Totally libwitch's fault

[jpskewedthrone]

So libwitch mentioned that she never really liked David Eddings and in the comment thread to that I ended up saying a few things that I felt needed repeating here, because they may spark a discussion amongst us readers and writers . . . or not. We'll see I guess.

So here's what I said there: I read David Eddings in high school and I really, really liked The Belgariad (his first 5 books if you don't count the quasi-fantasy he wrote before that called High Hunt). I feel now that this was because I was the right age at the time, which brings up the whole idea that certain books only seem to appeal to readers in a certain age group. I believe that if I went back to reread The Belgariad now, that I'd not think it as special as I did back then. And yet it's obviously still popular because they keep rereleasing it in omnibuses and as singletons and it still seems to sell.

But the age-appeal thing was not the main point. Feel free to comment on this if you want, but my REAL point that I'd like to discuss is the following: I then went on to read The Mallorean, the next 5 books (if you ignore the fact that he started releasing the three Elemiun books interspersed with The Mallorean). I read the first book in the Mallorean . . . and thought it sucked. Now, this may be because by this point I'd already started to become interested in writing myself, so perhaps my reading style had changed. Perhaps I'd become more critical of books, because I was no longer reading them for fun, but also analyzing them to see why they worked, what worked, what didn't, etc. But I really don't think that was it. What I felt at the time, and the feeling continued while reading book 2, is that the author was tired of the characters. There wasn't any life in the story. It no longer felt like the author was having fun anymore.

And I think that this feeling was true, because David Eddings DID start releasing The Elenium books interspersed with The Mallorean books. I think he became tired or at least less interested in the characters in The Mallorean, so he wasn't interested in them anymore. The characters and ideas in The Elenium were more interesting to him, and so that's where the "life" in his writing went. I think he realized this after the first few books of The Mallorean, and so started The Elenium in order to resolve the problem. And what's more, I think that his solution worked, because I felt that the last 3 books of The Mallorean were MUCH better than the first 2. They regained their life, and I was happy that I'd been patient and not tossed the books aside in disgust after those 2.

The same thing happened with a few other authors, some who successfully found a "cure" to the uninterest in their popular series, some who just suffered through it, and some who don't seem to realize that there is a lack of "life" in their world and characters anymore and so don't seem to think there's a problem. The one that I mentioned in the other thread was Katherine Kurtz. I absolutely LOVED the first 3 or 4 trilogies in the Deryni world. (And again, there's that high school influence and I'm not sure I'd feel the same way now and I did then, but . . .) However, after those first few trilogies, I felt the books became flat. In particular, the trilogy dealing with the young kings and regents (I can't remember the trilogy's name, but "The Bastard Prince" and "King Javan's Year" were two of the books in the series). There were PARTS of these books that were good, but the books as a whole just felt . . . lacking. I haven't read the more recent Deryni books she's released, and I sincerely hope that the reason Katherine Kurtz stopped writing the Deryni books and started focusing on other completely different books, was because she realized there was a problem. I also sincerely hope that this transition to other things, and the subsequent return to Deryni, solved the problem. I truly loved the first yea-many Deryni novels. I want to love the new ones as well.

So, the topics for discussion: As readers, are there other series and/or worlds that you absolutely loved at first, but that after a while felt like the "life" had gone out of it for the writer? What do you think is the cause of this lifelessness? Are you willing to read a few lifeless books in the hopes that the life returns a few books from now? And in the end, if a writer turns to something new in order to keep this lifelessness from happening in the first place, are you willing to try the new stuff and support the writer so that when he/she DOES return to your favorite characters/world, it WILL have life? (I'm thinking of Terry Brooks and Shannara here; he needed a break from that world, but when he tried something else, something different, the fans rebelled because they only wanted Shannara.)

And for the writers: How do you know when that lifelessness starts infringing on your writing? Do you sign the contracts from the editor knowing that perhaps you're tired of that world or those characters at the moment because the contracts are there, or do you turn them down and make certain you write what's currently burning you up inside, thus keeping that "life" in your writing . . . well, alive?

Comments

[nanne.livejournal.com]

Mercedes Lacky and Valdemar, springs to mind. Specifically because she showed me the first gay characters in fantasy (and I saw it coming too) in high school. I gave her the benefit of the doubt for a couple of books, then stopped when I gave up hope. I am always willing to give new stuff a try, since an author might have tapped into a new creative vein. But that doesn't always work (see my recent frustration with Weber's newest opus).

Robert Jordan, of course. I keep reading, mostly because I have gotten this far. His writing style really gets in the way (repetitive), his characterizations do not stand up for a 12 book scrutiny, and he doesn't know when enough is enough. I want a good story, not every detail and every scene of the story as he has envisioned it. That's why I love GGKay--he knows how to pare things down. Iain Banks for that matter too.

Melanie Rawn, both the dragon stuff and the later magician world stuff. She just runs out of steam. I am not reading any series by her that is not finished.

Tad Williams--the last volume of his dragonbone chair series just showed he had run out of steam. His War of the Flowers was much better--shorter, more impact. So I am glad I picked it up (well, a DAW editor sent it as a gift :-) So he keeps getting the benefit of the doubt.

Dave Duncan and his King's Blades. After a while it is just rehashing the same story over and over and over and over.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I've only read the first few trilogies from Lackey, same for Rawn, and Jordan I quit at number 8. Tad Williams I'm a loyal fan of, although I felt this "lifelessness" infringing on his Otherland series, as well as the last of the Dragonbone trilogy. I've never read Dave Duncan, but I LOVE GGKay.

[hkneale.livejournal.com]

I agree that age and where one is in the craft may have a lot to do with how much one enjoys certain books.

I loved the Belgariad as a teen, and even enjoyed the Malloreon (I think I'm the only person who did).

I don't recall having read them as adults, and have no idea if my opinion will have changed about them. I'm almost afraid to try it.

I enjoyed the Xanth books as a teen, but when I went back to read them as an adult, I had some serious cringe moments, and have been completely turned off of them because of it. Granted, I was an apprentice back then, and now I'm a journeyman and that does make a big difference in how one views others' work.

While I'd like to write addictive worlds that my fans clamour for, I do hope they like the different worlds in which I write.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

Ah, see, I thought the last few books of the Mallorean were good; I just felt the first 2 were lifeless. Hence the post. *grin*

Xanth is totally a YA series in my opinion. If you don't read them in high school. . . .

[storytellersjem.livejournal.com]

Eddings first four books were great in high school but upon reading them a few years back I really couldn't stomach them. I still enjoy Feist's first four books, THE RIFTWAR saga, but never cared for any of his later books. It's almost as if the passion was sucked out of future Midkemian world books.

The first three DRAGONLANCE books are barely manageable compared to high school but the Twins Trilogy is still very good after all these years.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I have never read the Twins trilogy, although I continually hear from people that it was the best of the bunch. Perhaps someday, when I have time, I'll break down and get them. . . .

[naomikritzer]

I read the Belgariad in college and really enjoyed it. Then I picked up the Mallorean and couldn't even make it through the first book; I was getting too much of a "been there, done that" vibe from every page.

I used to read the Amelia Peabody books from Elizabeth Peters as soon as they were released (I would actually buy them in hardcover -- this back when I was in a double-income no-kids household). Now I don't even request them from the library, I just wait until they show up on the new releases shelf, and I can't remember if I read the latest or not. It's too bad, because unlike some, I think Peters has really worked to keep life in the series (she started sharing out the narrative voice with other characters; Ramses as a young teenager was particularly hilarious). She's also written an article (in some anthology of writerly advice, I forget which) about writing a series book without getting so fed up with your protagonist that you throw him over a waterfall to get rid of him.

The Right Age to Read a Book is an interesting issue on its own. I picked up a Xanth novel in high school and found it annoying, and a friend I discussed it with said that you realize after going through puberty how annoying those books are; before puberty, they're hilarious. I really, really loved McCaffrey's Harper Hall series (and the rest, but particularly the Harper Hall books) as a teenager. I totally read those at the right time. I enjoyed Lackey when I read her in college, but if I'd read them at thirteen, they would have been MY FAVORITE BOOKS EVER and I would have written fan-fictional Mary Sue epics in which there was a Herald who looked strikingly similar to me. (Which would be more embarrassing to admit if Lackey hadn't written herself into her books.)

On the other hand, there are actual children's books that stand up to adult reading, and not just out of nostalgia. I read the Spiderwick Chronicles and thought they were fabulous. I read most of the Alanna series after graduating from college, and loved them. (I'd read Alanna: The First Adventure while the age of the target audience.) I also re-read The Boxcar Children, which I had adored and re-read repeatedly as a child, and you know, it's really only good if you're a kid. My six-year-old adores it and has already re-read it repeatedly, though, so in terms of the Cycle of Lit, it's all good.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I haven't read any of the children's books you mention. That's scary.

I totally agree on the Xanth books. I can barely even look at them at the bookstore now, when I notice there's another one out.

I'm wondering if the writer gets into these messes because of fan demand, or because the editor wants another book or two in the same series (because of fan demand) and that's it, or if they just don't realize they need to shift to something else for a while to keep their writer-self spiced up.

[naomikritzer]

I tracked down the Spiderwick Chronicles because I'd met Holly Black (one of the authors) at a con, and she was really fun to hang out with. They came out just in the last few years. Unless you (a) have kids, (b) teach kids, (c) work as a children's librarian, or (d) really like children's books and still seek them out, they're probably going to be under your radar.

The Alanna books are by Tamora Pierce, and are fantasy. They are also targeted fairly strongly towards girls, so even if they were around when you were a kid (I don't know how much older or younger than me you are) you might not have picked them up.

The Boxcar Children is a series that's been around forever, and I LOVED them as a kid. They franchised it out in the 1980s so instead of 12 there are now about 150 of them. The first book is a "kids survive alone in the woods" story; the rest are mysteries.

[aeriedraconia.livejournal.com]

I think there is a right age for some books too.
In high school I loved the Belgariad. I reread it a year or two ago and decided that it couldn't stand the test of time. I never could get through the Mallorian, as a teen or adult. It was boring retread.

I also loved Mercedes Lackey in high school and just after. I quit reading her after the Gryphon trilogy which I thought was just horribly, empty fluff. I went back and reread the first Arrows trilogy last year and found it way too flawed to enjoy.

I tried the first few Robert Jordan books and grew pretty frustrated with the retread feeling. The characters never grew or changed.

Oddly, I read a few Georgette Heyers as a young thing and thought they were a little slow but as an adult I saw the subtlety and humor and really enjoy them. They are in my keeper books.

Starting to write my own stories has made just sitting down and enjoying a book difficult, it has to be a pretty special book to grab me and shut off the internal editor. In another twenty years I wonder if I'll go back and reread the things I'm reading now and think, "Oh pew, what was I thinking?" ;-)

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I haven't gotten that far into the Lackey series. I've only read the first 2 trilogies I believe. And I quit on number 8 of Jordan's series (although I still feel that book 3 was an incredibly solid book).

I'm just hoping that my own books enter the "lifeless" phase unintentionally. *grin*

[libwitch.livejournal.com]

I don't know if it is true or not, but I heard that Jordan never planned the series to go on as long as it has. He planned for a much shorter series, but his publishers pushed him into a longer contract, and he balked by milking the same number of books out of the planned storyline.

Or it could be just an excuse for the stagnatation of the series.

The only two series I ever remember dropping totally because they were just getting to old in fantasy were Xanath (which I think everyone outgrows eventually) and the Pern series, which just seemed to be running the same characters over and over and over again but with different names.

There is of, course, entire authors I have stopped reading simply because they have gotten bad and destroyed their characters entirely. LKH!?

James Patterson is another one (outside of the fantasy realm), but I suspect he has fallen prey to a series of bad agents and ghostwriters.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

Do you think that the reason the series began to feel lifeless is not because the writing or the plot itself was bad, but because the world created was no longer as "new" and interesting as it was in the first few books? I mean, we get excited about the "new" idea in the book, or the new twist on that idea, but after a book or 2, that idea doesn't seem as new to us anymore . . . and is that the point where the lifelessness creeps in?

[libwitch.livejournal.com]

I don't think the world has to be "new" for the books to still work.

After all, some worlds have withstood the test of time and have been used in some for over and over again by other authors (LOTR) or for very longstanding authors (Pratchett). And really, look at the song of fire and ice series - the last big complaint that hit about book 4 was that it didn't have the stongest characters, not that the books were stale.

I think what matters is the depth of the world that is created, mixed with the strength of characters. You have to have both elements, and some writers have tried to really one EITHER a good world or GOOD characters.

There are just some worlds that are really two dimensional things. I hate to say it, but if it doesn't work well for gaming, then it doesn't work well for a book series - and everyone I know of (and I know gaming geeks) say that using the WoT world for a game makes a horribel game that just dies out. There is just nothing that to support it - rather, you have to take elements of it and work into other gaming worlds to run a good game.

Likewise, if you put good characters in a dull fantasy world, the story becomes predicatable, fast.

Its a rough mix.

[rugor.livejournal.com]

Over the years I've dropped a number of writers for different reasons; and yes, Eddings is one of them. One thing that's guaranteed to kill it for me is "prequelitis." Anne McCaffrey and Katherine Kurtz were both particularly bad for that.

The really pernicious (pun intended) form occurs when a writer gets to a certain point in a series and then stops writing about future occurrences and goes on to write about the past. This is very frustrating when I want to know what happens next and they're just giving more detail for things I already know. Then there are the ones where the original books were about coming out from a really bad situation, and so all the prequels have to be about how things got that bad and I don't want to read depressing books where I know everything has to fall apart in the end to allow for the original books.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

Hmmm . . . this is an interesting comment. I'm currently trying to decide what to do "next". This is dependent somewhat on what my editor is interested in and willing to pay for, but the current options consist of 2 trilogies, each spread about 1000 years apart. The second trilogy is the "fallout" from the first. So you're saying that you'd prefer to read this 2 trilogies in order, rather than getting the second one first, then going back and reading the "prequel" afterwards.

[rugor.livejournal.com]

I'd look for them in order if possible.

Having said that, I don't mind prequels quite as much if they aren't telling stories that I know are going to have bad endings. The Kurtz ones are particularly bad for that because you know everything was just getting worse for the Deryni throughout.

Another thing that's big for me is that series shouldn't be too long. I'm much more interested in reading three trilogies that each tell a story and have the three stories combine to form a larger one than something like Jordan's monstrosity. It has simply gotten away from him and I gave up, just as I did with Terry Goodkind.