32. Raymond E. Feist Discussion

[Philip Overby]

While I haven't read much of his work, I did have his Magician book from the Riftwar Saga years ago and liked what I read. I've seen his books everywhere and I'd say the ones I'd seen the most were the Krondor books. He's been very prolific since his first book was published as well so he has no lack of work to read. I've also heard that some of his books were based on D&D campaigns.

Anyone have any thoughts on Feist?

 

[Svrtnsse]

Bibliography according to wikipedia: Raymond E. Feist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I recall I've read up to and including Rage of a Demon King. I remember that I did enjoy the books when I read them, but I don't really remember any details about the plot or the characters - though it's probably all there somewhere underneath the surface.
What stands out are the titles. I find names like "A Darkness at Sethanon" and "Rage of a Demon King" to be really cool and inspiring. They've got a powerful ring to them that promises epic adventure on a grand scale.

Going by memory I think it's the Empire Trilogy that I enjoyed the most. I remember I was impressed that two authors could come together and mix their own worlds and blend them into one story. I'm not sure that's exactly what happened, but it's the impression I had at the time.

 

[ThinkerX]

While I haven't read much of his work, I did have his Magician book from the Riftwar Saga years ago and liked what I read.

Yep, in my view, then and now, the original 3 or 4 books of the 'Magician' set count as some of the best fantasy written. Some of the subsequent volumes are of the same quality or close to it, but matters take a serious downhill turn with the last six or eight books - lots of repetition, seriously week plot elements, plus he's hung up certain characters - he keeps trying to 'reincarnate 'Jimmy the Hand'). (essentially its a 30+ book series).

I've seen his books everywhere and I'd say the ones I'd seen the most were the Krondor books.

Odd. I regard the 'Krondor' books as some of the worst of the lot.

He's been very prolific since his first book was published as well so he has no lack of work to read. I've also heard that some of his books were based on D&D campaigns.

Yes, like Erikson's 'Malazan', Fiests 'Midkemia' began as an original D&D campaign back in the 70's (AD&D hadn't been invented yet). Like Erikson, though with far fewer contradictions and self torture, Feist first modified and then largely abandoned the game framework, though the 'Thursday Nighters' made important contributions to the world. A few AD&D resource type deals featuring MidKemia did see print; somewhere around here I have 'Carse' and 'Tulan' (both cities of the western kingdom).

It was comparing Feists work with the olde TSR AD&D based novels which convinced me that games do not translate smoothly into fiction and vice versa. Feist did a superb job (early on, anyhow) by pretty much abandoning the game framework for his stories; the TSR authors stuck with the AD&D framework (or maybe they didn't have a choice), and turned out mostly substandard material.

 

[Philip Overby]

I can't comment on the Krondor books because I haven't read them, I just mentioned that it seemed like everywhere I went, I'd see those books. I believe they made a computer game out of them as well.

 

[ThinkerX]

I believe they made a computer game out of them as well.

Other way around. Somebody (with Feists permission) made a computer game set in Midkemia, and then Feist took the core of the game and turned it into a novel or three. The 'game' part really shows through in those books.

 

[Graylorne]

His first twelve books, that's up to the Serpentwar Saga, are to me among the greatest fantasy works ever. After that, his Krondor legacy books were competent, but no more than that. The three Legend books he wrote with others go from competent to bad. All later work is simply different - it lost me somewhere in the Darkwar Saga. Though I bought all following books (collector's habit) except the last one (waiting for the mass market edition).

But Shards of a Broken Crown was to me the last of the great books. It may be fanciful, but I always felt after that book (1998) the joy of writing them went out of it.

 

[ThinkerX]

His first twelve books, that's up to the Serpentwar Saga, are to me among the greatest fantasy works ever. After that, his Krondor legacy books were competent, but no more than that. The three Legend books he wrote with others go from competent to bad. All later work is simply different - it lost me somewhere in the Darkwar Saga. Though I bought all following books (collector's habit) except the last one (waiting for the mass market edition).

But Shards of a Broken Crown was to me the last of the great books. It may be fanciful, but I always felt after that book (1998) the joy of writing them went out of it.

I've written much the same elsewhere on this site, though I have a lower opinion of the 'Krondor' books.

He really should have called it quits with 'Shards of a Broken Crown', OR wrapped up everything in the first couple of 'Conclave of Shadows' books. Past 'Shards', while there are good scenes and interesting characters, there is also a lot of...poorly done writing.

 

[Graylorne]

Yes, Conclave of Shadows wasn't bad, for someone else, but it wasn't Feist. The rest lacked the color, the imagination of the earlier books. The fun, the high adventure was gone, somehow.

 

[Feo Takahari]

What do you folks think of the revisions he made to his very first books? I've only read the revised versions of Magician: Apprentice and Magician: Master, but there were parts where it seemed like he was George Lucasing it. (Like, there's one part where a main character has just done something really impressive but believable, and then a powerful old mage tells him, without any prior foreshadowing, that said mage was helping him all along, and that there's no way any normal human could have pulled it off unassisted. It reeks of "Oops, I established that was impossible in later books; better revise!")

 

[Graylorne]

I have both the original Magician and the revised edition from 1997 (still in one volume). It's a long time since I read either, so I don't remember that scene.
The foreword in my edition says that he indeed revised magical things like that, with the later books in mind. So you're probably right.