Shannara: what is it about?

[Andyhug]

The first set of books are kind stand alone adventures though it would help to read them in order. The next four books are all one big tale that should be read in order. I read the books when I was a lot younger and I enjoyed them quite a bit, tried to read them a year or so ago and they didnt stand the test of time. I agree with whoever aid the whole you-know-the-characters-wont-die thing. What I mean is that they just wont surprise you at all. You can pretty much predict the outcome of any encounters.

[Jay]

What I mean is that they just wont surprise you at all. You can pretty much predict the outcome of any encounters

I agree.

I want to note that I enjoyed Brook's Word/Void series, but concerning Shannara, I think Michael Moorcock says it best:

Terry Pratchett once remarked that all his readers were called Kevin. He is lucky in that he appears to be the only Terry in fantasy land who is able to write a decent complex sentence. That such writers also depend upon recycling the plots of their literary superiors and are rewarded for this bland repetition isn't surprising in a world of sensation movies and manufactured pop bands. That they are rewarded with the lavish lifestyles of the most successful whores is also unsurprising. To pretend that this addictive cabbage is anything more than the worst sort of pulp historical romance or western is, however, a depressing sign of our intellectual decline and our free-falling academic standards."


That about sums it up.

[a|one]

Originally Posted by Circus Cranium

Now, Alone, why would you wanna go and kill that nice Olmsford boy?

I think the question is why wouldn't I?

[knivesout]

Re: Moorcock: Those are fighting words! Where did he say this?

[Jay]

Re: Moorcock: Those are fighting words! Where did he say this?

Honestly, I don't think anyone in the genre is reputable enough to tackle Moorcock presently, but it's part of his 'Epic Pooh' article he wrote. I have a link on my site, plus discussion Here .It's 4 pages of damn good reading imho

Link is on the first post

[knivesout]

Thanks for the link. Apart from being a very big fan of Moorcock I also happen to side with his 'camp' as far as the fantasy genre goes.

[Jay]

Thanks for the link

Not a problem, your welcome

Apart from being a very big fan of Moorcock I also happen to side with his 'camp' as far as the fantasy genre goes.

I do too, however, just like anything other subject matter there defintely are exceptions. As a general rule I agree with what he is saying even though I respect some of the works he detracts from, for other reasons not associated with his statements. There are examples of epic fantasy that I enjoy and respecte very much, but his observations as a whole is on the money IMHO. I have heard rebuttals, eve nfrom some other authors however they are always based on call Moorcock's comments "pseudo-intellectual" instad of haveing the gumption to challenege any of the direct statements he makes with viable arguments of their own. In essence they are proving Moorcock write with their sophmoric rebutalls.

In truth I can see the difficulty in at as such a debate is with fantasy itself, as Moorcock and his influence represents a good portion of fantasy history himself.

Make no mistake however, I do enjoy epic fantasy still, but admittely quality is getting ahrder to find.

[knivesout]

Yes, Moorcock's Tolkien-bashing itself is something I'm not totally comfortable with, as I've enjoyed Tolkien's works myself.

Thing is, Moorcock has always had a flair for opposing established norms and perhaps this should be seen purely as a needful gadfly-ism rather than a final verdict on the works he attacks. The Elric stories, for instance, were written pretty consciously as an anti-Conan fare, and yet they function as sword-and-sorcery classics themselves, and haven't in any way made Robert E Howard's tales less worthy of enjoyment.

I think Moorcock overestimates Tolkien's influence, though not his stature.

For instance, another writer who consciously worked in a non-Tolkienesque mode was Fritz Leiber, who in one introduction to The Swords of Lankhmar, a novel about his own swords-and-sorcery duo, Fafhrd and Grey Mouser, clearly states that his work is non-Tolkienesque in moral tone, and draws more on the likes of ER Edisson. And yet, much of the content of these works has been hugely influential on the fantasy genre, and allied areas like RPGs. A lot of the cliches of adventure-oriented fantasy fare were first created by Leiber, rather than Tolkien! Then there's Jack Vance, whose The Dying Earth had a deep influence on the developers of Dungeons & Dragons, which again has shaped a lot of the tropes of the written genre itself.

To an extent, I feel Moorcock's focus on Tolkien undermines his justified attack on the failings of the genre by making it seem you have to choose to side either with Tolkien and Moorcock, a black-and-white divide of just the sort Moorcock so deplores!

[Boaz]

This post is for anyone wondering (like the OP) if reading Terry Brooks' The Sword of Shannara is worth their time.

I'm going to summarize the story and you tell me if you've ever read this book before or maybe seen the movie...

A young man in a pastoral community is suddenly warned by a grey cloaked old man who tells him to flee because black creatures are hunting him. The young man, who happens to be short, takes his trusted, and also short, brother in arms with him. The short men flee one step ahead of the black creatures. They make it to a large town where they meet a ranger. The ranger also happens to be a prince. He agrees to guide them to the secret city of refuge. They journey through swamps and forests and barely escape the black creatures. At the secret city of refuge, a council of the free peoples is meeting. They have decided they must do something before the Dark Lord overruns the earth. Of course the short, young man volunteers to go be the one to combat the Dark Lord personally. His dim witted, short companion is also chosen to go. The old grey wizard, the ranger prince, a dwarf, the regal human prince of the border kingdom that bears the brunt of the Dark Lord's attacks, and two Elven brothers decide to accompany the short, young man.

Are you with me so far? Okay.

The fellowship starts out. After a few adventures they do a dungeon crawl. Just when they are about to get out of the dungeon... a fire demon appears! Well, the grey wizard and the fire demon have it out... and the end result is that they both plunge into a bottomless pit.

Question: Am I summarizing Tolkien or Brooks?

Answer: Brooks, he has two elves and two hobbits. Tolkien had one elf and four hobbits in his fellowship.

I'm not making this up!

Well from there the story changes and I'll use Tolkien's names to convey Brooks' story.

Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, Legolas' brother, Gimli and Sam head to Minas Tirith. But when they get there, just ahead of the Dark Lord's army, they find that Faramir (instead of Denethor) has gone insane. Faramir, under Wormtongue's psychological control, killed Denethor and made himself king. Faramir wants to marry Eowyn (who has quickly fallen for Aragorn). They defend the city against the legions of Mordor. When Wormtongue starts to lose control of Faramir, Worm kills him. Aragorn kills Worm. Aragorn gets Eowyn. Boromir wins the battle and becomes king of Gondor.

Meanwhile, Frodo meets Han Solo and Chewbacca. They journey towards Mordor, but Gollum steals the Ring from them. They chase Gollum, but Gollum reaches Barad-dur first and gives Sauron the Ring. Then Frodo and Sauron battle, but it turns out that Frodo did not even need the Ring.

The End.

Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings was first published in the fifties, iirc. So, I think that Brooks is guilty of intellectual theft, if not plagiarism. And I believe I'm being kind in this assessment.

The Sword of Shannara and Star Wars were both released in 1977, so I hesitate to call Brooks' use of Han and Chewie as "borrowed," especially with the way that Mr. Lucas likes to "borrow" ideas.

[GOLLUM]

I've read everything by Terry Brooks and YES the Sword Of Shannara and subsequent books in this series is a bit of a Tolkien clone but that hasn't stopped me from enjoying them. Not in the top bracket by any means but good enough for me to continue reading them.

My fav series by Brooks is Non-Shannara, namely Running With The Demon trilogy, his best work IMO...

[I, Brian]

That's a damning deconstruction of Brooks, Boaz - surely it's not that obvious? Or has Brooks been pulling a big joke on the fantasy readers of the world?

[Boaz]

Every bit of my post is true, I think. Of course I left out their battle with the Gnomes and the fight with the cyborg monster and the fact that the main short character is part Elven and that Trolls are smart in Shanarra, but the main story and characters are straight from Tolkien.

It was the first high fantasy that I read after I devoured Tolkien at age thirteen. At the time, I thought The Sword of Shanarra was good. But after reading dozens and dozens of authors and their stories and gaining life experience (ie. becoming an adult), I looked back at Shanarra and was apalled!

Maybe Brooks came up with some original storylines after the first book, then again you might start comparing the plots to your other favorite authors.

One thing I did like about The Sword of Shanarra was the Hildebrandt brothers' artwork. But after I realized that Brooks "borrowed" from Tolkien, I cannot bear to look at any Hildebrandt art, especially their Tolkien stuff.

The bottom line on The Sword of Shanarra... it's a very good story.
(It should be, Tolkien sold millions of copies with it first.)

[Frey Slayer]

I do agree that the bottom line was just how much I loved the story when I was young. I must have read it 3 times in succession. At the time, I do not think I was old enough to appreciate the nuances of Tolkien, but TSOS took my imagination away to another wonderful world. Even then I knew in a way it was quite derivative, but then I also just assumed I was naturally drawn to that sort of fantasy story and was a bit naive in the fact that I simply wanted the same sort of story told in a slightly different way.
There were many many reimaginings of the same story, particularly in the mid 80's is seems, none of which did quiet as well as TSOS. So I think that speaks to something that has yet to be addressed in this thread.
I derived far far too much from the book as a youngster to ever want to go back and critically assess it as an adult. I choose to look at it as a more accessable version of the same story. I still have my well worn edition and have carried it with me through my travels with only a short list of well-loved novels.

[rune]

I personally think the Shannara series is a good one for YA's to read in discovering fantasy works. It's not too heavy going, it's magical, it's different, but easy enough to follow

[dwndrgn]

Originally Posted by Boaz

Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings was first published in the fifties, iirc. So, I think that Brooks is guilty of intellectual theft, if not plagiarism. And I believe I'm being kind in this assessment.

I won't say that Terry Brooks didn't borrow a few ideas from Tolkein (I can't know either way since I wasn't there - but you can see my earlier post), but I wouldn't say that the entire story is the same either.

It seems that you haven't read these books lately, or else you'd realize that in your mind the two are the same so you've mixed up a few things regarding the plot and characters and whatnot. And yes, I do realize that you have facetiously used the names from The Hobbit and LOTR to illustrate your belief, not that you've just gotten them mixed up. The problem is that you do seem to have some of the plot points and characters mixed up a bit. Perhaps you should re-read them both and take notes while you do so. Then you can start a new thread blasting Terry Brooks for intellectual theft. And heck, throw in Lucas too for good measure.