[ SECRET POST #2889 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2889 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 051 secrets from Secret Submission Post #413.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[xenomantid]

Hearing about Brooks's shameless copying of Tolkien scared me off The Sword of Shannara years ago, although lately I've been wanting to read it simply to chuckle at how derivative it is. How much worse is McKiernan's work than The Sword of Shannara? Also, I once saw Niel (that's his name's actual spelling) Hancock's Greyfax Grimwald and its sequels in a used-book store, and they looked like the most generic fantasy novels imaginable. Are they, in fact, any good?

[cushlamochree]

I would say McKiernan is much worse than Brooks, although I haven't read as much McKiernan as I have Brooks. Sword of Shannara is definitely a hardcore ripoff, though. I mean, it's not beat for beat the same, but it's almost like a version of Lord of the Rings from a world that's not quite ours, and the names and flavor are different, and some characters are merged and a few plot points change. But at the end of the day you can still pretty much describe what happens in terms of Lord of the Rings and get pretty much all of it. Like, he combines Denethor and Faramir into one character. Rivendell is a dwarven city, instead of an elf city. That's the kind of difference we're talking about.

Also, it isn't as good.

The later books are not nearly as derivative, but I wouldn't call them especially good, unless you have a real yen for late-70s, early-80s fantasy with a dash of post-apocalypse and mutants thrown in, and also eventually airships. But I think you could reasonably say that with the later books, he's writing Tolkien-influenced epic fantasy, not explicitly ripping Tolkien off. And even in Sword of Shannara, I think he's just a better writer than McKiernan is, and takes it a slightly greater distance in terms of tone and feel. But then again, I may be evaluating Brooks through the lens of nostalgia here.

I've never read that Greyfax Grimwald series, but good lord, they sound terrible. There really is some bad, bad fantasy out there.

[(Anonymous)]

This. I've read a lot of the Shannara series and while it's not horrible, it's not knock your socks off fantasy, either. I'd also say that it's very... samey, for lack of a better word. If you've read one or two Shannara novels, there probably won't be many surprises for the rest of the series. The guy's consistent, I'll give him that much.

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't read Hancock's Circle of Light, but according to this lengthy and spoileriffic review, the answer is a resounding NO:
http://www.bondwine.com/reviews/42/1977part4.html