Worst fantasy book you have read?

[Toby Frost]

Fair enough, and I agree that his dialogue is pretty good, but I've heard the whole killing characters thing from quite a few people now and it still puzzles me. I'm not saying it's the only comment on Martin I've heard, but it strikes me as strange.

 

[CyBeR]

I actually don't see the massive killing of characters as a good thing. I usually stick to some series if I at least like one character from it. Take that away and I may lose interest in the next moment. So I'm literally dreading that Martin will just pull the rug from under me as I read...if I get to the point where none of the people that actually interest me will be present I may just go with "Screw this" and reach back into my bag of Pratchett goodness (and I dread that right now...the last novels that I've read of his, chronologically as they were published, have all been good or very good...I'm expecting one of the usual crash and burns very very soon).

I gotta add to this list The nest beyond the shadow by...lemme check...Renato Pestriniero. I gave it 2 stars on goodreads but that even seems excessive. The cover boasted that this won the 197-whatever J.R.R. Tolkien award for fantasy literature.
The book was a slow, awfully boring SLOG. The main character is as passive as Harry Potter is whiny. There is nothing even remotely interesting in him. The author keeps bringing up his wife and daughter and the character keeps remembering them, but also keeps on screwing some chick he barely met, without even a HINT of morality on his part.
He has no active role in the story. He says nothing that's of the least interest to anyone and so forth.
And the backstory...ohhhhh, don't get me started. It makes no ******* sense, just a lot of drivel with no actual substance. "Oh, this is the battle between the primordial forces of the Universe, good and bad, yin and yang, two sides of the same sheath of paper"...oh buzz off.
I can't describe how bad this book is.

It's part of an old collection of SF/Fantasy books published in Romania mid-90s. Those books are quite rare right now, the original Nautilus collection. After I managed to get my hands on a couple of them that were actually GREAT (ahhhh, the goodness that were Paradox Lost by Fredric Brown and The wall eaters by Serge Brussolo) I had high hopes for this one as well. Never trust collections, they'll always have stinkers in them.

 

[dlsevern]

Half way through The Path of Daggers I gave up on the Wheel of Time. I would class this as the worst fantasy book I've read up until now, purely because it was within those pages that I realised I wasn't going to finish the series, and that I'd just wasted hours and hours in a world that I stopped caring about long before. It very nearly made me stop reading fantasy. If you haven't read Wheel of Time and are toying with the idea - don't read it! They are dangerous, dangerous books.

I don't think Pinocchio is technically classed as fantasy, but it comes as a close second to PoD.

I have to completely disagree, not one of the WoT books dragged for me or disappointed me, I love the series and from what I've been reading, most people enjoy the last two books that Sanderson is finishing.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Fair enough, and I agree that his dialogue is pretty good, but I've heard the whole killing characters thing from quite a few people now and it still puzzles me. I'm not saying it's the only comment on Martin I've heard, but it strikes me as strange.

I think it's the lack of predictability, ie, the tension of any protoganist not being assured to survive any particular hazard facing them. That was underlined in Game of Thrones.

Unfortunately, since then, GRRM's characters have developed a nasty habit of coming back to life after being killed, and there's a couple of sub plot that allows for the mechanics of this in different ways - which kind of mutes the tension somewhat.

 

[Grunkins]

Unfortunately, since then, GRRM's characters have developed a nasty habit of coming back to life after being killed, and there's a couple of sub plot that allows for the mechanics of this in different ways - which kind of mutes the tension somewhat.

Sort of. When they come back, they come back changed, and always much much creepier. At the end of DWD a certain someone is sort of left in limbo, and I'm dreading their return.

 

[CyBeR]

Please bear some consideration to those of us that have just gone into this series with a head as empty as possible from previous notions.

 

[Starchaser3000]

I agree with those that have a disdain for killing the characters as being some sort of modern cliche. Or as someone said, some sort of fake validation of literary greatness. In my parody/spoof series of the genre, most of my characters die in a big bloody and violent battle royal.

 

[thaddeus6th]

On killing characters off, I would like to speak for the defence.

Most books have potential deadly situations (war, duels, and so forth). Even fantasy (perhaps especially fantasy) has to have an element of realism. If a noble band of brothers goes into the fray and they all survive it makes disbelief harder to suspend. If one or two end up dead it underlines the fact that their lives are at risk.

I would say Mr. Martin does go a bit overboard sometimes, but I would still rather have massacres than miraculous survivals.

 

[sabolich]

On killing characters off, I would like to speak for the defence.

Most books have potential deadly situations (war, duels, and so forth). Even fantasy (perhaps especially fantasy) has to have an element of realism. If a noble band of brothers goes into the fray and they all survive it makes disbelief harder to suspend. If one or two end up dead it underlines the fact that their lives are at risk.

I agree. Killing a character off can drive other characters to advance the plot in ways that wouldn't have happened otherwise, from grief or rage or glee at the death of an enemy. When a long-running series never loses a character, pretty soon the tension goes out because you know everyone is going to survive and be back next time. That's lovely for all the fans who adore the characters, but certainly sucks a lot of the "danger" out. I hate killing off characters I like in my writing, but sometimes it is necessary to force an action the protag must take to get the job done. There is nothing quite so guaranteed to drive a change in attitude as losing a mate, a friend, a leader, a parent or a child. Especially if the loss arose from a mistake made by the main character.

Killing them off just for shock value--nope.

 

[Starchaser3000]

I would still rather have massacres than miraculous survivals.

I second that. I agree that even if killing off a character or many characters is in danger of becoming redundant nowadays, tragic death over fairy tale endings is my own personal preference anyway.

Killing them off just for shock value--nope.

Agreed. If anyone important dies in a story, it should have some type of meaningful effect on the plot. Just to kill someone based on shock value without any consequential purpose would be plain silly.

 

[AndrewT]

Saberhagen - Swords books
I have not read as many as some people here and I try to stay away from ones that dont get good ratings at goodreads dot com. Can't post links yet. But there was one series I tried and thought were pretty bad and that was Saberhagen's Swords series. Some people in this thread mention Sword of Shannara but I enjoyed that back in the 70's even though it is a blatant Tolkien rip off and the world is too small.

 

[MemoryTale]

Agreed. If anyone important dies in a story, it should have some type of meaningful effect on the plot. Just to kill someone based on shock value without any consequential purpose would be plain silly.

It depends how you define meaningful to the plot and shock value. For example I killed off a major character during the climax of my WIP.

Did this death affect the plot in any way? Not really, since the story was pretty much over by then, although it did make for a more bittersweet ending. It did accomplish two things, however:

1) It made the villain more of a threat, and increased the tension during the final battle.

2) The battle ends with one of the main characters supposedly dying. He survives, and I feel this would have been more predictable if not for the other character's death.

Could either of these things have been taken out? Probably, but I wouldn't have been as happy with the end result.

 

[Starchaser3000]

It depends how you define meaningful to the plot and shock value. For example I killed off a major character during the climax of my WIP.

Did this death affect the plot in any way? Not really, since the story was pretty much over by then, although it did make for a more bittersweet ending. It did accomplish two things, however:

1) It made the villain more of a threat, and increased the tension during the final battle.

2) The battle ends with one of the main characters supposedly dying. He survives, and I feel this would have been more predictable if not for the other character's death.

Could either of these things have been taken out? Probably, but I wouldn't have been as happy with the end result.

That makes sense. The death of that character effectively gave your protagonist more of a motive for revenge to kill the bad guy right? In mine, the death of most of the main protagonist's allies near the very end is supposed to make the protagonist emotionally shaken over the fact that his friends that he thought were going to see things through alongside him to the very end were suddenly dying successively in a short amount of time. Or at least this is the effect I'm trying to convey to the reader.

 

[MemoryTale]

That makes sense. The death of that character effectively gave your protagonist more of a motive for revenge to kill the bad guy right? In mine, the death of most of the main protagonist's allies near the very end is supposed to make the protagonist emotionally shaken over the fact that his friends that he thought were going to see things through alongside him to the very end were suddenly dying successively in a short amount of time. Or at least this is the effect I'm trying to convey to the reader.

Actually no, not really. This particular bad guy had already wiped out almost every person important to the protagonist and was a direct threat to the two who remained - the protagonist in question has already spent most of the book obsessing over killing this guy so I don't think the term "more of a motive" is humanly possible.

The main thinking was that the villain had a very poor track record of killing major characters, partly because once they knew he was around they started preparing especially for him, and partly because the main villain was holding him back for reasons of his own. I felt I needed to show that, given a chance, this guy could off a major character in about five seconds.

Then there was the thinking that since this particular action takes place in the midst of a huge battle, casualties were needed for realism.

My point is, the death of this character does not allow anyone to do anything they couldn't ordinarily do, or weren't trying to do anyway. It doesn't alter the flow of the story, and yet I think it can still be justified.

 

[Moggle]

Fair enough, and I agree that his dialogue is pretty good, but I've heard the whole killing characters thing from quite a few people now and it still puzzles me. I'm not saying it's the only comment on Martin I've heard, but it strikes me as strange.

Well, I think people have to focus their love on peripheral stuff like that because other aspects of the books are so lacking.

 

[Kaladan]

Because of David Eddings I can no longer hear/read the word "sardonically" without a flutter of rage. Managed to read the the Malloreon/Belgariad series when I was in college, but even then I found that all the dialogue felt like it was written by a child, and the constant repetition of the aforementioned word frustrated me to no end.

Tried to read The Elder Gods in recent years but couldn't stomach it since all the characters were so bloody infantile. IIRC there was some sort of catastrophe on the horizon but the childish bickering threw this "event" to the wayside and I found it utterly impossible to give a toss about the big picture and wanted to strangle both David and Leigh Eddings for writing such utter twaddle.

Sadly, characters need to be deeper than a roadside puddle to hold my attention.

No offence, Eddings fans. Just not my cup of tea.

 

[MacSally3245]

One of the worst fantasy stories I ever read was one I had written myself, (never published) about 25 years ago, but that is neither here nor there.
No so much a fantasy series, but my pick for the worst is L Ron Hubbard's Mission Earth series.
They to me, seem amateurish in their structure compared to other writers of the day, and he wasn't very subtle with his character's naming.
On my radio program, I also played a half hour radio series based on the books, produced and supplied by the Scientology group here is Australia.
Even the production to me, also seemed to be amateurish.
I gave up reading them half way through the first book.

 

[Nearly Headless Ned]

The worst that I actually managed to finish was some piece of offal by Robert Newcome. It had lesbian (evil lesbians mind you) witches I seem to recall and despite this it was no fun whatsoever. An incoherent mess.
Chris Claremont and George Lucas's sequel to Willow. That was so bad passages didn't actually make sense. Couldn't get past the first few chapters.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I think that's The Fifth Sorceress you're talking about.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[sabolich]

Sadly, characters need to be deeper than a roadside puddle to hold my attention.

Just had to pay homage to this lovely line.

Yes, character development is a big one. Actual plot is an icky but necessary requirement. A book I put down and could not finish was Chris Evans' "A Darkness Forged in Fire." Awesome title, good prologue, horrible plot and boring characters. I bailed in the middle of the first book when the crew seemed to be wandering forever to nowhere, plagued by sporadic incidents that seemed designed to Make Something Happen rather than actually advance the plot, with sidetrips to view the Evil Baddie doing nothing much original or intelligent. I seldom give up on books but this one was impenetrably bad, yet seems to have quite a following, so it could be it just struck me wrong as having a tired premise and unexciting execution. The prose isn't all that wonderful either.