Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2020 21:30:53 GMT -6
"Dragon Magazine #286: Shannara Campaign Setting", 2001.Spoilerific Mini-ReviewNot many spoilers here, this time: Shortly before the release of "Antrax", the second novel in the "Voyage" trilogy, "Shannara" gets a main feature in "Dragon Magazine" on how to make a game out of the novels, with lavish artwork, and multiple articles dedicated to it. "The Four Lands"A setting overview that is heartwarming to read, but noticeably struggles for a creative direction: After all, Brooks' lore is never quite too deep, and we simply don't learn much more than generic things about the places he visits in the novels, at least as long as those things are not immediately related to his main stories. The article does a good job, though, in giving an overall sketch of the setting, and it's nice to see that it's written to be an actual gaming resource, and not just a promotional tool for "Antrax. "Elder Druid"Careful, 'cause d20's gonna d20: Despite the artwork that accompanies this article being a quite brutal failure, the characterization of the Shannara Druid as a d20 "Prestige Class" is pretty to the point. IF we postulate that "Prestige Classes" in general are a good idea, and, if, in this context, we postulate that we want Shannara Druids to be mainly Gandalf-like NPCs, and not possible protagonists, as they turn out to be in the later stories of the Grianne cycle. - But, yeah, you can create NPC Allanon and NPC Walker, at least, with this article. "Heroes and Villains"This article giveth d20 what d20 wants: Short descriptions of the most famous characters of the Shannara series, and stat block indicators on how to best portray them. Perhaps mildly useful during its time, but not my cup of tea. "Creatures of the Four Lands"The best bit of the bunch: Stats and suggestions on how to sneak a few Shannara-inspired monsters into your game. Useful, in general. Too bad that the authors decided to leave the "Creepers" out, the famous Shannara spider-robot hybrids, but maybe that was done with the idea in mind to reserve a few surprises for "Antrax"... "Relics and Artifacts"Also a very useful section for DMs - in-detail examinations of the main talismans/mcguffins/tokens from the series, at least until this point. Useful, and copy-worthy if you run a campaign that aligns with the books. "Jerle Shannara: Atrax" [sic]An excerpt from the then-upcoming novel (that was to be released in September of 2001), and an extreeemely cringeworthy one, because it spoils both the ending of "Ilse Witch", and the entirety of the series, beyond the shadow of a doubt, as Grianne Ohmsford is revealed to be the infamous "Ilse Witch" in this section. - Biography of the parents included, no less. Was this really necessary? What marketing exec could have thought that this was a good idea?! I don't know. LegacyThis article had very little impact - if any, at all - and it certainly couldn't save the "Voyage" trilogy and the Grianne cycle of distinctly falling out of favor with fans. (Somewhat unjustly, I think.) Now, nineteen later, and forty-three into the publication history "Shannara", one can safely say that this and other attempts to make "Shannara" a "gamers' world" have failed. - And that's alright, I guess; it's not so much because of its flaws as a setting, but more because the setting changes so wildly with each new novel sequence - but that's kind of the point, too: Dynastic storytelling, over a period of almost 4.000 years. Very, very, very difficult to create a coherent and game-ready world out of it. Dragon #286 makes a worthy effort at that, and the results are not bad - they are just kind of redundant because of the nature of "Voyage" as a tale of transition. While I've never used the content for a game, the art from the Dragon article has been a lasting companion to me, at least online: One of my most frequently used avatars is Terese Nielsen's cover art of this issue, depicting a pensive Walker Boh on board of the "Jerle Shannara". Read now, later, or never?LATER or NEVER. Not because it would be bad, but because it's a bit of irrelevant: On the off-chance that you are going to run a game set in the Shannara universe, will it really be at the beginning of the Grianne cycle, and with the now decades-old d20 rules? - Nothing wrong about that, but --- of ALL the options for running a game IN THE WORLD, you going to pick THIS ONE? - Hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by thefoxdie on Jan 23, 2020 18:27:27 GMT -6
The irony I always felt when doing the now dead campaign I did, was that I felt I had done it particularly well from the, albeit, limited understanding of the rules that I was given at the time and how things played out and the blending of both my characters and the "Isle Witch/Voyage of the Jerle Shannara" plotline. I mean, given the material, I think it could have been done well. While I'm certainly not the most ardent of haters of the Voyage series, I can understand why folks didn't like it. I thought it was alright. Not great, not horrible. Just alright. As for the whole playing a actual Shannara D and D game? I've never really been a fan of playing out storylines that weren't my own, if that makes sense. I feel like the creators made them the way they wished and that it was their vision. Who am I to try to say I could do better, so to speak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2020 15:35:21 GMT -6
"The World of Shannara", 2001/2009.
Spoilerific Mini-Review
Brooks teams up with 2000s fantasy mainstay Teresa Patterson to deliver a coffee-table companion encyclopedia to his series, and until this day the only overview work on the setting of his novels. Whether this book is of use to roleplayers, however, is another matter.
The Best
The conceptual outlook. Brooks is involved here, which is what makes the book an item of interest. We get an idea of what the world of Shannara might look like through his eyes, and we get a notion of what might consider lines of thought that are worth pursuing: Say, what Paranor looks like, in detail. Or, whether Garrett Jax and Stee Jans are really the same person. Details that probably didn't fit into the books, or ended up on the cutting floor. Details that the novels, by themselves, cannot quite transport. - From a purely textual perspective, looking at it for what it is - a coffee-table book - "The World of Shannara" is okay, even more than just that. Certainly not a bad gift for casual fans of the setting.
The Worst
The art. - So, "Shannara", from its conception until "First King", had some of the very best artwork in the business. The brothers Hildebrandt, Darrel K. Sweet, and then TSR's own Keith Parkinson. The visuals of this world are not only very defined, they can also be considered quite superb. - And then we get whatever THIS was supposed to be: Not just new art, but art that was very obviously created on a shoestring budget. 3D models that look considerably worse than the 1995 video game. Pencil sketch portraits and landscape painting that look random, and disconnected from the descriptions in the actual novels. Oh the humanity, what a terrible blunder!
"The World of Shannara" as a Roleplaying Book
...Is not deep enough. At about 200 pages, it's standard d20 sourcebook length. From a gaming perspective, it's a solid rules-free resource that gives a very neat overview of the setting - but it's a dictionary, after all, and not tailored for the needs of actual play. And what's hardly the book's or its writers' fault, it surely limits the book's appeal for a buyer who wants to use it in an RPG campaign.
You can design a sandbox with this, but you cannot create Shannara aprocrypha without putting considerably more work in. This book might be a good starting base, but whether it's of any help for the purposes of writing an actual adaptation, I highly doubt.
Legacy
Despite its lack of depth, this book has the distinction of being the base for several online wikis for the Shannara universe that would follow later - and that go much more into the details of each individual story than the book can.
Personally, I'm keeping a copy of the second edition of this one: Should I ever have offspring, this might be an imperfect, but coherent and accessible introduction to the setting for them. For gaming purposes, I would likely simply write my own script bible, though, while rereading the book whose history I'd use as a base for a game.
Read now, later, or never?
LATER. Like with the take on "Shannara" in Dragon Mag #286, the fundamental question is, do you really need this book to run a successful RPG campaign in the Four Lands? - I don't think so. However IF you want to run a campaign in the Four Lands, specifically one that is based on the Allanon Cycle, or on the first chapter of the tales about Grianne, this is a useful, if lightweight, resource.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2020 8:36:16 GMT -6
How would I run a Shannara RPG Campaign?SLWR - "So long, why read?"After so much talk about Shannara as an RPG, I tried to do the mental exercise myself. What would a Shannara-based RPG campaign look like if I ran it? RulesOver the course of this series of reviews, I have often talked about RuneQuest being the rules system I'd prefer for "Shannara". Thinking about it a bit more, I'd like to relativize that now: In a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, I think OD&D might be a pretty good choice for the game, after all, especially with the original trilogy ("Sword" - "Elfstones" - "Wishsong") in mind: All stereotypical "Brooks Party" characters can be represented by the ruleset without further modification, and all monsters and encounters displayed by the basic rules as well. RuneQuest would fit for a more character-driven, probably magic-heavy campaign, but if you're really just going to do something that is "gettable" for the players, like for example, replaying scenarios from the novels, then OD&D is more than enough. "More than enough" in the sense that it's not just "sufficient" - it fits! EraGiven how much I like "First King", I think me choosing a date for the campaign around that time period might be likely. Either before the events of the novel, so that the Council of Druids, Bremen, and Cogline are still something I can use, or after the events of the novel: Allanon's quest - both the actual quest, as well as the short story of that name were pretty much to my liking, so building something around them might be fun, especially with a younger Allanon at the center. - Not that this era of the novels would be better or worse than any other (though other era probably have more sources to draw on, through the novels), but this is just what I'd personally choose, I think. LocationI'd probably like to explore the Northland, or at the very least, the area North of Paranor. Given how much I like "Druid of Shannara", I think another visit to Eldwist might be something I would seriously entertaining, if given this opportunity. Perhaps the backstory to the Stone King might make for a good campaign? - Gloomy, sure, and of course, "if you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention". But interesting. Develop-able. ScopeShannara is the fantasy series about McGuffins, and about McGuffin quests. So, it would have to be a story like that to feel real. - Paradoxically, I like the McGuffins from the later novels (which I generally don't like) better, and so I would likely copy such a plot, at least to some degree. Say, what about an extra lost pair of Elfstones? Or, what about another Annabelle? (That's from "The Fall of Shannara"; and Annabelle is the reason to read those books, if there's any. ) Making up something entirely on my own, or perhaps placing a pre-made module in the World of Shannara is not really appealing to me. - Not saying it couldn't be done - especially during the era of Shea, Will, Jair and Brinn. Just doesn't appeal to me at all. But especially when we're talking about one of the great RPGs, like, whatever, "White Plume Mountain" (which, for instance, might work quite well in the Four Lands), then I'd rather run them in the contexts that they were originally planned to be run. Why I will never do this!!Too close to home. Way too close to home. - As silly as it might sound today, these books had an enormous influence on my life as a pimpled teenager. Menion Leah's interest for red-haired women probably became my own, and Walker Boh became the proper Kafka-like vessel for all teenage angst. That I'm writing this series of reviews, by itself is probably proof that I'm not over this stuff. Not more than over "Masters of the Universe" and "Prince Valiant"; that is. Wouldn't feel right. Would feel like sex on Christmas Eve. - What?! There are just things that you don't do. I have to confess, I used the "Hall of Kings" for my Blackmoor PBP, fifteen long years ago, but that was because I liked my players, and wanted to show them something special. But the same way that some other members here wouldn't touch Middle Earth, or Lankhmar, or some other fictional world for their personal campaigns, Shannara is probably a setting that I will never set foot in for a game. ...What a weird realizazion at the end of this little write-up. Weird, but undoubtedly true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2020 15:30:40 GMT -6
"The Voyage of the Jerle Shannara, Part Two: Antrax", 2001.Spoilerific Mini-ReviewThe expedition arrives in Parkasia, in this middle part of the trilogy, and things soon go full "James Cameron". The BestThe vision. This is a bit complicated to explain, but basically "Castledown" is likely to be a future city of Seattle, torn away from the American continent, and pulled into whatever might remain of Asia. Overall, though, the impressions we get of how hellish life beyond the Four Lands might be is pretty gripping. In "Ilse Witch", the different locations had felt like put together with a Random Encounters table - here, things start to fit together in a more coherent fashion. "The story has arrived at where it wants to be." - Something like that. The Creepers. Relatives to the spider-like creature that ol' Shea and Flick fought in "Sword", these horrifying robot-mutants are among Brooks' great and most effectful creations. (And likely themselves borrowings from Tolkien's Shelob.) Here, we see many more of them, and learn more about their purpose and origins. (Which is some of the welcome of the parts of information that the book discloses.) The WorstWalker's last dance. - We're in the era of twist endings, back in the early 200s, and so I guess, back then it was more of a Ahmagerd moment than it is today. I've written about how I think that Grianne as a female druid character makes a lot of sense, but the transition is a bit too short, especially if we look at how the later "High Druid" books turned out. Those, I think, would have worked way better with Walker in the lead, and with Grianne only then coming up to take the mantle of the last druid. Captain Obvious reigns supreme, despite the twist ending. - This is what is often attributed to the novels being "dumbed down" to accommodate a younger audience. The first chapter of the book is, from a storyteller's point of view, a firm contestant for being the worst in the series, which might be a surprise because there's still the holy grail of bad writing that is the "Dark Legacy" trilogy. - Now, the reason that this first chapter is so bad is because it's a condensed example of the main weakness of "Antrax": There is no mystery to anything because everything gets explained - and overexplained. From Grianne's origins to the exact motivation of both of the novels major villains, to the interior motivations of all other notable characters. Everything gets a mention. That makes for a detailed, if utterly unchallenging story for a reader that is used to this kind of novel. The cheese. Brooks' has the bad fortune of making some first steps into a genre that others have already mastered: And while "Antrax" is a generally well-written, fast-paced remagining of the third act of James Cameron's "Aliens", it's basically - well, just that. And while other writers, more seasoned with the genre, like say, Richard K. Morgan, can create interesting variations of what boils down to "basically the same story" Brooks, in this instance, frankly cannot. - Again, different issue, same problem: There is no challenge to the reader; even on a meta-level everything is predictable. Notable CharactersThis is a bit of a problem, because "Antrax" isn't so much a book on its own, but the second act in a three-act novel that is released as separate volumes. In "Heritage", Brooks had experimented with the concept, but the stories of each novel were sufficiently different to read as their own respective things. In "Antrax", that's not the case: Basically, we're one chapter later than where we left off in "Ilse Witch", and there is no break whatsoever for the characters. They're the same people, doing what they just did a moment ago. - So, mentioning them in detail seems a bit redundant to me, but maybe that's just the mood I'm in, right now: Walker is still my role model, Ryer is still my imaginary girlfriend, and Bek is a terribly unnecessary commodity. Grianne's story in the novel is perhaps the one most worth mentioning: Her character arc is overexplained - but interesting, and the inevitable "turn to the light side" más "the taking up of the mantle" from Walker are well-crafted. Just as telegraphed as playful punch from toddler. But there's genuine emotion to them. Legacy"Voyage" would mark the beginning of Brooks Shannara books being one long novel that then would be divided into several installments, to grant more time for editing, and to facilitate Del Rey's policy of yearly releases for its flagships. This would turn out to hurt Shannara extremely - maybe not in sales, but in quality of writing. "High Druid", "Dark Legacy", and, later "Fall" suffer massively through this sort of writing template. Personally, I understand the reasoning behind it, but of course would have preferred lesser, but then more coherent and well-crafted novels. ...At least there's still "Genesis" and "Defenders" on the horizon. Those two rock. Read now, later, or never?LATER, and that's a shame: Of the three "Voyage" books, it's arguably the most entertaining, and Parkasia as a setting is rich background to a much poorer story. Now, since you'll likely not arrive here unless you've also made it through part one, I'm going to say that this [/div]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2020 17:06:24 GMT -6
You might have noticed that I posted a poll up 'ere. I've found it very enjoyable to reread one of these books every two weeks, and I'd like to do something like this again. Now, outside of fantasy, I've become very interested in short fiction, over the last few years. (Mostly "realistic" short fiction, though, like, say, what's pulbished in mags like "The Paris Review", etc.) So, doing a rereading of some of the most famous fantasy short stories seems pretty appealing to me. - Forces me to stay with the genre. Of those options, "Thieves' World" is my personal favorite - it's such an important series, yet one that has nearly been forgotten today. Not without stuff that is outright controversial, but certainly, one of the bases of modern fantasy in almost every way. "Lankhmar" is interesting to me because I never read the Leiber tales in their entirety so far, I think. Also, I think it's probably the series that most of you others know already, and so, the discussions that spring from my reviews might be quite engaging. Lastly, "The Witcher" is probably easiest to review, if only because I read those books quite recently. Also, it's certainly "the fantasy series of the day" in 2020, so it might also be something that you all find of a certain relevance. Between the Netflix show, the video games, and the new translations of the novels in almost every language, this already is a modern classic, despite its arguable weaknesses.
|
|
|
Post by thefoxdie on Feb 17, 2020 11:26:32 GMT -6
Witcher, if for any other reason, I'm about to get into them myself after I finish the Darth Bane series again xD
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 16:24:13 GMT -6
I liked the "Witcher" tales quite a lot. Not groundbreaking, but amusing enough - and, after all, it's the fantasy series of the day, between the TV series and the games. I oubt that such a series of reviews will happen before 2021, though - I just have too much on my plate to write in-depth reviews of very, very long novels on a weekly basis. However, whatever the poll should turn out to be, ultimately, I'm very much looking forward to doing this. All three series are certainly if not my favorites, then of great interest to me. - I have to confess: My interest in gaming is slowly vaning; at the very least, I'm not as eager to do it as I used to be. My interest in fantasy literature, however, remains unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by thefoxdie on Feb 25, 2020 17:49:19 GMT -6
Yeah, it's usually the advent of maturing that turns one more towards literature and less towards gaming pursuits. The Witcher series is getting what it deserves finally, because it's a great series. I only wish Shannara and the Necroscope series got the same considerations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2020 6:10:37 GMT -6
Yeah, it's usually the advent of maturing that turns one more towards literature and less towards gaming pursuits. The Witcher series is getting what it deserves finally, because it's a great series. I only wish Shannara and the Necroscope series got the same considerations. Let me clarify - I still absolutely love D&D, and all sorts of games. However, if I get the choice to read a new adventure or a new sourcebook, or to read a good novel, for the last few years - the novel has always won. Not so much a matter of lack of enthusiasm, but rather an instance of over-saturation. I know what games I like to run, and I think I know what kind of games I'm good at running. I have very little enthusiasm for trying something fundamentally different, at this point in my gaming life. As to reading as a hobby in general, I still read quite a lot of fantasy, but mostly from a pseudo-intellectual point of view: Especially through OD&D'74, I've become interested in some of the genre classics, and I'm working that list off, little by little. I'm not talking about "Appendix N", necessarily, but about, generally, the more obscure fantasy of the days of yore. - Like, as a toddler from the 80s, I obviously knew about "The Black Cauldron" growing up - but not at all about Lloyd Alexander. So, that's stuff that I'm now getting back to, and with great pleasure. I'm not sure I have a genre outside of fantasy that I've been similarily devoted to, but I've read most by Camus and Murakami, and I'm a follower of present-day US literature - which is somewhat uncommon for a European, I guess. One writer's work in particular that I really liked recently, for example, is Paul Harding's, the author of "Tinkers" and "Enon".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 0:00:53 GMT -6
My apologies for not posting any updates over the last few weeks!
The reason for that is a positive one, though, mostly: I'm rereading the next bunch of books that I want to write about - "Morgawr", the "Word/Void" series, "Sometimes the Magic Works", and a few more books down the line, as well. Basically, along the way I realized that I had, quite simply forgotten too many details about the different texts to even do the kind of passing review I've been doing. Mostly, though, the process has been pretty pleasant - some of the books, in particular "Word/Void", are WAY better than I remember.
The reason that I have not been more engaged over the course of the last few weeks also has to do with the events related to Corona; whatever time it is, it's not the time to sit down and write lengthy reviews right now, I guess.
Instead, however, I have recently found something that I found chuckle-worthy:
This is Brian Lee Durfee, the author of the 2016 novel, "The Forgetting Moon". I personally have never been particularly interested in his works, though, from what I hear, he's pretty good. - So, the above video shows Durfee gushing over what I consider one of my favorite novels. His talking points are his own, and putting out such a video as a fellow writers might be considered a tad bit pretentious, but... I sympathize. Deeply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2020 20:51:45 GMT -6
The Dilemma of "Word/Void"
Not going to lie to you - the completion of this series of reviews, by the targeted date of June of 2020 - is in grave danger: First, because of current circumstances; in times of public lockdowns, and "end-of-times"-liek crisis, there's simply no time to binge-read fantasy fiction. No way around it. But second, because of a completely positive development that I didn't foresee: I'm getting a bit lost in Brooks' "Word/Void" más "The Genesis of Shannara" series. "Lost", in the sense that I want to take my time with those books because they're really, really great. Brooks, we've learned, is generally, not good at reinventing the wheel - but, if motivated, he's awe-inspiringly efficient at spinning tales together using tropes that are already known. The same way the Nest/Hawk stories are not particularly original, but just very well executed. "Word/Void" is an echo of late-80's Stephen King, with more than a few borrowing from "It", "Needful Things", and other works."Genesis" is basically "Fallout", "Wasteland", and whatever post-apocalyptic video game you can think of come to life. "Word/Void" is more focused, "Genesis" in my opinon, spends too much time with its characters when it could tell a more engaging story. - But both series are pleasantly written and, overall, very well done. Especially "Word/Void" sheds a light on what an amazing storyteller Brooks can be when he manages to escape the quest fantasy formula. Like Dennis L. McKiernan, he's now at an age when writers inevitably begin to fade, and like McKiernan one has to wonder if his basic error simply was to stick to a genre that limits his creativity. I hope he has it in him to write at least one or two more books that are not directly connected to the "Shannara" universe - because "Word/Void" shows that he can excel when he does. As to my near-unmittigated love for "Word/Void", I should probably add that Stephen King's "Dr Sleep" is easily my favorite horror novel of the last few years - above a lot of other very good stuff. Rereading "Word/Void" now that I've read a lot of Stephen King's works is probably my key to enjoying this series the way I do. As to "Genesis", well, I'm simply not at home with the genre. But the story is very, very strong, as well. Especially the third book in the series, "The Gypsy Morph" (2008) is a testament than Brooks can still write compelling, engaging stories without relying on his readers' nostalgia for his older works. I'd go as far as to say "The Gypsy Morph" has the best conclusion/turning point of his Brooks' entire body of work. Below, I'm linking to an excerpt from "Running With The Demon", the first book in the "Word/Void" series: www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/19015/running-with-the-demon-by-terry-brooks/9780345422583/excerpt(On the same page, you can find excerpts from most of Brooks' books.) Of particular interest to me is also this book that has newly been announced - and that I have promptly preordered: www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/576486/small-magic-by-terry-brooks/9780525619963"Small Magic" is a collection of Brooks' shorter works, a compilation that was long overdue, in my mind. Despite me plainly not liking a lot of his shorter fiction, I'm very much looking forward to this. (You can find my reviews of Brooks' Shannara-related novellas earlier in this thread.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 0:02:34 GMT -6
"The Voyage of the Jerle Shannara, Part Three: Morgawr", 2003.
This reviewer will be breaking the format he himself chose earlier!
I've had my troubles finishing the "Voyage" trilogy - or rather, finishing my series of reviews on it. The reason for that is simply, it's not really three novels - it's one big novel, whose publisher decided to split into three parts for financial reasons. There is quite simply very little to say about "Morgawr" that I have not said about its predecessors already: The story remains well-crafted, but conventional, and the characters are, for the most part, really badly written. With the exception of Walker, who only appears in the book as an afterthought, the supposed protagonists lack depth and emotional realism: There's Bek "The Blanket" Ohmsford, and there's Grianne, the wayward "child of prophecy" that obviously refused earlier calls to become what it's meant to be, only to finally come around in the series' final act. And that's as predictable to the reader as it is, frankly, boring. The highlights of "Morgawr" come from elsewhere!
First, there's the titular villain, who turns out to be one of Brooks' best creations in terms of atmosphere and presence, and who, in a different story, would have had a way more lasting effect on readers, instead of basically becoming a threshold to Grianne in her inevitable - and, again, boring - hero's journey.
Second, there's the whole Castledown arc, and Antrax, the evil AI whose story gives the entirety of the Shannara novels up to this point in the series a frame narrative that has since forever remained chronically underappreciated because, durr hurr, we have to make this Grianne's magical girl story.
Third, the overall conclusion to the trilogy is well-executed and, inventive, seamlessly structured, and I personally would even go as far as to say that it contains some of Brooks' best scenes. That these qualities, too, are easy to dismiss is not the fault of "Morgawr", but the fault of "Ilse Witch" and "Antrax", two novels that were probably both twice as long as they would have needed to be.
Personal Verdict
Quite simply, the whole trilogy is, at around 1.200 pages, about twice as long as it needed to be. This notorious, publisher-decreed padding is what destroys it for me. Brooks is clearly bored with his own material, and the publisher doesn't allow him to be all too bold with it. This is evident to me because the overall plot itself, is, again, very well thought-out and even shows moments of true brillance. It's in the execution of the project that all the weaknesses can be found - and those weaknesses are, again, the result of unnecessary and utterly cringeworthy padding: I'd go as far as to say that a good half of the characters in this series are just plainly redundant. Not, in principle, but as Brooks has been ordered to write them - instead of accentuating the plot, they overtake it with their nonsensical and plainly uninteresting subplots. This can best be exemplified by Bek, who, as the "Token Ohmsford" of the story, should be someone the reader appreciates. Instead, he is the weakest character in the entire narrative because there's nothing even remotely interesting about him besides the name.
If you followed my earlier reviews on "Shannara", this might remind you of what I wrote about "Wishsong"; this is why I indeed see parallels: Now, the difference in "Wishsong", Brooks had 600 pages to fill; that way, he could brush over the weaknesses of the characters and the story, and focus on the strengths of his tale. "Voyage", however, is too long for him to do that, and its protagonists are simply way weaker than even Brin and Jair, who jumped into their big adventure with considerably less backstory or personal complications than any of Brooks' characters in "Voyage do. Sometimes, less is just simply more.
It remains to be said that the whole "Voyage" trilogy could have worked - if you look at it, it's really just an update to the plot of Brooks' best novel by overall consensus, which is "Druid of Shannara". Another "Walkerian Expedition", another relic from the old world gone mad over its incapacity to control magic, another dark fantasy party out to make it cease and desist. With a different accentuation, with less "young adult"-y themes mixed in, this could have been a brilliant sequel to "Heritage". It's a shame that it isn't.
How to read this one without getting bored.
For this review, I decided that I couldn't make it back through the telenovela-style "fantasy boat cruise" parts of the series, and got myself the audiobook version of the trilogy. This abridged version, read by Charles Keating, is considerably better, more coherent, and generally more dynamic than the overlong written narrative, and Keating does a pretty brilliant job bringing the story to life, as well. Through the magic of Amazon's "Audible", I own ALL of Brooks' audiobooks, and when I say that Keating is perhaps the best reader in the entirety of the Shannara series, then that's not meant as a criticism of the other narrators. Keating is just that good, in my opinion.
There are plenty of reasons for reading "Voyage" as a fan of "Shannara": Mainly, the chronically undersold "Castledown"/"Antrax" plot, or rather, the core idea behind it that, well-executed, could have elevated "Shannara" to one of the best fantasy series of all time. So, from a fan's perspective, while you can basically skip all of the later "Grianne" novels up until "The High Druid's Blade", my personal recommendation would be that this is the one series NOT to skip. Even if it's probably a trilogy you're not going to read twice.
Consequences
Back in the day, "Voyage" left me quite burned out on "Shannara", and I think I didn't pick up another book in the series until some time around 2010. It was enough for me that this book was just not as good as the older ones had been, and especially the focus on Grianne for the next two trilogies (!) was something that really numbed my interest for the series as a whole. - Not because, whatever, I wouldn't have liked a female protagonist at the center of a previously male-centric series, but because Grianne, as a character, isn't really that interesting.
Also, specifically for my little endeavor here, I believe I will have to apply some changes: Going forward, several of Brooks' Shannara sequels are going to be novels that were split into trilogies, but really just novels being divided between their ongoing chapters. I'm going to review those "forced trilogies" in one sitting, not in three, as I did with "Voyage", out of the reasons I named above. That way, I hope to be able to spend more time with Brooks' "trilogies that are actual trilogies" - first, because their narratives are more complex and they really deserve some extra attention. But, second, also because they are way better than these strangely split stories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 1:28:19 GMT -6
Addendum: "Morgawr" - the plot that got away!So, in this latest series of reviews, I've been gushing about the supposedly super-interesting plot of the "Voyage" trilogy without really mentioning what it is. So, I'm going to do that now - but with spoiler tags! CastledownAntrax, the evil AI, and one of the first more or less open borrowings/inspirations Brooks is taking from the works of Fred Saberhagen, is revealed to have been influencing the events in the Four Lands since the time of "First King". The case for this is made quite artfully, and in a way that doesn't break the setting's interior logic. Similar to Saberhagen's Ardneh and our own Dave Arneson's "Egg of Coot", it's essentially HAL 9000 growing increasingly unstable because it cannot understand magic. The Creepers and similar robotic creatures that the Ohmsfords over different generations have met are revealed to have been its agents and explorers that were sent out to collect data, and the degree of its implied involvement in past stories is quite deep. The Morgawr...This critter is more than just the, ugh, "surrogate Sahuagin". In different moments of the story, it is revealed, or strongly hinted towards him having been a disciple of nearly all of the Ohmsford's former enemies. While the information we get about and from him is contradicting, he is demonstrably a descendant of the Mwellrets, the worshippers of the Ildatch in "Wishsong" - and probably, through that, a distant disciple of the Warlock Lord from "Sword". My Personal AssumptionsI think Brooks wanted to end "Shannara" with "Voyage". The underlying plot clearly suggests a "last dance" kind of scenario, forming a parallel story to the "genesis" of his universe that we see in "First King":
Every open plotline that could remain from the earlier books is closed throughout the trilogy. Walker dies, and with him, implicitly, whatever might remain of his ragtag new Druidic order. The Morgawr essentially causes a third 'War of the Races' that, after his demise, ends with a friendly peace between all parties. Technically, there are not even Ohmsfords, any more, and the general focus of the people of the Four Lands moves from their endless infighting towards the wider world, as the valiant explorers, our protagonists, have opened it for them. The Four Lands, it is implied, enter their "age of enlightenment".
- Looking at its core ideas, this story sounds like a bookender, or like a swansong. We find the same motifs in the "High Druid", which is the round-up to Grianne's tale - yeah, she comes back later, but here, she gets her "Happy End". The world, in general, a more upbeat epilogue. Pen, the male hero of "High Druid", could perfectly be Bek from "Voyage", and their scenes and dialogues are mostly interchangeable for the core parts of the narrative.
My personal assumption is, in sum, Brooks, perhaps still working with Lester Del Rey, back in the early 1990s, had had this idea of how to wrap up "Shannara" - in one novel. Then, we he got back to the idea, after the success of virtually everything he wrote in the meantime, he wanted to do that "one last story", but his publisher told him to milk it to the max. Now, that sounds as if it was a morally questionable decision; I don' think it was. An artistically questionable decision, though, I absolutely think it was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2020 17:31:15 GMT -6
The decision, of course, is more than understandable. For our little endeavor here, this really just means that I get more time to procrastinate quietly analyze the books that remain to be reviewed. Should I finish the series substantially earlier than I believe I will, then I will also take a look at Brooks' other work, like the "Landover" series, in preparation of the final "Shannara".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2020 3:35:25 GMT -6
"High Druid of Shannara, Part One: Jarka Ruus", 2003. "Tanequil", 2004. "Straken", 2005.
Review I: Before the Great Reread.
So, what I'm going to try here...
I read the "High Druid of Shannara" in English, shortly after I was made aware of the continuation of the series through the German release, as was my habit. And, as I've hinted at many times over the past few months, I hated this series very, very much. For quite some time, these would be the last books by Brooks that I would bother reading. This, from a guy who used to take a worn-out paperback copy of "The Sword of Shannara" with him whenever he traveled anywhere, should say a LOT.
My interest in the series would only reignite a few years later when I stumbled over the "Defenders" series. To this day, I think "Jarka Ruus" is one of the very worst examples of what can happen if a publishing house forces a writer into one of those "one book per year" contracts: Between "Voyage", "High Druid", and "Genesis", Brooks wrote as many as nine books in eight years.
Now, whenever I make a judgment call that is either categorically positive or negative, I try not to trust myself, and neither should you:
So, after I'll describe to you my thoughts on these books from a decade ago, I'll go on to give them a proper reread. I can't promise that this will be quick, but I'll give them a hopefully honest second look, and really take my time with them. That second review, I will then share with you once I'm really done with it.
How detailed that review will, how it will differ from my current verdict - no idea. But it will happen, eventually. A rant.Objectively the worst books in the series? (Caution: This subtitle comes with a firm backhand slap, because the subjectively worst books in the series are yet to come.) The first problem of this series, or "sequence of novels within the larger series that is 'Shannara", is that it is about Grianne. Her story has no second act, at least not between "Voyage", and "High Druid". We meet her as the teenage Ilse Witch, a "Rey Skywalker"-like Mary Sue whose presence in the story could only be justified on a meta-level: What happened if Brin Ohmsford has joined the Maelmord? Now, twenty years after, we meet her again, and she's essentially Walker Boh. Or, a third person that we don't know anything about. In any case, her whole story arc from "Voyage" does only matter insofar as it made her the High Druid. (The "Ard Rhys", as it's called in the novel.) Now, Grianne is not the first character in literature who only gets a first and a third arc for her story, and no second one. With her new characterization in "Jarka Ruus", things quickly start to feel out of balanced: First, because the new Paranor we're presented here - basically, a more war-time Hogwarts - from what we have known about it so far that it ends up being barely relatable to the reader, with a lot of its inner dynamics barely being explained or accounted for. Given that much of the story of "High Druid" basically evolves around this new Paranor, a way longer, way more thorough introduction to the new setting and its characters would have been needed. Now, when I say that Grianne should have been replaced by Walker in "High Druid", that's not a matter of armchair chauvinism: Within his story arc, "High Druid" would have made sense. Walker is a brooding, strategic thinker who struggles in his symbiotic father-son relationship to Allanon. For him, being the world-weary leader of an organization whose core functions he's always questioned, that makes sense. For Grianne, the mightiest magic-user EVER, it doesn't - neither should she, for all we know, have to fear anyone else, and if there's any indication of her character in "Voyage" that is valid, then she would never have let herself get in a situation where she is as isolated and devoid of defenses as we find her in "Jarka Ruus". The same goes for the expedition into the "Forbidding": While those scenes would probably work for another character, Shannara's "Jeanne Grey/Dark Phoenix" doesn't work either as "Eleanor Vance", which is how one could probably read her in the first book", nor as "Dorothy out of Kansas", which is very much the role she takes in "Tanequil" and in "Straken". It's just not her. Now, personally, I'm 99% sure Brooks this trilogy for Walker, and then, perhaps due to fan response, changed it to star Grianne. I think he wanted to Walker and Ryer to survive - no spoilers here, but if you have read the novels, just imagine how much better the scenes involving Grianne and Iridia had been if it had been Walker and Ryer Ord Star, instead. Then, however silly the action, we would have had something like a relatable drama to follow. The second problem of this series is that it has to be a series. It's notoriously padded, and the Federation plot in particular, being a brutally simplistic rehash of the "Voyage" storyline, struggles to entertain. On the (obligatory) Ohmsford side, Pen, the son of Bek the Bland Blanket, turns out to be a fairly interesting, engaging character, but his story arc is written for a considerably older protagonist, and to me, the main appeal of his story is that Brooks anticipates here what he will later spell out in the "Genesis" trilogy: The"Word/Void" novels and the "Shannara" series are taking place in the same universe. About around the second half of "Tanequil", you will notice that there is definitely "something going on", with the big reveals concerning "Word/Void" coming in "Straken". And while that is quite rewarding within its own context, and a nice gimmick for a writer of serial fiction, this could have done in many shorter, and more efficient ways. Again, the Ohmsford plot is, while not irrelevant, hard to care for on its own behalf, and in comparison to other story arcs inside the same sequence. The third and major problem of the series is that it has to be a "topper". Even though, Walker, Grianne, and co. basically cleaned out the world of any major baddies back during the "Voyage" trilogy, now we are faced with another threat that is d**n near invincible in the first third of the story because... The writer says so. For the first time since the beginning of this series, Brooks makes errors of plot logic that are caused by the exaggerated nature of the events he wants to tell: Say, for example, the evil Druids do have the Stiehl at their disposal - the most dangerous "critical hit weapon" in the world that, conveniently enough, is only mentioned after Grianne's "kidnapping". Wouldn't it make way more sense to use that weapon against her, than to orchestrate all the other mumbo-jumbo? Or, the Federation and its laser weapons: So, they want to nuke the Ellcrys because, in a nutshell, they think demons are easier to handle than those nasty Elves? Yeah, it makes for a few good scenes. But how does this possibly make sense? It's here where Brooks eventually loses his readers - or, rather, me. With the possible exceptions of Pen, and a character named Pied Sanderling, an echo of Menion Leah, from "Sword", the characters of "High Druid" are notoriously overcomplicated, and difficult to like. The plot doesn't make much sense, and the only appeal of the series lies in that it looks and feels like an overall conclusion to the "Shannara" universe, with the century-long conflict between Federation and other races being ended, Paranor reestablished, the magic order of things restored, and especially the third book in the series reading a like a "best of" of scenes that we have already seen in previous installments, from the Ellcrys to the Warlock Lord (!) to the giant earthworm. I would probably not bother reread this one, ever, or recommend it to anyone, if I wasn't writing this review. Why even bother with this one any further, now that you're reading this scathing review?As I wrote in a certain post with many "Spoiler" tags, I personally think Brooks originally intended to end "Shannara" with Grianne's six-part tale. That he ultimately didn't might as much have to do with "Shannara" getting a TV deal, as it might have to do with the rather lukewarm response to the "Grianne Cycle". As a writer, this got to frustrate him. Now, from a perspective in which "High Druid" forms the last chapter in a circular tale that had begun with "Sword" and "First King", one can take a few niceties from the series: On a supposedly last tour through this artificial world, we revisit all those parts that could be considered exciting, and we get closure on whatever open questions might remain, from how the Forbidding might actually look like, to how "Word & Void" might be connected to "Shannara". This doesn't take away from the tremendous weaknesses of "High Druid", but if you're looking at it from the perspective that it might have meant to be the last chapter in the series, then it's perhaps a little bit easier to stomach how lacking the actual narrative is. If you are aware that the worth of this series lays mostly in what it probably intended to do, and in its metatextual parts ("Word & Void"), then you'll have fun. But overall, especially given how the "Shannara" series would go on to continue for at least ten more books, depending on how you are willing to count, then "High Druid" might be one of the easiest sequences to skip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 9:06:10 GMT -6
The Shannara Wiki is a pretty good place to get additional info on the World of Shannara. In direct comparison, I think it's a better than the 2002 worldbook we got - not just because the information there is more recent, but because the posts are written to be all-encompassing, instead of just creating exposition. One thing I particularly appreciate about the Shannara Wiki is the timeline they've posted for the books. Not that Shannara had an all too complex timeline and history, but it's nice to see things put in a proper context. shannara.fandom.com/wiki/Shannara_Timeline
"2520 - The third Druid Council, led by Grianne Ohmsford, is established. The events of High Druid of Shannara take place. The Federation-Free-Born War finally ends."
With the end of the "High Druid" sequence, we arrive at 520 years after the events of "The Sword of Shannara", and, technically speaking, in the year 4612 AD - according to the Wiki.
With the end of "High Druid", the core of the Shannara tales is basically over. As a fan of the books, I'm inclined to ignore "Dark Legacy" in its entirety, and "Defenders" and "Fall" are pretty much their own thing already. "Post-Fantasy", if you like. The circle of stories concerning Hawk, or, rather, in general terms, "The Gypsy Morph", are not so much a prequel to Shannara, as they are a dystopian look at our own, real-world present; they, too, can be read as their own thing. What remains to be said about the "Heroic Fantasy" part of the Shannara timeline is that, whether you are counting in "Legacy" or not, it will start strong, and end on a whimper. The best storyline is that of Walker Boh, but it, too, doesn't finish strong.
If I had to recommend you one single book of the ones we've checked so far, it would be The First King of Shannara: It's not the most important one in the series - that would probably be Antrax - but it transcends its role as a prequel. As a novel about "the making of a hero", even as sort of a "political thriller in a fantasy environment", it delivers great entertainment, and an interesting story.
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Apr 18, 2020 9:49:39 GMT -6
Have to hat tip this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 0:38:00 GMT -6
Quick tangent: Harry Potter sold a lot and remained popular for its entire decade long release and continues to so.
With the release of The Last Druid in late 2020 Terry Brooks will bring an end to his 43 year 29(+3 I prefer not to consider the Word and Void as official Shannara) book spanning series. More specifically a long running primarily, at least in my opinion, young adult book series. Most young adults have this annoying habit of aging meaning any author who focuses on them needs a way to either keep them engaged or find new readers. Or just be lazy and rely on nostalgia. Brooks has this annoying habit of relying heavily on the third method while occasionally utilizing the second. In other word:
The High Druid of Shannara failed because Brooks couldn't decide between drawing in a new crowd of readers and simply spitting out mindless drivel his fans would just accept. He should have written a sequel to Voyage.
Earlier somebody divided Shannara into three story cycles or eras (personally I think Defenders and Fall should be separate) which almost makes sense. Each era does feel unique so from the perspective of somebody viewing Shannara as a fictional future the divisions work. As a young adult reader they don't. Harry Potter worked because JK Rowling matured her books as she went so readers could grow with them. Brooks writes for the exact same demographic each time while simultaneously having some books be easier entry points to the series.
I started reading Shannara during the release of Voyage and absolutely loved it. Voyage took everything the earlier Shannara books implied and used them in a way never used again. Instead of feeling like a generic sword and sorcery series (I like Heritage but it's overrated) it introduced computers and cyborgs. Shannara, being set in the future, should have remnants of the past. Also it mostly takes place not in the Four Lands. So I was all for a sequel. Then Jarka Ruus came out instead. I think Pen is the worst main character of any Shannara book because he should not exist. "Grianne deals with a schism within the Druid order as her past calls into doubt her ability to lead". That's what High Druid should have been. Not "teenager saves the most powerful person around because some woman would rather make a deal with demons than admit she got rejected".
I know nearly every Shannara book features a young protagonist but in never felt this contrived before and (mostly) never did again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 16:12:59 GMT -6
[Mod Hat on] Hey, @dandthenmore, please check your PMs. You still owe the management a verification of your account, which we do here manually. Please check my posts in this thread: odd74.proboards.com/thread/12913/rules-board-join-odd74That your account wasn't unceremoniously canned is only due to the fact that this was a busy week for the team. So, please, check this out immediately. I started reading Shannara during the release of Voyage and absolutely loved it. Voyage took everything the earlier Shannara books implied and used them in a way never used again. Instead of feeling like a generic sword and sorcery series (I like Heritage but it's overrated) it introduced computers and cyborgs. Shannara, being set in the future, should have remnants of the past. Also it mostly takes place not in the Four Lands. So I was all for a sequel. Then Jarka Ruus came out instead. I think Pen is the worst main character of any Shannara book because he should not exist. "Grianne deals with a schism within the Druid order as her past calls into doubt her ability to lead". That's what High Druid should have been. Not "teenager saves the most powerful person around because some woman would rather make a deal with demons than admit she got rejected". I didn't necessarily think that bringing the story back to the Four Lands was a weakness - it's just that the de-facto retcon of the political situation at the beginning of "High Druid" is both not explained enough, and not consequential to what happens in "Voyage". Had Walker failed to bring Grianne back into the light, this setup would have made sense. Also, I agree about Pen: Even though his story is way more interesting than Bek's, he should have been the same character (as Bek), and taken only a very, very minor role. His story makes sense if he's Bek, looking to bring Grianne back - not from the Forbidding, but from wherever ntrax might have thrown her. I'm not unhappy about Brooks pandering to YA readers, but he should simply have written a different story, instead of butchering Shannara the way he did. Shannara had always been "simplistic" fantasy, but not "simple". That changed with "High Druid". Not sure who Brooks' editor was with Voyage/High Druid, but it costs me to think that that person might still be employed in the literary business. Voyage/High Druid done well could have been bigger than "Game of Thrones" would go on to become. But as it's made, it doesn't only lack "love", it's often also borderline unreadable. At least to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 16:57:13 GMT -6
Have to hat tip this thread. Hehe, thanks, mate. Having tremendous fun doing this, even though the more recent books in the series are a tougher read than I initially expected. But, at the end of the day, it's beautiful to return to this world. Had I not committed to do a complete reread, I would probably never looked back to the series. I love it deeply, but as an adult, I have to recognize its massive flaws. - At least some of the books we still have on the list are pretty good. "Defenders" is a highlight, and "Word & Void" is, as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2020 10:44:50 GMT -6
The Four Lands are likely based around the Columbia River drainage basin (located in Pacific Northwest) giving it an approximate area of 668,000 km2 plus a bit to extend it to the coast. So let's say 700,000 km2. Which for a story about a civilization with medieval based technology is more than enough. After a while nobody leaving starts feeling weird. Why don't people go exploring? I understood why earlier Shannara books kept things contained but Heritage pushed the borders in Elf Queen and Druid. With Voyage's sudden leap in technology nothing was keeping Terry's setting restricted. Traveling became easier (although admittedly costly) and life was shown to exist elsewhere.
I will admit that given the plot of the latter books it made enough sense to not go beyond the familiar. I just think it was wasted potential.
Brooks should pander to YA readers because these are YA books. To me some feel like better entry points into the series and High Druid tries to be one but isn't. In fact it might be the worst because of how close in time it happens to Voyage. On the other hand at least things didn't take a century to happen.
I'm sure there's some simple way to figure out who edited each of Terry Brook's books but I don't know it. I do have three names from the dedication pages. Anne Groell from The Darkling Child 2014, Betsy Mitchel from The Measure of Magic 2011, Owen Lock from Morgawr 2002
I don't know who else edited his books or even how involved these three were. Without actual searching I can't give anymore names. I am assuming (probably incorrectly) he's thanked every editor he's had. This puts Betsy Mitchell as his editor at, in my opinion, the low point of Shannara.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 13:46:51 GMT -6
Sorry, mate: We can continue this discussion once you verify your account, as you've been asked to do - but if you don't, you're not welcome here.
odd74.proboards.com/thread/12913/rules-board-join-odd74
Check the board rules for ways to contact @finarvyn or me by other means than the forum itself if you want to join the discussion again. Otherwise, please don't.As to the subject we were touching here: I don't think that *pointing fingers* towards the respective proofreading or editing team is really an all too rewarding exercise. Terry Brooks sure was groomed by Lester and Judy-lynn Del Rey, and the absence of their creative energy can be felt in his books until the very latest entries in the series. (According to his own autobiography, Brooks is using ideas for the later novels in the series that, back in the day, Lester Del Rey famously told him to discard.) That said, the elements that ultimately end up bringing down "High Druid" are general tendencies Brooks has displayed all over the series: A tendency to sacrifice character development for the plot. In most of his earlier novels, it's not that big of a deal, if only because the Ohmsfords as main characters are quite basic. But as soon as he stays with a character for an extended period of time, it starts showing: Walker Boh's personality change between "Heritage" and "Voyage" is one example is one example we know about already, and Grianne's change from "Voyage" to "High Druid" is another.
|
|
|
Post by RobJN on Apr 26, 2020 19:05:39 GMT -6
The Dilemma of "Word/Void"
NOOOOOOOOOO. The first rule of professional writer is: don't use the mirror to describe any character.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2020 3:52:03 GMT -6
Hehe, yeah. There are some who manage to pull this off without making it sound bad: Jostein Gardner, or Isabel Allende. Now, none of them precisely write about Elves and Dwarves on a regular base.
I'll tackle the "Word/Void" books some time soon, though - likely, after I finish my review of "Dark Legacy". I had planned to do it earlier, but given how harrowing my latest reviews may read, I want to keep something more positive for this later point. - As I've said earlier on in this thread, "Word/Void" reads a bit like vintage "Stephen King", and I like that notion. Now, it's not free of Brooks-isms, mainly in that the character of "John Ross" is basically that of any of Shannara's Druids - but I like the straightforwardness of the narrative. Compared to some of King's more convoluted outings, especially "Running With the Demon" is pretty great, overall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 6:07:54 GMT -6
For the days under lockdown, and/or in quarantine, two videos:www.facebook.com/authorterrybrooks/videos/769308850265083/A Zoom hangout between Brooks, his assistant, author Shawn Speakman, and, from what I understand, people who were commenting the livestream on Facebook. From April 24th, 2020 - a friendly, mildly entertaining Q&A session. I'd love to see more of these. www.facebook.com/authorterrybrooks/videos/447991829336723/This video that is more interesting for my own purposes here: Brooks in Seattle, last year, reading excerpts from the "Shannara" series, and, quite interestingly, from his next novel after the conclusion of the "Fall" sequence. Brooks has been pretty vocal in the last few years that he thinks he has been spending too much of his writing career on "Shannara", and he's apparently gunning for another, post-"Shannara" fantasy series. The little glimpse he gives of that one is enough to sell me on it. Brooks, motivated, and with a fresh scenario in mind, could be... Something special.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2020 1:14:52 GMT -6
"The Dark Legacy of Shannara": "Wards of Faerie", 2012. "Bloodfire Quest", 2012. "Witch Wraith", 2013. Review I: Before the Great Reread.
Following what we established with "High Druid"...
I didn't like this series. I think it's on par, or even worse than "High Druid" - but for different reasons. Now, whenever I make a judgment call that is either categorically positive or negative, I try not to trust myself, and neither should you:
So, after I'll describe to you my thoughts on these books from when I first read them, I'll go on to give them a proper reread. I can't promise that this will be quick, but I'll give them a hopefully honest second look, and really take my time with them. That second review, I will then share with you once I'm really done with it. The author's struggle.After writing the "Word/Void" más "Shannara" crossover, "Genesis of Shannara", that helps him to appease his displeased fans, Brooks returns to his original series in 2012, in the wake of the announcement of a TV series deal with Spike/MTV. Not much may be known to Brooks himself at that point about what that proposed TV series is going to be about: He might know that it is geared towards a teen audience, and that it's supposed to adapt "Elfstones" before it adapts "Sword", if only because the characters from "Elfstones" are easiest to work with in a TV environment. ...And so, Brooks - who had probably been done with the world of Shannara, who had bookended every plotline and story in a gallant, if sometimes unpleasing way, who had found new accolades in writing about things that are not always the same core story heated up in the microwave - writes yet another trilogy. For a teenage audience, about the mystery of the Elfstones, with engaging, "cool" young characters, and a plot that is not only easy to follow, but also touches all the elements that made Shannara one of the world's best-known fantasy brands. ...Gets Todd Lockwood to do some awesome interior art, surely also consults with the TV series team, gets his assistant, Shawn Speakman, who is also a pretty good writer on his own right, to increase online interaction with his fans. Really tries to listen to his audience, as far as a man reasonably can. ...And what comes of it, in the end, is a disaster of proportions that even the harshest critics of "High Druid" might not have expected. Brooks has often talked about feeling burned out on Shannara more often than not, and about having spent more time with the series than he should have to. My own polite estimation is that it's "Dark Legacy" that he's referring to when he says those things: While the overall premise of the story of "Dark Legacy" could theoretically be engaging, if it was told in a better way, what we actually get is a potpourri of characters and even entire scenes (!) that Brooks has already used in Shannara. The man is just plainly out of ideas how to keep his story fresh. A lot of this is surely also caused by the next bad decision that was made before one line of "Dark Legacy" was written: That then 70-year-old Brooks, who had been writing complex, dark stories with a shade of Faulkner for a mature and predominantly male audience, is requested to write a book that pleases twelve-year-old girls. - Again, in Brooks' favor, I suspect pressure from the publisher as one of the reasons why things went so spectacularly awry: Brooks is working on several new editions of the classic "original" trilogy at this time, and he's writing short stories set during that time of his great overall narrative. And in those shorter pieces, he is, in general terms, at least, still passionate about the world and its characters. And he's surely trying his level best to keep "Dark Legacy" interesting, as well - it's just that the frame in which story takes place doesn't fit for him to begin with. I bet with you most of you won't make it through the first chapter. A Druidic researcher finds the scandalous diary of a teenage Elven princess who's desperately in love with a Demon boy, and, ugh, "gives him her maidenhood", only to find out the next morning that the horny horned little f**k stole her set of Elfstones while she took her orgasm-induced nap. I AM NOT KIDDING YOU. Twenty-four books after what might be one of the strongest openings of any fantasy book, ever, when little Flick runs into Allanon during a dark and stormy night, this is the new normal for this series. Sex is a topic that Brooks doesn't cope with very well. Not that it would hurt my sense of what should be appropriate in a fantasy novel, and I actually applaud Brooks for not shying away from a modern approach to the topic, in principle. However, in "Dark Legacy", it's too much, and done to clumsily: Aphenglow, the Elven princess, dates a dwarf, Bombax. I'm not sure how a teenager might read this, but dirty old me burst out in fits of laughter whenever there was an even remotely intimate scene between those two. Which is a shame, because... The hero characters actually work, and that's one of the very few saving graces of "Dark Legacy". Except for Walker, Quentin Leah, Pen Ohmsford, and that Demon monkey Grianne meets in the Forbidding, the cast of characters from the earlier six Shannara books had been quite forgettable. (There's also that dashing Elven captain that destroys the Southland's Death Star, but that's about it.) Now, suddenly, we have relatable, if sometimes silly heroes again, and the rather cringeworthy decision to bring back yet another couple of Ohmsfords and Leahs doesn't feel this bad after you spend some time with them: The love triangle between the brothers Railing and Redden (Ohmsford) and Mirai (Leah) is believable and even mildly interesting, and making the Elessedils rather than the Ohmsfords the relative center of the story is a good idea, as well, to keep things interesting and different from the previous novels. Brooks accomplishes in Dark Legacy what, in my opinion, he didn't accomplish, at all, in the six novels since "First King" - he creates a sense of legacy, no pun intended, within the world of Shannara, and he makes the reader care for his stock characters on something that's based on their own adventures, instead of telling the reader to care because that's the descendant of someone we knew. But the villains don't work at all because Brooks gives them nothing interesting to do. This would be a whole essay onto itself, but Brooks is using "Dark Legacy" as a soft reboot for Shannara: The ending of "High Druid" had been as final as it possibly could be, especially with the creation of the (meta-textual) bridge to "Word/Void". Now, he's introducing us to a new, more modern version of his world that is less based around the novels from forty, but from ten years ago. ...And in true "soft reboot" fashion, Brooks makes sure to check all the thematic boxes, so the world of Shannara remains recognizable to his readership. Or, in other words, much like JJ Abrams does with "Star Wars", Brooks recycles threats and villains to a level where, at least in "Dark Legacy", one has to wonder if he had anything new to offer to the readers, in the first place. - Paranor sacked. - Check.
- Forbidding open, Straken Lord out. - Check.
- Ellcrys under siege and dying. - Check.
- Federation evil, Druids betrayed. - Check.
- Endgame in Arborlon. - Check.
- Ilse Witch, because we hadn't seen enough of that one. - Check.
...No matter how charming the individual characters are, these are stories we've been told before, and on multiple occasions. And none of the twists Brooks gives them now is particularly original. I'm glad he doesn't "Gandalf the White" Grianne, but that's about the only good thing to say about that particular storyline. Why even bother with "Dark Legacy"?Frankly, don't. Or rather, not unless you have young teenagers at home that want to go back to "Shannara" after reading "Elfstones". This sequence in the Shannara series is deeply unoriginal, convoluted, and contains scenes so cringeworthy that your toenails will roll backwards. Its characters are more lively, and a lot more interesting than the cast of "Voyage" and of "High Druid", but they can't save the story from being, in one word, disappointing. Brooks will try another, more successful "soft reboot" of Shannara with the "Defenders" sequence. And that one is smartly written in a way that makes it possible to ignore "Dark legacy" almost completely. I would recommend "classic era" fans to do so, and not to think twice about it. ...Because "Defenders", absurdly enough, and despite the tremendous damage to the series by "Dark Legacy", will be among Brooks' best outings as a writer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2020 3:11:58 GMT -6
Addendum: "Morgawr" - the plot that got away!So, in this latest series of reviews, I've been gushing about the supposedly super-interesting plot of the "Voyage" trilogy without really mentioning what it is. So, I'm going to do that now - but with spoiler tags! CastledownAntrax, the evil AI, and one of the first more or less open borrowings/inspirations Brooks is taking from the works of Fred Saberhagen, is revealed to have been influencing the events in the Four Lands since the time of "First King". The case for this is made quite artfully, and in a way that doesn't break the setting's interior logic. Similar to Saberhagen's Ardneh and our own Dave Arneson's "Egg of Coot", it's essentially HAL 9000 growing increasingly unstable because it cannot understand magic. The Creepers and similar robotic creatures that the Ohmsfords over different generations have met are revealed to have been its agents and explorers that were sent out to collect data, and the degree of its implied involvement in past stories is quite deep. The Morgawr...This critter is more than just the, ugh, "surrogate Sahuagin". In different moments of the story, it is revealed, or strongly hinted towards him having been a disciple of nearly all of the Ohmsford's former enemies. While the information we get about and from him is contradicting, he is demonstrably a descendant of the Mwellrets, the worshippers of the Ildatch in "Wishsong" - and probably, through that, a distant disciple of the Warlock Lord from "Sword". My Personal AssumptionsI think Brooks wanted to end "Shannara" with "Voyage". The underlying plot clearly suggests a "last dance" kind of scenario, forming a parallel story to the "genesis" of his universe that we see in "First King":
Every open plotline that could remain from the earlier books is closed throughout the trilogy. Walker dies, and with him, implicitly, whatever might remain of his ragtag new Druidic order. The Morgawr essentially causes a third 'War of the Races' that, after his demise, ends with a friendly peace between all parties. Technically, there are not even Ohmsfords, any more, and the general focus of the people of the Four Lands moves from their endless infighting towards the wider world, as the valiant explorers, our protagonists, have opened it for them. The Four Lands, it is implied, enter their "age of enlightenment".
- Looking at its core ideas, this story sounds like a bookender, or like a swansong. We find the same motifs in the "High Druid", which is the round-up to Grianne's tale - yeah, she comes back later, but here, she gets her "Happy End". The world, in general, a more upbeat epilogue. Pen, the male hero of "High Druid", could perfectly be Bek from "Voyage", and their scenes and dialogues are mostly interchangeable for the core parts of the narrative.
My personal assumption is, in sum, Brooks, perhaps still working with Lester Del Rey, back in the early 1990s, had had this idea of how to wrap up "Shannara" - in one novel. Then, we he got back to the idea, after the success of virtually everything he wrote in the meantime, he wanted to do that "one last story", but his publisher told him to milk it to the max. Now, that sounds as if it was a morally questionable decision; I don' think it was. An artistically questionable decision, though, I absolutely think it was.
thegreyelf, figured you might like this info.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2020 7:57:07 GMT -6
I'm rather surprised that Lankhmar has turned out to be such a clear early favorite in the above poll. I'm pretty excited about it, as well, to tell the truth, even if I, if I had decided things completely on my own, would probably have voted for "Thieves' World" instead. Perhaps, those who have voted for Lankhar, if you don't mind, explain to me why you did so. What is it that you like best about that setting, what do you think I should look into the most when I do my own - and I still think the first complete - reread, later this year? Is your approach to Lankhmar influenced by its significance for D&D, by the surge of pupularity Leiber got in the late 90s, or by some other circumstances?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 2:57:47 GMT -6
I'm rather surprised that Lankhmar has turned out to be such a clear early favorite in the above poll. I'm pretty excited about it, as well, to tell the truth, even if I, if I had decided things completely on my own, would probably have voted for "Thieves' World" instead. Perhaps, those who have voted for Lankhar, if you don't mind, explain to me why you did so. What is it that you like best about that setting, what do you think I should look into the most when I do my own - and I still think the first complete - reread, later this year? Is your approach to Lankhmar influenced by its significance for D&D, by the surge of pupularity Leiber got in the late 90s, or by some other circumstances? THAT WENT WELL WELL THAT DIDN'T GO TOO WELL ...Anyway, responses still welcome - in the meantime, I'm moving forward to Defenders of Shannara. That sequence of another three novels is easily the best that Brooks has written since the 1990s, although those novels are mostly defined by what they are not, at least to one of Brooks' recurring readers, like am:
They are not terrible, the characters are not unrelatable or one-dimensional, or both. The stories don't feel too contrived, and the books mostly don't read as if someone had taken a thinking adult's writing work, and dumbed it down to fit with younger audiences.
What the books in the Defenders of Shannara series are, though, makes them quite valuable to the genre, to Brooks' fan, and to friends of good books, in general:
First, the premise of the series is quite artfully chosen: It is very clearly inspired by Brooks' discarded first proposed sequel to "Sword" - a story called "The Song of Lorelei" that contained elements later used in "Wishsong", and in "Druid". You can look up a couple of extra details on Reddit, in threads like this one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/shannara/comments/gengow/how_much_of_the_song_of_lorelei_is_in_defenders/
Second, it's a Western. Paxon Leah, descendant of both the houses of Leah and Ohmsford/Shannara, is a "Lone Gunman"-type character in "Lone Gunman"-type tales. This reduction is great part of the appeal of the new book: For the first time since "Voyage", we don't have to bother all too much with "the complicated global perspective" and "teh [sic] courtly intrigue". Not that the books would be completely free of those less appealing "Brooks-isms", but overall, they manage to tell "smaller" stories that manage to accentuate the world we've spent so much time in, rather than simply pushing the timeline forward. This leads to...
Third: This is, finally, a true sequel, and not just a "continuation" of the story, if you catch my drift. The stories of old are over, humanity has reached a new renaissance and (relative) age of reason. The druids are the marshals of a new order of justice. Paxon, the hero, is their... Employee, I guess is the new term. His adventures are not meant to be connected to the previous Shannara universe - not any more than say, my own life is connected to that of my ancestors during the Napoleonic age. - And this subtle switch from "yeah, let's go to another quest" to "why don't we take a breather, and look what the world is actually like" is one of the chief strengths of the "Defenders" stories: The characters are interesting not because of their (assumed) function in the story, and not because of the Shannara tradition, but within that tradition. The main plot that connects the three novels is largely forgettable but that's also kind of the idea: We're taking a tour through the world, not meeting it as part of our adventure. This is a stroke of genius on Brooks' part, because, as we know, the old formula had stopped working a while ago. This is the cover of an Italian edition of "Sword": I checked, but didn't find which one. While it surely fits for "Sword", it displays a scene that would rather fit into "Defenders". I think this is very interesting - a lot of Shannara-related art had been bolder and more theatralic than the novel action actually ended up being. With Defenders, Brooks starts meeting that implicit demand of his viewers. More later.
|
|