Published in 1982. It was re-published in 1992 with bits supposedly cut by publishers restored. I think though he mentions somewhere doing SOME editing of it. I read both versions about the time they came out.The trouble is that Feist describes a lot of things as though they're special and noteworthy, when actually we've seen them all a hundred times by now.
No, I don't think so. However I thought Ian M. Banks was worse for describing his Resurrection devices, Orbitals and AIs as if they are the best thing ever in Stories ever. IMO encountering semi-stereotypical Elves, Dwarves etc not so bad. Actually they hardly much are in a lot of later Midkemia books.It would be nice to be able to have some kind of selective amnesia when reading something like this.
True, but even reading him now, I get less of a sense of wanting him to get on with it than I do with Magician. Maybe he describes more selectively than Feist, or maybe he's just better at it.Tolkien wasn't anything like as original as most people think.
I certainly agree - I think it sits more comfortably next to Dragonlance than much of what is published now in epic fantasy. Worth reading if you want to see where the genre has been, but not so mentally challenging as other adult fantasy fiction. There are some decent highlights, but it was always a very long book, that got longer in the retelling.I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more when I was younger.
Partially he was better ... but also he spent half a lifetime on it. Look how many books Fiest & Co have?he's just better at it
I think this is a good summary. I've decided, about 2/3 through now, that I won't carry on. It just wasn't doing enough for me, and I never got the feeling that there was any more to the characters than was laid out on the page. (Clearly, people like Macros have got loads of backstory that hasn't been revealed yet, but even he doesn't strike me as being that interesting a person.) But I can see how it would have a hold on people who read it young. I sometimes wonder if I'd get into Tolkien if I first read him now.but not so mentally challenging as other adult fantasy fiction. There are some decent highlights, but it was always a very long book, that got longer in the retelling.
Yes, and it did get more promising then, but not for long enough. I should add that I didn't hate it, or I would have jumped ship sooner. It just took too long to do too little, in my opinion.HB, did you get to the Pug scenes on the other side of the Rift?
Only if there's cocaine in it. (Or raisins.)Aww , go on, go on, go on, go on,![]()
The Magician is basically "Lord of the Rings meets feudal Japan" Literally.Yes, and it did get more promising then
That does sound good. But it's sooooo llllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnggggggggg.I agree Brian. It is quite unique and gets even more so, with a lot of inter-dimensional travelling, aliens, gods and goddesses, demon planets, and all sorts of crazy things.
That is interesting. I absolutely loved Magician, though the writing is not complex I would put it up as a great Fantasy work. I read this before ASOIAF, Wheel of Time or Malazan so maybe wasn't expecting complexity. Though I had read LOTR already.I have happy memories of reading the first trilogy and still rate Silverthorn as one of my favourite fantasy books of all time.
An excellent approach!When i read something i go in with no expectations and i enjoy what the author provides. So long as is not a grammatical cluster and as long as the story is halfway engaging i will enjoy it.