BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
No, you aren't... Trust me, it's not all that great.
Good to know I wasn't the only one. They weren't bad books; I just felt they got repetitive.
No, you aren't... Trust me, it's not all that great.
BTW, am I the only one that didn't think the Codex Alera series was all that great?
Two takeaways, for me at least:
1. Don't obsess over your idea.
2. Any time spent trying futilely to come up with an original idea is time that you aren't spending either executing or improving your ability to execute.
BTW, am I the only one that didn't think the Codex Alera series was all that great?
Haven't read them. I do like The Dresden Files, however. Those are fun.
Good to know I wasn't the only one. They weren't bad books; I just felt they got repetitive.
While the "magic system" was something new (to me), I felt the story was bland and I found none of the characters compelling.
Repetitive how?
Haven't read them. I do like The Dresden Files, however. Those are fun.
Repetitive how? The plot was interesting, the characters were very clever, especially Tavi. And the power levels go through the roof at some points. As fantasy books go, it's fairly flawless. Tons of epic moments sprinkled throughout. It's my barometer for what modern fantasy should be.
Except it is from what I have read on plot synopsis alone. It suffers the same way Drake's Greek inspired series does. Every character finds themselves in an almost copy/paste situation where they go through almost the same scenario and achieve a modicum sliver of growth with very little denouement.
Prompt writing is fine, and if it were interesting enough to keep my attention through a random slave riding on a bull for no reason, I'd give it a go. However, prompt writing can only go so far if you have nothing interesting to it or structure for a good story. This is why I say EXECUTION of the process is far more important than the idea.
Sadly, he doesn't have it. He can try it, but he doesn't have it. Needs more prompts or schooling on outlining and story structure/hooking from the start of the novel.
Repetitive how? The plot was interesting, the characters were very clever, especially Tavi. And the power levels go through the roof at some points. As fantasy books go, it's fairly flawless. Tons of epic moments sprinkled throughout. It's my barometer for what modern fantasy should be.
... I have no words. Not compelling? Tavi alters the course of wars and takes down people far more powerful than him using nothing but his wits- and then he gets superpowers! What about that isn't compelling? He negotiated with implacable barbarians. He defeated a numberless horde. He broke into an unbreachable prison. Twice. This guy is Theseus and Percy Jackson and Batman all rolled into one. How is that not compelling? The secondary characters are interesting too. Gaius Octavian, Warmaster Varg, Fidelias, plus the villains of the piece, the calculating Invidia Aquitaine, the ruthless Lord Kalarus, the cold, inhuman Vord Queen. My only complaint is that Butcher may have given a little too much time to Tavi's romantic relationship with Kitai. But other than that, flawless.
I'm not going to say the plot wasn't good, I just didn't like (or dislike) the characters.
There are some books where there are several POV's and some POV's I enjoy, and some POV's I just plow through to get back to the POV's I liked. This series made me feel like I was just plowing through POV's without really caring who was up next because I wasn't really enjoying any of them.
Now, keep in mind, I finished the series - which is more than I can say for some (Yes, I'm looking at you, Terry Goodkind).
The Dresden Files are some kind of detective novels with a supernatural/fantasy twist, right? I just never could get into detective novels; don't know why.
What did you not like about them exactly? I'll grant you this is not an "emotional" series, but I'm not sure that's grounds to dislike the characters.
To be quite honest, I very much enjoy characters which aren't perfect, which make the wrong decision, or sometimes make the right decision and it goes horribly wrong. I always felt that Tavi and his Uncle were just too perfect and were always going to end up doing the noble thing. This is why I don't like Richard Rahl, or Drizzt, or many others.
Some of my favorite characters are Durzo Blint (Night Angel Trilogy), Logen Ninefingers (First Law Trilogy), Kvothe (Name of the Wind) or most any of the characters from Glen Cook's Black Company series. They are all fundamentally flawed and sometimes just don't do the right thing.
To be clear, I am not here crapping on a series you like; just voicing my opinion on why I didn't enjoy it.
I haven't read the series either, but I think you should probably read more than a handful of pages before invalidating the whole series. In any case, I think a good idea can hook a reader, but it's great execution that keeps a reader. There are tons of novels I've read that weren't "hooky" enough, but I stuck with them either because:
a. people kept telling me "No, stick with it!"
b. I felt like the execution was good enough to keep with it
c. I thought the idea was good enough to see where it went
Codex Alera has been recommended to me many times. Each reader is their own judge of what they think is good or bad execution. At the end of the day, as a reader and a writer, you have to make your own decisions and not worry what others say. Which has inspired me to start a new thread. Coming soon...
I will reply over at the other thread for most of this, but if a writer cannot understand the basics of opening a story or executing it within reason, either they need to look at how screenwriters do it or they co-write with someone who can.
And it is my right to invalidate anything. I've invalidated Sanderson's career for the three sentences I read in The Way of Kings.
That's a tad self-righteous isn't it?