder is okay, even sex is okay if done tastefully in a series. Goodkind just has none of those qualities in my opinion. Besides, a better form of writing is leaving some to the imagination of the reader.
I disagree on the characters, actually. And honestly you make it sound worse than it is on the violence part. It happens, and maybe he does tend to linger too long on them, but /shrug. I found the books good reading, and the plots mostly well-designed, if a trite repeative in the middle books.
Richard and Kahlan aren't the best personalities ever, but there's way better ones. Zedd, the two "holes in the world", Scarlet, and the large assortment of villains.
quote:
Zaza was listening to Cher while typing:
I disagree on the characters, actually. And honestly you make it sound worse than it is on the violence part. It happens, and maybe he does tend to linger too long on them, but /shrug. I found the books good reading, and the plots mostly well-designed, if a trite repeative in the middle books.Richard and Kahlan aren't the best personalities ever, but there's way better ones. Zedd, the two "holes in the world", Scarlet, and the large assortment of villains.
I'm just very picky on what I do and don't read. 
I don't like Goodkind, and concider it largely crap. I don't like anything by Steven King (One exception, and a DAMN GOOD book if you can find it and give it a read. "Bag of Bones")and concider him an uneducated author. ( I don't mean educated as in he's dumb, just that his book are all appear to be on a gradeschool reading level -excluding content- to me, and largely devoid of any growth.)
And I still say I think Goodkinds characters are lame, and wholely uninteresting. And Garion and Ce'Nedra still rule as one of the untimate literary couples.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about Robocop:
I'm just very picky on what I do and don't read.I don't like Goodkind, and concider it largely crap. I don't like anything by Steven King (One exception, and a DAMN GOOD book if you can find it and give it a read. "Bag of Bones")and concider him an uneducated author. ( I don't mean educated as in he's dumb, just that his book are all appear to be on a gradeschool reading level -excluding content- to me, and largely devoid of any growth.)
And I still say I think Goodkinds characters are lame, and wholely uninteresting. And Garion and Ce'Nedra still rule as one of the untimate literary couples.
And personally, I dislike the inconsistency and plot holes in Eddings' books, though otherwise he is a good writer.
All personal preference I suppose. [ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Zaza ]
quote:
Zaza's account was hax0red to write:
And personally, I dislike the inconsistency and plot holes in Eddings' books, though otherwise he is a good writer.All personal preference I suppose.
I don't see any plot holes in the Belgariad.. I did in the Sparhawk trilogies. There were some timeline inconsistancies though. They don't detract from the current events and plot/story though.
The two Sparhawk trilogies seemed very rushed to me, and made a lot of mistakes timeline/plot wise. Still excelent books, but very inconcistant.
One of the most looked forward too books by many people who were into the Tower series...
The whole book was like the wizard of oz, and when it wasn't like the Wizard of Oz, it was just "The Stand" rehashed... I mean every major thing that happened, and was explained, was just a remix of "The Stand". Talk about lame, and lazy. You can really tell he was running out of story, and was banking on just the franchise alone.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
I don't see any plot holes in the Belgariad.. I did in the Sparhawk trilogies. There were some timeline inconsistancies though. They don't detract from the current events and plot/story though.The two Sparhawk trilogies seemed very rushed to me, and made a lot of mistakes timeline/plot wise. Still excelent books, but very inconcistant.
Plenty of them in Mallorean/Belgarad.
Creating doesn't make barely a sound, and apparently costs almost no effort. Why do they bring food when they can simply conjure it? Why do they bother haggling for such things as boats, when they can pluck it out of empty space? Their powers have close to no limitations, which essentially creates endless plot holes, despite the attempt to limit it with "It makes a noise!".
If you want an example, take when Durnik changes some clay shield into a steel one, and they're all "Elemental Transformation!" - when in the same book Garion creates a door without blinking. What's the point of the Elemental Transformation? And when they face an enemy, why not just make a big anvil over his head? What's the special about Zandramas being able to turn herself into a dragon, when any of them could shapeshift into a dragon as well - and why don't they? [ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Zaza ]
quote:
Zaza attempted to be funny by writing:
Plenty of them in Mallorean/Belgarad.Creating doesn't make barely a sound, and apparently costs almost no effort. Why do they bring food when they can simply conjure it? Why do they bother haggling for such things as boats, when they can pluck it out of empty space? Their powers have close to no limitations, which essentially creates endless plot holes, despite the attempt to limit it with "It makes a noise!".
If you want an example, take when Durnik changes some clay shield into a steel one, and they're all "Elemental Transformation!" - when in the same book Garion creates a door without blinking. What's the point of the Elemental Transformation? And when they face an enemy, why not just make a big anvil over his head? What's the special about Zandramas being able to turn herself into a dragon, when any of them could shapeshift into a dragon as well - and why don't they?
Actually if you go back and read the "Belgarath" and "Polgara" books, some of those things can be explained, as well as the reasoning behind them.
And using will does take effort, it just depends on what is being done. And example was Belgaraths stand in the canyon, chimney, where he almost killed himself from over exhertion and Garion had to back him up, and they hid it from him later. As well as why creation is a tricky thing because what is done cannot be undone, so it isn't done all that often and is frowned apon. For instance what happened when Garion made a flower for his cousin, and it later grew to cover the plains where he made it. And what happened when something was "Unmade". Or tampering with the weather. Every use of will had consequences.
There is also the fact that everything that is made, done, or changed, affects something else somewhere else. And has it's own limitations. And as far as the Dragon thing its more a matter of why it was chosen, as everyone else shapeshifts, but thier forms all relfect reasons, and the form of a Dragon is far more devestating.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Actually if you go back and read the "Belgarath" and "Polgara" books, some of those things can be explained, as well as the reasoning behind them.And using will does take effort, it just depends on what is being done. And example was Belgaraths stand in the canyon, chimney, where he almost killed himself from over exhertion and Garion had to back him up, and they hid it from him later. As well as why creation is a tricky thing because what is done cannot be undone, so it isn't done all that often and is frowned apon. For instance what happened when Garion made a flower for his cousin, and it later grew to cover the plains where he made it. And what happened when something was "Unmade". Or tampering with the weather. Every use of will had consequences.
There is also the fact that everything that is made, done, or changed, affects something else somewhere else. And has it's own limitations. And as far as the Dragon thing its more a matter of why it was chosen, as everyone else shapeshifts, but thier forms all relfect reasons, and the form of a Dragon is far more devestating.
But if using creation had consequenses, how come they took so lightly on making a new door for Senji?
Besides, I can't remember exactly what now, but the Belgarath and Polgara both contradicted things in the Belgarion.
And yes, but Belgaraths stand in the canyon was throwing heavy rocks, which is earlier explained to be one of the most straining ways to use it. Little to no exhaustion comes from creating things, and it's all from the inside.
As for shapeshifting, it doesn't hold up. They have preferred forms, but there's no rule that says they can't shapeshift into absolutely anything they want. So why didn't the other Heirarchs turn themselves into dwagons to fight Zandramas?
There is no mention of "You shouldn't create things." in fact it says "The purpose of the universe is to create things, create all you want, but you can't destroy anything." [ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Zaza ]
quote:
Zaza wrote this stupid crap:
But if using creation had consequenses, how come they took so lightly on making a new door for Senji?
Honestly, I do not remember this event... But again, depending on what is done determines the effect it will have in the long run. All things created have a long term effect on everything around them. Create or Change something, and it's a permanent change.
quote:
Besides, I can't remember exactly what now, but the Belgarath and Polgara both contradicted things in the Belgarion.
They both took place and explained events before the Belgariad ever took place. They were prequels, and a type of history book. They had very little to do with the Belgaraid until the near endings. Also, they were both point of view books.
quote:
And yes, but Belgaraths stand in the canyon was throwing heavy rocks, which is earlier explained to be one of the most straining ways to use it. Little to no exhaustion comes from creating things, and it's all from the inside.
Exactly, it has limitations, and different uses have different costs to the wielder.
quote:
As for shapeshifting, it doesn't hold up. They have preferred forms, but there's no rule that says they can't shapeshift into absolutely anything they want. So why didn't the other Heirarchs turn themselves into dwagons to fight Zandramas?
Keep in mind they can all shapshift into anything, but not everyone can do everything, and each one has different styles, Garion's learning to become a wolf for example, And shapeshifting requires knowing, thinking, and covering every detail of the form. Eventually after switching to that form so many times it becomes second nature, but then none of the others ever chose dragon, and it would be hard to swicth on a whim just like that.
quote:
There is no mention of "You shouldn't create things." in fact it says "The purpose of the universe is to create things, create all you want, but you can't destroy anything."
No mention of "You shouldn't create things" exactly, but a very heavy emphasis on think before you do, because what you do effects all, and there are several examples of this happening. There is also a heavy empahsis throughout the whole books on, "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't nessesarily mean you should." That is a major overtone in the entire series. Both first and second parts. And all of them took some liberties at different points.
It also takes into consideration that what one user of the will can do, doesn't nessesarily mean another can do it. As in your Elemental Example. Just because Durnik could do it, doesn't mean they all could. This is also excluding the whole point that in context that whole thing was a learning experience for Durnik, as he was still growing. Just because the will was concidered all powerful, didn't mean all of them had control in every sense over every aspect of that power. [ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Faelynn LeAndris ]
I'm not denying that they're great book series, but Eddings seems unable to stick the powers he gives to the heroes within certain frames, and essentially gives them godly abilities. (How fun exactly does it become when the good side has mind readers and can predict every enemy mvoe.)
but, when Garion created the flower it was a completely original concept of a "flower" not just a copy of a rose or dandillion.
also you have to keep in mind that the characters aren't all just Level 20 Sorcerers alla D&D. things aren't done through set formulas. the ways that individuals use the Will and the Word varies by how they think and the perspective they have on the different acts that they are taking.
