Series you were disappointed with...

[Cracknut he/him]

WoT is High Fantasy...

I meant First Law there, which is Low Fantasy. Malazan and First Law have a lot in common but one is high and other is low so thats what I meant. I know that WoT is High Fantasy.

And you don't have to read WoT expecting a battle of good vs. evil. Just try reading it for what it does best and "listen" to the characters. Robert Jordan is such a marvellous writer and it is his proficiency to make us care about even the minor characters who appear for one chapter in the entire series, that enables us to say Wheel of Time is perhaps the greatest fantasy written.

I don't find those characters that good and I have to disagree with greatest fantasy part. Maybe they become something great later but as far as I have read they were annoying lot. Only character I really liked was Perrin because he had a little resemblance of Logen Ninefingers.

Of course, that's personal conjecture, and you're entitled to disagree with me, but I never read WoT anticipating the next big showdown of the good and bad guys; I was interested in the characters themselves, how they reacted, what they thought and did, and how they evolved throughout the story. Conflicts between characters were just as interesting between two "good" characters as they were between "good x evil."

Actually this book was one of greatest good vs evil battles I've read. And as far as I know every conflict between main characters was annoying for me.

You claim to like fantasy and yet discriminate WoT for being exactly that. Malazan also has a magic system, it also has two-dimensional characters and a plot that only cryptologists can solve. If you want that, badass chitchat and action, go watch a Michael Bay movie. If you're reading a book and you're expecting every character to be cardboard cut-outs I've got news for you: books aren't your thing. Because identifying with characters is exactly why we read books, each and every one of us.

Should I be sorry for my opinions or taste? I like whatever I like, I'll watch whatever I want. Why are you so mad? And seriously Malazan has two dimensional characters? Have a nice day sir.

Edited August 22, 2012 by 213

[Lady_Yasha she/her]

I don't find those characters that good and I have to disagree with greatest fantasy part. Maybe they become something great later but as far as I have read they were annoying lot. Only character I really liked was Perrin because he had a little resemblance of Logen Ninefingers.

Really? Because they were like every other teenager to me. Their attitude can be excused on account of the burden placed on them. What would you do it you woke up one day and some stranger wanted to take you away from your family, your friends, your life, and then tell you you had terrible powers, that you would go mad and destroy the world? Or you could talk to wolves and were slowly becoming a beast yourself? Or you had a responsibility to dedicate yourself to something you never envisaged otherwise you'd die?

Whether you liked them or not you can't argue that they were deftly written and accurate reactions to what a lot of us would feel and react under those same circumstances.

There's plenty of other characters besides the main five that are likeable too: Thom Merrilin; Bayle Doman; The Green Man; Loial; Ingtar; Ragan; hell I even liked Ba'alzamon.

Actually this book was one of greatest good vs evil battles I've read. And as far as I know every conflict between main characters was annoying for me.

What specifically annoyed you about them?

Should I be sorry for my opinions or taste? I like whatever I like, I'll watch whatever I want. Why are you so mad? And seriously Malazan has two dimensional characters? Have a nice day sir.

I'm not telling you what to like and not, but literary fiction is written for many purposes, chief amongst which is to create characters that are instantly identifiable and are given the space to evolve.

The best stories are often character driven; the plot changes accordingly to their reactions, rather than the plot deciding where the characters go and act.

And yes, Malazan has flat characters because they never seem to develop, or learn anything outside of guided knowledge. WoT's characters change on account of their experiences, and that's something I want from a book.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Lyrebon

[Cracknut he/him]

Really? Because they were like every other teenager to me. Their attitude can be excused on account of the burden placed on them. What would you do it you woke up one day and some stranger wanted to take you away from your family, your friends, your life, and then tell you you had terrible powers, that you would go mad and destroy the world? Or you could talk to wolves and were slowly becoming a beast yourself? Or you had a responsibility to dedicate yourself to something you never envisaged otherwise you'd die?

Yes I wouldn't be happy about that but theres a fact: I won't save the world. I die anyway and with me all those people - family, friends and everyone else. So what annoyed me there was that whole two books Rand was crying about having his life taken away. I mean there should be some time to think it out and get ready spiritually or whatever to deal with it and take that burden but two books?

Whether you liked them or not you can't argue that they were deftly written and accurate reactions to what a lot of us would feel and react under those same circumstances.

Yes sadly thats true but it took to much time and from realistic it went to annoying.

There's plenty of other characters besides the main five that are likeable too: Thom Merrilin; Bayle Doman; The Green Man; Loial; Ingtar; Ragan; hell I even liked Ba'alzamon.

Yes there were other several good characters but sadly story isn't about them. They are important parts but its not their story.

What specifically annoyed you about them?

Rand crying about him being torn from his life. Not because I wanted unrealistic hero who would instantly turn into knight with shining armor. No. Because it took to long even after he realized he had no other choice. Save the world and die. Or die with it. And most annoying part was that he cried about other people he wouldn't see again. That will happen anyway dude, but if you won't try to save the world they won't even be existing anymore to see them again.

I'm not telling you what to like and not, but literary fiction is written for many purposes, chief amongst which is to create characters that are instantly identifiable and are given the space to evolve.

Yes but there are a lot better books at that like Mistborn. I'm sure everyone here has read it. Anyone objects that it was good at that?

The best stories are often character driven; the plot changes accordingly to their reactions, rather than the plot deciding where the characters go and act.

Mhm, but world is going down. Characters have to act according to that. Or just do something else and die. + They're chosen ones, right? Its not fully their decision or wish. Without 'little' facts like that these characters never would have left their village. First Law, Malazan book of the Fallen - real character driven books are these. There are no great quests, prophecies, etc. We have bunch of characters, all of them different in every way. [Not that I'm saying WoT has similar characters. Thing is characters from Malazan have years of adulthood, they have made lots of choices and each choice brought them further from each other. WoT on other hand has young characters which are just starting making hard choices and their personalities are not so developed yet. Yes, that leaves space for further development but I've read books with adult characters who still keep on developing their personalities. Lets take Dalinar. How old was he when he stopped being Blackthorn and started living by the codex? There are tons of characters like that, if you at least try to see them.] And each of them is doing his/her own thing but at some points their paths cross and as a whole it creates something great. Not to mention how entertaining it is. Of course its matter of taste in the end so you can enjoy something I can't and I can enjoy something you can't.

And yes, Malazan has flat characters because they never seem to develop, or learn anything outside of guided knowledge. WoT's characters change on account of their experiences, and that's something I want from a book.

How much of it have you read? Most likely you can't see character development because they aren't blank pages. Most of them are mature enough to have their personalities already developed. Though there are changes even after that.

Edited August 22, 2012 by 213

[Lady_Yasha she/her]

Rand does not "cry" for two books about being taken from Emond's Field. In the first book he was confused, scared that things of nightmares were hunting him and his friends relentlessly. He showed courage and determination where others would have given up.

The next two books he spends trying to discover himself. He reminisces about his old life, sure, but who wouldn't? I reminisce about home when I've been gone from it a week! Rand certainly doesn't cry about it. He's been told he's the Dragon, not an easy thing to process and deal with when you've been notified you're essentially the harbinger of destruction and death, destined to go mad and ruin everyone's day.

He spends most of The Great Hunt trying to help Mat, with his friend's health his prime concern. It's not until The Dragon Reborn does he begin to accept what he is, after the Battle of Falme where his display of the One Power raises confidence in himself he didn't have before.

Then throughout the third book it's him coming to terms with his true identity, learning about his powers and how to use them to his advantage.

Most of them are mature enough to have their personalities already developed.

The problem with this is we don't actually get to witness that development, so to the reader they're flat characters with a bit of exposition tacked on.

You can talk to me all day about someone's past exploits, how charming or debonair they are, what they've suffered or achieved, but it doesn't actually mean anything unless they show me evidence of causality.

If they were assaulted how does that affect them now? Are they afraid of men and how do they learn to cope, adapt? Don't give me a character that comes with a personal statement, show me who he really is.

Because Malazan only asks that you imagine for yourself what the character could be, not what they are based on the past, the development falls on its face. The reason why people have difficulty even caring about the characters (not whether they like them but just caring) is that they're no different to rocks: different shapes and sizes but essentially uninteresting.

Yes but there are a lot better books at that like Mistborn. I'm sure everyone here has read it. Anyone objects that it was good at that?

You only read three[?] of the books as you expressed yourself. Read up to the current books and you'll be surprised how much the characters actually change.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Lyrebon

[Voidbringer]

Wow, is it just me or does it seem to have gotten a bit colder in here...

Anywho, as a fan of both series (WoT and MBotF) I thought I might say what I like about both:

Wheel of Time: This was my second foray into fantasy, my first being David Eddings' Belgariad and Mallorean, which I still love to this day (admittedly nostalgia plays a big role there). Robert Jordan's level of description and detail, love it or hate it (I have felt both sentiments at one point or another), is unparalleled and it made the world feel like a real place. The magic system, in my opinion, remains one of the most beautiful I have seen. I admit to disliking some of the characters (Cadsuane, Gawyn), but others are some of my favorite of all time (Mat, Nynaeve (later in the series she is very near the top of the list), Thom, Moiraine, and others). Oh I just remembered how the Eelfinn and Aelfinn creep me out... Which is awesome that an author can make me experience emotions like that just from reading some print! Seriously, how many people go chills at reading the climaxes of Winter's Heart and Towers of Midnight(Admittedly B.S. wrote it but it was Jordan's notes). I mean Rand is beyond awesome! I could go on but I don't want to spoil anything.

These are just a few things of many.

Malazan Book of the Fallen: I hadn't started this series until three months ago and I didn't really know what to expect (The reviews are EXTREMELY polarized, understandably so given the writing style). It could be, depending on the next five books, be on of my favorite series'. I confess that for the first half of the first book, while lots of interesting things seemed to be happening, I was beyond lost. I mean this guy just drops you right in it, and it can be (and at times was) pretty frustrating! Then after a lot of thought and rereading of passages that I remembered, a picture started to form. With every book the picture becomes exponentially more intricate but beautiful all the same. Then things suddenly fit together and you are stunned that he actually made sense of the crazy amalgamation of plot threads! Also, you can definitely tell that Erikson used to be an anthropologist by the development and depth of the civilizations he created. I agree that characters you want to root for are few and far between, but there are a few who, over the course of a few books, develop into some of the most interesting characters I have read (Anomander Rake = B.A. even if you don't know what to think of him in Gardens of the Moon). This series also has some of my favorite characters (Paran (starting in Memories of Ice), Toc the Younger, Whiskeyjack (don't hate it's a nickname), T'ool, Trull Sengar FTW!, Kruppe (Don't be fooled by book one) ).

Anyway, I know this is supposed to be sort of a hating on disappointing books thread, but I had to defend some of my favorite series'.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Voidbringer

[Tamzin Ashevai she/her]

With regard to the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. I read only "Wizard's First Rule" and found it to be so predictable that I couldn't stand reading further. I know there are hardcore fans of this series, but I'll never be one of them. While I appreciate T.G. as an author of my favorite genre (i.e.: fantasy fiction), I can't condone his outright predictability ... and infused attitude into the series. To me, that indicates a lack of investigation on rhe part of the author. So, ... .

[Voidbringer]

Overall I would say I like The Sword of Truth but it really irritated me how...

Richard figures out how ridiculously powerful the magic can be in Soul of the Fire and pretty never uses it!

Edited August 22, 2012 by Voidbringer

[JamesW he/him]

So as a huge fan of both series, I'd like to chime in here. There will be a great deal of spoilers in these, but I'd like to make a few points about both series.

The first thing I see is that Malazan characters are thought of as two dimensional, and I don't believe that this is accurate. There is a vast number of characters and that sheer volume of information can make it very difficult to discern which characters have easily relatable character arcs, or are much more then cardboard cutout, some examples:

Felesin, Goes through capture, torment, becomes a whore to survive, gets rescued and ends up leading a rebellion. She becomes possessed by a god, but at one point a character Heboric sees the real her, and you see that she is basically trapped. One of the better arcs in the series, especially when she is eventually killed. (Heboric also has a great character arc, though it isn't paid off for many many thousands of pages.

Onrack the Broken has a great arc, at one point he is returned to life and seeing this dry, cynical character showing all the appreciation for life is one of the most touching scenes in the book.

An event involving a very popular character's death triggers a very emotional Mallet to change his character.

Korlat who fell in love with a human, is changed from the aloof, uncaring Tisti Andii that she was and has passion in her life, even if it is to avenge his death.

Karsa Orlong has one of the most compelling changes of character seen in a book. He begins life as a bloodthirsty, naive warrior, but comes to revise his opinions throughout the books.

Onos T'oolan (Tool) has a very compelling arc with his befriending of a mortal, Toc. He is also returned to life and in doing so gets to live again. His story, and his change from First sword (read: Blademaster) to a very thoughtful husband, father, and general is anything but two dimensional.

There are a great number of characters I could list in addition to those above, but those aren't all main characters and even they have good story arcs. I wouldn't say that many characters have "great" story arcs, but that is probably just due to the insane number of characters in the series. My main disagreement is with the two dimensional characters idea. They all have some motivation to act the way they do, we just don't get to see the entirety of that backstory. The biggest contrast that is being brought to light here, is that in WoT, we get to see all of these characters and how they develop their personalities. Not much is discussed about why the people in the two rivers are incredibly stubborn, but it plays a crucial role in the plot at points. In the same vein as that, many characters don't manifest a visible reason for most of their actions. There is a lot of history to each person, and their pasts drive their actions in the books, but sometimes we don't see these reasons until three or even four books later.

The best example of this is Tool. Without going into details lest this become awash in spoiler tags, as a character his past (All several hundred thousand years of it) has a very strong influence on his actions. This is the same with any of the characters who are extremely old, especially Onrack.

This biggest gripe I have is the timeline for each of these character arcs. While I won't repeat any more the comment that they are indeed multi-dimensional, the timeline for the characters is really difficult to follow. Tool's character arc begins around book three, though arguably it is even before that. This isn't paid off until the ninth book, where we see how his life has been changed. In the same manner, some characters like Karsa Orlong, Tavore, Quick Ben, Fiddler, Blend, Gruntle, Kalam, and even Ganos don't have payoffs to their character arcs until many books after they begin.

Many of these things become lost in the chaos that is the plot of those books. I find it analogous to Erikson taking a piece of cord for each character, labeling them, tying some together and then dropping them all off of a tall building and writing his story about how those lines came to overlap.

A great deal of the revelations for most of Erikson's characters don't come until much later in the series. Knowing that one character had a specific event happen in the past, but only finding out about it three books after most of that character's action is difficult. My first time reading the series, I was hopelessly lost. The second time through I fared a little better, but found the series to be far richer then I had thought. By the third time I read through it, I was so deeply engrossed in the characters that the series as a whole is among my very most favorite. Knowing the pasts of these characters when you re-read the series allows you to pinpoint so many parts of their behavior that are influenced by this past. Finding out that

Whiskeyjack was the soldier Ganos Paran talked to early on in life, and who inspired him to become a soldier, and eventually the captain of their company

was an interesting revelation. It wasn't something I had picked up on the first time through, but it added a whole new dynamic to the relationship between the characters. The same goes for Quick ben, knowing his history with Shadowthrone and with the Bridgeburners is awesome.

Even something simple, like meeting the sergent who gives everyone their very strange names added a whole lot to the story. The names aren't paid off for a number of books, but eventually you see why people were named things like Fiddler (That one was obvious), Sorry, Hedge, Skulldeath and others add another depth to the story.

Malazan, though... I've given my thoughts on it earlier in the thread. I started the second one, but the first was just such a major disappointment, I have basically no desire to continue. You talk about disliking character? I couldn't even muster up dislike for most of Malazan's characters. I simply could not bring myself to care one way or another if any of them lived or died.

I had the exact same problem as you did with the characters in the first book Shiv. Every single character appeared to have very little depth and no reason whatsoever to care for them. I read the first book and put it down for about 5 months, only returning when I had accidentally left all my other books elsewhere. The re-read of the first book seemed a lot less convoluted and a lot more interesting, and since I had already bought the first three I decided to continue. The lack of characters from the first one left me very hopelessly lost in the second book, but I slogged through it anyways. The third book was a return to characters with whom I was familiar, and marked a turning point in my interest of the series.

During a re-read of the series I acquired an entirely new appreciation for each of the characters. The first time through they were okay, enough for me to get through nine books without much of a hitch. This was probably due to me feeling like there was so much I wasn't getting, which was exactly the case.

The problems that 213 seems to have with WoT seem to be, interesting, is the word I'd choose. The biggest thing I have to think about is that WoT series was written many many years ago, and not many would argue that modern fantasy was still in it's infancy. Some of the issues, such as people being born to save the world, or being born into a destiny, hadn't been done nearly as much then as it had now. The hero's journey wasn't nearly as cliched and overplayed as it is today. Even The First Law which is mentioned as being preferred because of taste or the low fantasy feeling of it is still sixteen years newer then the Wheel of Time. Fantasy has had a great deal of time to grow in those years, and as such I wouldn't even shelve the books together as a comparison.

If disliking the "Born to be a savior" is just something that 213 can't get past, then that is understandable. If he hates it for a legitimate reason (Such has being betrayed by the Sword of Truth series) then I can understand that. WoT is worth the read however, for the same reason that people read LoTR. LoTR did a great deal for fantasy, but RJ did a ton as well, and that alone (as well as an awesome story) makes it worth the time.

Anyways, the novel of a post is done, I guess I didn't have as many spoilers as I expected (And bonus points to those who actually read through all my babble). Just throwing in my opinion on this, I feel oddly guilty seeing people argue over two series which I love and enjoy, I suppose it's likened to introducing two friends to each other and then them not getting along.

[Cracknut he/him]

I don't hate it. I just don't read books I hate. I'm still going to read WoT. Surely there should be something great there. Point is that I was disappointed. I was waiting for next favorite book and it wasn't that, at least first two books.

About Malazan... not knowing their backstories doesn't makes them two dimensional. For me that makes it even more interesting. For others it may be hard to follow. Actually now that I think about it, it works same way as Sanderson's worldbuilding. First we get world but we don't know how it works or why, then its mysterious backstory is revealed and it all makes sense. In Malazan we have characters but we know little about what is driving them, then its gradually revealed and in the end it all makes sense. Though I should confess, I haven't read that much yet to know it for sure. Still thats what I'm expecting from it and I don't think I'll be needing in three rereads to see how awesome it is.

Btw I knew Ganoes-Whiskeyjack thing from the start and it was awesome! I won't dare read first spoiler though.

Edited August 22, 2012 by 213

[Lady_Yasha she/her]

About Malazan... not knowing their backstories doesn't makes them two dimensional. For me that makes it even more interesting. For others it may be hard to follow. Actually now that I think about it, it works same way as Sanderson's worldbuilding. First we get world but we don't know how it works or why, then its mysterious backstory is revealed and it all makes sense. In Malazan we have characters but we know little about what is driving them, then its gradually revealed and in the end it all makes sense. Though I should confess, I haven't read that much yet to know it for sure. Still thats what I'm expecting from it and I don't think I'll be needing in three rereads to see how awesome it is.

That's not what I meant. A character is interesting as to how they react to a situation and how it affects the story and how events affect and change them.

I never said you have to mention back-story for the character to be interesting. I'm going to take a guess that you're not a writer? When I create a new character I always keep tons of notes on their history, their personality, etc. Exposition helps us, the writers, to develop them better, because if we know how they reacted once before to a certain situation we can approximate how they will react to something similar.

And I know how Sanderson works with stories, it's how all writers work. Mystery and Suspense are two important tools to story writing. If you don't give your reader a chance to guess, to postulate, you'll bore them with cliche and banality.

Erikson is a fantastic worldbuilder but he's not as strong with his characters or his magic system - which, quite frankly, makes no sense. Like Voidbringer said, you have to re-read passages to grasp their meaning. As a reader I shouldn't be expected to have to do that; as a writer I should ensure I've explained something to the best of my abilities.

[Cracknut he/him]

That's not what I meant. A character is interesting as to how they react to a situation and how it affects the story and how events affect and change them.

I never said you have to mention back-story for the character to be interesting. I'm going to take a guess that you're not a writer? When I create a new character I always keep tons of notes on their history, their personality, etc. Exposition helps us, the writers, to develop them better, because if we know how they reacted once before to a certain situation we can approximate how they will react to something similar.

And I know how Sanderson works with stories, it's how all writers work. Mystery and Suspense are two important tools to story writing. If you don't give your reader a chance to guess, to postulate, you'll bore them with cliche and banality.

Erikson is a fantastic worldbuilder but he's not as strong with his characters or his magic system - which, quite frankly, makes no sense. Like Voidbringer said, you have to re-read passages to grasp their meaning. As a reader I shouldn't be expected to have to do that; as a writer I should ensure I've explained something to the best of my abilities.

Nah we won't prove anything to each other this way. You're saying Erikson's characters aren't acting according to their backstories and don't develop further therefore they are flat two dimensional character, right? I'm saying they're acting according to their backstories and they also develop further with new decisions made. As James stated up there backstories are revealed later in story and after you learn about them more, everything made by characters starts making sense. Also they develop further, James has several examples for that in his post.

Nobody forces you to reread or even read Malazan. Me? I love books that require thinking on my part. I find it entertaining when figuring out awesome mysteries is left to me. And entertainment is the only reason I'm reading books so...

Edited August 22, 2012 by 213

[Lady_Yasha she/her]

Nah we won't prove anything to each other this way. You're saying Erikson's characters aren't acting according to their backstories and don't develop further therefore they are flat two dimensional character, right? I'm saying they're acting according to their backstories and they also develop further with new decisions made.

No. The point I made about back-stories is that we don't see that development unless some other character alludes to it or we get a flashback (such as why Kaladin took up the spear in The Way of Kings). Ergo, to make a character interesting you have to develop them dynamically in the present (such as Kaladin's descent into hopelessness, to reluctant confidence, to desire and responsibility).

I'm making no correlation between the exposition Erikson gave us, and the current behaviour of those characters. I was saying Malazan's characters aren't interesting enough in the books for me to care about them. Back-story or none, there was no dynamic that really pulled me in and said, "this is why you care about this guy/gal."

While Erikson does develop his characters they're still often bland changes and unexciting. I was intrigued by Kaladin because he was written with depth; he felt like a person to me, a person I could identify with based on his actions I witnessed in the present of WoK.

@JamesW: Yes, you're right on a lot of your points. I'm not trying to make it seem like I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm trying to keep it to a debate where I can share my opinions. If people are reading malicious intent within my words I would prefer they spoke up against it. It'll help me to develop my speech more diplomatically.

And you yourself say your first reading of Malazan was a task to get through. I'm of the mind that no book should ever be a chore to read.

Sure, Egwene's parts in later WoT books make certain parts of my anatomy ache, but for everything going on away from her perspective is more than enough reason to keep reading.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Lyrebon

[Cracknut he/him]

No. The point I made about back-stories is that we don't see that development unless some other character alludes to it or we get a flashback (such as why Kaladin took up the spear in The Way of Kings). Ergo, to make a character interesting you have to develop them dynamically in the present (such as Kaladin's descent into hopelessness, to reluctant confidence, to desire and responsibility).

I'm making no correlation between the exposition Erikson gave us, and the current behaviour of those characters. I was saying Malazan's characters aren't interesting enough in the books for me to care about them. Back-story or none, there was no dynamic that really pulled me in and said, "this is why you care about this guy/gal."

While Erikson does develop his characters they're still often bland changes and unexciting. I was intrigued by Kaladin because he was written with depth; he felt like a person to me, a person I could identify with based on his actions I witnessed in the present of WoK.

@JamesW: Yes, you're right on a lot of your points. I'm not trying to make it seem like I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm trying to keep it to a debate where I can share my opinions. If people are reading malicious intent within my words I would prefer they spoke up against it. It'll help me to develop my speech more diplomatically.

And you yourself say your first reading of Malazan was a task to get through. I'm of the mind that no book should ever be a chore to read.

Sure, Egwene's parts in later WoT books make certain parts of my anatomy ache, but for everything going on away from her perspective is more than enough reason to keep reading.

So you agree with me that Erikson's characters aren't flat two dimensional characters but you think they aren't interesting enough and/or you can't care about them because you can't associate with them?

I can't agree with you there because this book has a lot more interesting characters then any other book I've read(Of course there are other awesome characters I like more then Erikson's characters but I haven't read book with so many awesome characters together). Even though its hard to associate with them its still possible but its not necessary. I cared about several characters there but of course they died... So I'm trying to care less to give them chance on living and just enjoy masterpiece. In the end its about readers personality and taste.

Edited August 22, 2012 by 213

[JamesW he/him]

Oh, I misunderstood your dislike for the characters it seems. I thought what was being said was that no character had any depth, but the problem is that you couldn't get attached to a single character or care about their fates.

I can understand this and see how it becomes paramount to enjoying the story, but there are many characters who we do eventually get really really attached to/involved with, it just takes time.

Lyrebon: I did agree that working through them was a chore and to be honest at times it certainly was. It was almost like turning a corner and seeing an entirely new series after a certain point. You do realize very soon that the world you've been thrown into is facing problems a great deal bigger then what the little guy can handle. Yeah the book has gods, and hundred thousand year old immortal B.A's running around, but once you are placed in the perspective of the people who are stuck in this world their characters become exponentially more likable, and you find yourself caring about them as deeply as you would in any other book.

Malazan has the steepest learning curve of any series that I've read, bar none. The way of kings was at least generous to those trying to learn it, though it did have a great deal of depth just in a different style. Those two I won't be trying to compare lest I ignite some war within the forums, but either way the learning curve in Malazan is insane.

So @213, I'm glad you like Malazan and I certainly hope you give WoT another shot. Both the series are incredible.

@Lyrebon: It's a shame you didn't get drawn into Malazan, the best recommendation I can give is that you give it another shot. It might seem like a chore at times, but the entertainment value of the series once you become invested into it rivals any other fantasy series that I can recommend, it's just that first hill that you have to climb before the roller coaster starts falling and you get to all the fun twisty loopy parts.

JW

[Aminar]

First Law-I couldn't care about any of the characters at all. Total ambivalence.

Malazan. This will be longer.

The series is probably amazing. I love it for the first several hundred pages of each book but then the story starts to get stale for a bit, i lose interest, and come back to it much later. I don't have the time I did when younger to just burn through the series and each book feels like it loses continuity with the others.(noting that when i last stopped reading I was halfway through book 4.

And I have to agree, most of the characters aren't prone to developing interestingly. They are almost all adults that are very set in their ways, something I find an intolerable character trait. Few of them are adaptable. Lastly I can't tell where anything is going because half the time things aren't explained. Like the Jaghut. I had to go read the Malazan wiki entry to figure how what made them different. Same with the random shapeshiftery things. It's just overly dense and frustrating to read and figure out. And I like reading. Erickson is brilliant but he can't develop things in a way that explains them.

[Cracknut he/him]

First Law-I couldn't care about any of the characters at all.

Why is everyone talking about caring? Even though there are lots of characters in Joe Abercrombie's world I cared for its not what made me like those books. It is one of most entertaining series I've read so far...

[Shivertongue he/him]

Why is everyone talking about caring? Even though there are lots of characters in Joe Abercrombie's world I cared for its not what made me like those books. It is one of most entertaining series I've read so far...

Because for many people, characters are what make the story. Battle isn't interesting unless a character you care about is in danger; political intrigue is stale if the stakes don't threaten characters you like; entire plotlines are boring if there is no character with which you can identify, root for, or truly despise and want to see fail. If there are none in a book, then what incentive do you have to see what happens to them? The plot will be boring, and as cool as the world is, a world is not enough to carry a story.

Honestly, as strange as this notion of "caring for characters" may seem to you, your notion of finding more entertainment when you don't care is strange to me. Different strokes.

I had the same problem with First Law. While the writing was spectacular, none of the characters were appealing. The first book was a total pain to slog through because the only viewpoints I got were from people I cared nothing about, with conflicts that I cared nothing about, and if any one of them dropped dead suddenly I wouldn't have batted an eye. Best Served Cold was far better.

[Cracknut he/him]

Because for many people, characters are what make the story. Battle isn't interesting unless a character you care about is in danger; political intrigue is stale if the stakes don't threaten characters you like; entire plotlines are boring if there is no character with which you can identify, root for, or truly despise and want to see fail. If there are none in a book, then what incentive do you have to see what happens to them? The plot will be boring, and as cool as the world is, a world is not enough to carry a story.

Honestly, as strange as this notion of "caring for characters" may seem to you, your notion of finding more entertainment when you don't care is strange to me. Different strokes.

I had the same problem with First Law. While the writing was spectacular, none of the characters were appealing. The first book was a total pain to slog through because the only viewpoints I got were from people I cared nothing about, with conflicts that I cared nothing about, and if any one of them dropped dead suddenly I wouldn't have batted an eye. Best Served Cold was far better.

I liked Best Served Cold least, there were several characters I really liked though. Nicomo Cosca was one of my favorites from trilogy. Friendly and Poison-guy were both awesome. Though trilogy was far more interesting and Heroes was most badass thing I've ever read.

I'm not saying I never cared for those characters. I cared for most of them but in a book where favorite characters start killing each other its a bit hard to root for someone. And why you didn't cared about story/characters there is mystery to me... because for me if plot and characters are that awesome I start caring about them, not other way around.

Edited August 27, 2012 by 213

[Harbinger]

There's so many books I've been disappointed in, and series that I just didn't care for. Going back about 10 years ago, I had a fellow fantasy enthusiast strongly recommend David Eddings' works as being some of the best fantasy out there, and must reads. So I read through the Belgariad, all of it in two omnibus collections. And I just didn't and still don't get what all the hype was about, the books were just passable, and just not that good. Nothing horrible, but mostly just disappointing. Even Jim Butcher, one of the best writers out there today says he goes back and reads these books once a year, and just don't get it. Am I missing something?

[Thought]

Nostalgia, mostly. These books are 30 years old. They're sort of like the Beatles: really impressive when they came out, but are rather lame compared to how far the field's advanced now (or am I the only one who feels that way about the Beatles?). People who really like them tend to really like them because they remember back when they were amazing and new, or because they've bought into the hype of others who have that nostalgia.

[Brendan]

I think the age you are when you read them also matters, today Belgariad would probably get shelved in YA which they didn't have back then.

I think 'The Redemption of Althalus' is his best adult targeted work and I'm more likely to recomend it or the Sparhawk triologies to adult readers.

[Riddlesinthedark he/him]

I think the age you are when you read them also matters, today Belgariad would probably get shelved in YA which they didn't have back then.

I think 'The Redemption of Althalus' is his best adult targeted work and I'm more likely to recomend it or the Sparhawk triologies to adult readers.

+1 for the Sparhawk trilogies. I think they are better than the Belgariad anyday of the week.

One thing about the Belgaraid is that it is a deliberate, textbook example of the hero's journey archetype. The naive farmboy, the learned sage, etc.

One problem that arises, now that we are so very familiar with the tropes of that style that it seems cliched and stale.

[Riddlesinthedark he/him]

Nostalgia, mostly. These books are 30 years old. They're sort of like the Beatles: really impressive when they came out, but are rather lame compared to how far the field's advanced now (or am I the only one who feels that way about the Beatles?). People who really like them tend to really like them because they remember back when they were amazing and new, or because they've bought into the hype of others who have that nostalgia.

Yes

[Harbinger]

So if I want to enjoy Eddings' work I should go for the Sparhawk books then? Well it's been a good 7 or 8 years, maybe I'll give them a try

One problem I had with all the Belgariad wasn't just all the obvious cliches and textbook hero's journey stuff, though it was a bit heavy on that. It was simply that there'd be all this buildup to something, some supposed huge problem, and then the climax would last like 2 pages and everything would be fixed and back to normal in like 30 seconds. Even the big bad that Garion was supposed to fight, was like this really mysterious figure, that comes out at the end and if I recall correctly, Garion just kinda sword fights him for a page or so and big bad is dead Garion saves the world. I was very underwhelmed.

[Shivertongue he/him]

Well, the Belgariad was written in the 80s. Things were different then, and fantasy was still, essentially, in it's infancy. Additionally, it is not really a story about defeating the big bad. As with all stories that follows the Hero's Journey archetype, the story is about the journey, and how the characters grow and change over the course of the adventure. The big bad is not the goal, just the obstacle they have to overcome.