Who didn't?

I tend to agree somewhat with the fairly common negative charges against Tolkien, in that he does tend to impose his narrative style and detailed historic vision upon the reader a little too much.

But if ever someone makes a comment about it to me in conversation, I usually point them towards the Hobbit, as I feel it is a much more tightly contained piece of work where he does control himself a little more. Its much more easy to read for those that don't like Tolkien's quasi-Victorian style.

Having said that, I still dearly loved reading in particular, the first part of the trilogy, Fellowship of the Ring and could hardly call him 'my least favourite fantasy writer'. I find it hard to really pick one ad-lib, but the first one which comes to my head is Mercedes Lackey and whoever did the tacky cash-in Bard's Tale novels which tainted my loving memories of the brilliant series. :D

@ True Moose - I never realised that the BG novels took off - can you elaborate further as to why I shouldn't bother with them? :D I need more convincing, as I'd be frothing at the mouth if I saw them cheap in a bargain bin or something! [img]smile.gif[/img] I remember there was a comic that came free as promo material or something as well....

Bear in mind that LotR is not written in the style of an action piece or a drama, but as an epic saga, from ye olden times. Believe me, as one of those, Lord of the Rings works very well indeed. Basically, if you find it a bit boring, watch the film! *yay*

Least favourite author? Hmm... erm, I guess not many people have ever heard of David Ferring, or Ian Watson...

[ 10-12-2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Tancred ]

i disagree, tancred. peter jackson did an admirable job translating directly into film everything that is boring, long-winded, and cumbersome about the books.

I went for Sara Douglas, because I absolutely hate those Enchanter books of hers... Read the first, forced myself to read the second in hopes it was better (if anything, it seemed worse), and couldn't manage to make myself read the third. It's like a series of horribly-executed fantasdy cliches mixed with the complete elimination of any version of intelligence or logic by the characters, or the author's choices of how events should work out. I mean, for crying out loud... The books give the villain-esque character who plays a large role in the first two books (Bornehold or however Axis's brother's name was spelled, for those of you familiar with the books) a good reason for wanting to mangle the main character, plus the reason why he was so bitter at the main character through the whole time is proven to be true, and the reader's expected to cheer when he main character defeats him? What the heck is this? Plus the main character (and for that matter, ALL the characters) seem to have only about four generic things each they're capable of doing. Plus the plot's pretty poor, plus a lot of other problems... Won't go into a full description currently, methinks, would take too long. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

But, anyways. Can't really see where the complaints about Tolkien being too detailed come from... Then again, I love books that have a ton of detail in them, so I suppose that might be the reason. Meh. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 11-04-2003, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Encard ]

Hmm, I can't even remember how many times I read LotR. A lot. :D

So I have to disagree with the 'too much details'. But, then again, I also really like Robert Jordan. Dan you can say one thing about him: he writes in DETAIL.

The books I don't like (though I don't remember the authors) are the D&D books I read. Man, talk about overpowered demi-gods!
I remember one called 'the symbul's gift' or something like that. Terrible. Let's take ALL the things an adventurer could possibly encounter in his/her entire career and cram it all into one guy. Sheesh, Boring.

see, now i wouldnt call jordan boring or long winded at all. i actually quite enjoy his writing.

perhaps it's a matter of timing. the old theory of advance-expand-advance-expand. it just may be that tolkein chooses poor times to expand and doesnt know when to stop, while jordan knows better.

and, i freely acknowledge that may be a function of tolkein being 100 years old and jordan contemporary. i've read the original dracula, frankenstein, and dr. jekyll/mr. hyde stories recently and found the elizabethan language (and pacing) to be quite daunting - but still readable, unlike tolkein.

I didn't say boring. I like Robert Jordan's books. But I CAN understand why people think he should get on with the story.
I love the way he really created a world. A living world. With all the details, all the people, all the different societies, etc. I don't think the world of Tolkien comes even close.

Maybe Im more patient some of the other guys but the details is one of the reasons I read Tolkien [img]smile.gif[/img]

edit:Do this poll only count for fantasy writers?
If not I think the Swedish writer Håkan Nesser is the worst :puke:

[ 11-06-2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Svaerdhelgon ]

i voted for "other", and the other i had in mind was mine bland.