Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

The Riftwar series has all of the classic fantasy elements: elves, goblins, dwarves, magic. In a lot of ways it’s your standard young hero / quest situation. For some people, this will be a negative. It’s been done before, again and again, and they want something all new. What’s your stance?

How do you feel about the classic fantasy elements, in general? Do you like a novel to have the trifecta of non-human inhabitants, or do you prefer it without?

Do you like the magic system in the Riftwar series?

What similarities, if any, do you notice between Magician: Apprentice and other fantasy novels you've read? What unique elements do you notice?

Are spoilers allowed &, if so, how far - just this book?

Spoilers are always allowed, as long as they are marked with the new spoiler tag.

And if you want to make it easier for people, list where the spoiler is for so they know if they can open in. Like this..

Spoilers through chapter 3 under the link: (view spoiler)[not really a spoiler, just an example :) (hide spoiler)].

About the elves...(view spoiler)[I liked that there were both good & bad elves. It's a little simplistic, but too often in fantasies, a race is all good or bad. There was a back story that slowly emerged on the schism which lent a bit more depth. (hide spoiler)]

Jim,

(view spoiler)[I like that as well. It seems like so often with fantasy novels that have elves and goblins and trolls and dwarves, the races are very stereotypical. Elves a good and light on their feet, dwarves are good and are hearty gruff worker types, goblins are bad and greedy, trolls are bad and dim witted. Oh and men.. Men are like the plague and only care for themselves. It's nice to see some bad elves in the mix! (hide spoiler)]

I have noticed that this story (as far I've read so far) has a typical fantasy plot, with all of the races that come with it. There's always bound to be griping that it's been done before, but I think as long as the story is well told and different than ones before, it is still a valid story. There's always the maxim that history repeats itself, wouldn't that be true in stories as well? I think using elves and dwarves and such and building upon existing ideas about them can be a very useful and fulfilling experience as long as they're not exactly like ones that have shown up in other stories. It's also nice to have those subtle differences in the races that make the character unique to this particular story.

Sometimes I wonder, though, why there can't be certain events where it seems like something catastrophic might happen (based on previous knowledge) but then it works out ok. Not the entire story, that would be boring, buy maybe a single event such as a journey or something. That would be surprising in its own way.

This may just be me, but I think it is important to remember when books were written before making sweeping judgements about whether or not it was all done before.

My edition of the book has 1982 as the copyright date, so things were a lot less "done before" than we might consider today, almost 30 years later.

Kerry wrote: "This may just be me, but I think it is important to remember when books were written before making sweeping judgements about whether or not it was all done before.

My edition of the book has 198..."

I thought about that later, and remembered that my book has a publication date of '91. (I have the revised version). It was marked as the 10th anniversay edition, so that put it older. This makes sense that this was one of those books that were done first before it was "done before". It's a matter of perspective for me. I didn't read it when it came out, so everything I have read before it has influenced what I've read after.

I still like them and am enjoying the book so far.

Kerry wrote: "This may just be me, but I think it is important to remember when books were written before making sweeping judgements about whether or not it was all done before.

My edition of the book has 198..."

Yet even if it was written in 1982, that doesn't change the fact that a lot of it was done before. Maybe not done to death yet, but not 100% original either. But in these days, what is 100% original?

For some people, even having read something similar once will turn them off to seeing the same elements again. For some, like me, it doesn't matter so much. My point in creating this thread was to find out what side of the fence we are all on.

And also, like Amelia, I think each persons reading order has a lot to do with it. This series was one of my first fantasy reads, so it was all new to me. I had never read LoTR, so there was no comparison to be drawn. Others will obviously have read this after reading a lot of similar stories, and that may affect their opinion of it.

For the record, I wasn't trying to make a "sweeping judgment" as to whether or not it has been done before, and if that's a bad thing or not. I was putting forth both sides of the issue for discussion, as it is something that is often brought up, correct or not. Which would be why I said "for some people" that's the thought process, rather than stating it as fact.

I always thought Tolkien was original with his 'orcs'. Nope. Turns out Beowulf had them, too.

There was a big flap when they changed the copyright laws a while back. Spider Robinson wrote a short story about it Melancholy Elephants (the title story). The point being that all art is derivative & by protecting too many rights for too long, artistic expression could be strangled to death.

It's a fine line & it will vary for everyone. A lot of folks like The Sword of Shannara. I hated it. It read too much like the Lord of the Rings to me.

Whereas Shannara was the very first fantasy novel I ever read, so it was all new to be and I loved it. I'm planning on trying a reread later this year, I'm curious to see if I still like it!

I think what's more interesting is what changes through the history of the books. Without giving anything away, while elves are always sort of around (at least in a minor way), at some point in the broader series Feist probably goes at least 8 to 10 consecutive books without even mentioning the existence of the dwarves, although they do eventually show up again.

If I recall correctly, one of the early scenes in Magician: Apprentice is (view spoiler)[Pug fighting a pair of trolls...I don't believe trolls appear again in any of the other books. They're simply forgotten and/or ignored (hide spoiler)].

Series spoiler: (view spoiler)[One of the things I like most about Feist's elves is all of the different types (so to speak) there are. I can't remember all the names now, but there are subsets of them living everywhere, with slight differences to each culture. I really liked learning about all of them. (hide spoiler)]

Hehe, it's pretty funny to check into a thread and see nothing but

John - (view spoiler)[spoiler (hide spoiler)]!

Jim wrote: "I always thought Tolkien was original with his 'orcs'. Nope. Turns out Beowulf had them, too..."

Well not exactly, the word in Beowulf was ´Ç°ù³¦²Ôŧ²¹²õ a compound pleural meaning evil spirits, walking corpses. While Tolkienian orcs are certainly evil, they are not spirits (or demons), but creatures of living flesh. The 'orc' in '´Ç°ù³¦²Ôŧ²¹²õ' very likely derives from the Latin orcus, death or underworld.

But the use of 'orc' in Tolkien's sense was used before The Hobbit, 1937. The OED lists 4 uses, most recently to Tolkien in 1865: Hereward the Last of the English an historical fiction by Charles Kingsley: "...But beyond, things unspeakable—dragons, giants, orcs,..."—all creatures of the flesh.

Tolkien himself felt the 'modern' usages derived from the Old English orc meaning demon: "Orcs (the word is as far as I am concerned actually derived from Old English orc ‘demon�, but only because of its phonetic suitability)."

In any case the Biblical quote: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." is most certainly true for literature.

Dawn wrote: "Whereas Shannara was the very first fantasy novel I ever read, so it was all new to be and I loved it. I'm planning on trying a reread later this year, I'm curious to see if I still like it!"

And this was the way of things for modern epic fantasy for those reading it in real time. After finishing LOTR one longed for more and Shannara filled that gap 1st, IIRC. Riftwar came a few years after, was much better than Shannara to most people and the continuing sequels to Shannara started getting panned.

I really enjoyed the 1st Shannara trilogy, likely because there was nothing else, but have no desire to reread it. At the same time The Sword of Shannara came out Piers Anthony published the 1st Xanth novel, A Spell for Chameleon which was a delight, but not epic fantasy that takes itself seriously.

Cherryh's Gate of Ivrel, the 1st novel in The Book of Morgaine was released the year before Sword of Shannara. Though designed as SF, it read like fantasy, was also a wonderful read, but did not satisfy the need for more Tolkien.

There was also a resurrection of older 'fantasies' during that period between the US release of LOTR and Shannare, like CS Lewis' Narnia (too childish) and Perelandra (too SF). It is when I discovered Gormanghast and other even older fantasies.

Can anyone remember any other epic fantasies between US LOTR and Shannara?

Well personally, I don't know about waiting around for something like LoTR to come out. I was born a year after Magician was released (it was released in 1982 I believe, I was born in 1983), and obviously it was quite a few years after that before I got into reading. All I know is that Shannara was my first, Feist second, and to this day they remain my favorites. Later, when I tried to read LoTR, I was pretty bored by it. Maybe because I had already read so much that was similar to it, maybe it just wasn't my thing. Either way, I think it's all about reading order.

Kernos wrote: "Dawn wrote: "Whereas Shannara was the very first fantasy novel I ever read, so it was all new to be and I loved it. I'm planning on trying a reread later this year, I'm curious to see if I still li..."

Yes, clearly.

Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea
Stephen R. Donaldson

Urshurak came out about then, too, to much hype.
There was also Joy Chant - AWESOME. She did too few books.
Evangeline Walton.

Both of those released at the tail end of the Ballantine Fantasy Series that revived a lot of earlier classics/

Both preceded Shannara. I recall HUNGRILY pursuing the paperback bookstore shelves weekly, hoping for more...this was before the internet. One went to SEE what was released each month.

When was David Eddings Belgariad series published? Would this have come out around this time or is it a bit later?

Amelia wrote: "When was David Eddings Belgariad series published? Would this have come out around this time or is it a bit later?"

Bit later, if I recall...but (perhaps, I'd have to go upstairs and check copyright dates) may have been just ahead of Shannara...the wave prior...I suppose GR's listings of titles here would say which came first. Those were certainly in the pack of redoing the done - with NO disrespect to those who love them...I think the Great Epic (coming of age quest) is beloved always, and you love the one you found first - which ever wicket you went through becomes IT, and everything since pales.

Though, frankly, Tolkien DID the great epic - his notably was NOT a coming of age quest....it differs there markedly. The 'hobbits' were not children.

I can say this about Shannara: I sat next to Terry Brooks at a signing at a DragonCon a few years back - he had a huge line of readers, all of whom loved his work deeply. What struck me, catching bits of the conversations to the side:

That line had a LOT of fathers and sons!!!! Older people and teens - what they all were telling Mr Brooks: "I found these books and fell in love with them at a certain age and stage in life - and YOU were the author who got me into reading/introduced me to fantasy" - the nostalgia factor was huge. More: the ones who were bringing their sons: "When my boy was not interested in reading, I gave him your books - presto, he loved them as I did!"

That gave an interesting perspective on why this work is so well loved - as an entry to the field, it provided these people a spectacular experience. It was all new, and the story, well told enough to catch.

Perhaps so, it did not work so well for people who had seen ANOTHER book or series at the impressionable moment....this book, as an after take, didn't capture the same magic, for them.

One of the books I read recently had a world where creativity was extremely discouraged and the government had even selected only 100 past works (poetry, songs, art, history, etc.) that their populous could read or learn about. This wasn't one of the main points of the book, but it was really the most disturbing to me. I think of all of the wonderful richness of our society of all forms and can't really imagine a world where we can't read what we want to - things from hundreds of years ago to what is currently being written. I'm glad that authors can choose to write similar stories and that we as intelligent human beings can decide what we want to read.

To some Tolkien is the best thing ever, but I know many people who just couldn't get into his stories. Perhaps if they read some of these other stories, they would be able to enjoy the progeny of Tolkien and perhaps return to Tolkien someday.

Amelia wrote: "One of the books I read recently had a world where creativity was extremely discouraged and the government had even selected only 100 past works (poetry, songs, art, history, etc.) that their popul..."

Scary, YES, about where the government selects - I went to Russia just after diplomatic relations were restored, and well before the Iron Curtain dropped. (You left the airport through a gamut of soldiers with MACHINE GUNS pointed 45 degrees, HARROWING, yes, your rooms were bugged, and you were watched everywhere you went)

Anyway - as an artist/hugely interested in books, I chose to go into Russian bookshops, and I came home with many childrens' books for their illustrations: here's the scary part. THEY ALL LOOKED THE SAME. The art was One style, could have been all done by one person...anything ANYTHING that looked creatively different (I asked) was a 'traditional' fairy tale, with art done long and long before - so the pictures were 'traditional' art.

When the STate decides who goes to art school and who gets published - it makes everything numbingly THE SAME.

Even the packaging on the cans of food was just - like your senses had been injected with novocaine. Dull. The Same.

A free society - you may HATE a lot of what you see, you may detest what you see as commercial barrage - BUT - in it, you are free to choose. It is loud, noisy, greedy, altruistic, colorful, material - but OH so artistically varied. I have seen this immense vibrancy of variety in a totally different light, ever since: give me the good and the bad, and let me choose my preference, give me ALL THAT LIFE, even if parts of it are not to my liking.

Range of choice is a huge gift we too often take for granted.

Janny wrote: "Amelia wrote: "One of the books I read recently had a world where creativity was extremely discouraged and the government had even selected only 100 past works (poetry, songs, art, history, etc.) t..."

I've heard other stories from people who visited Russia during that time. Sounds like quite the visit. I bet it's somthing you'll never forget.

I lived in former East Germany about 10 years after the wall came down. The people there were still getting used to the variety they had now. I heard several people complain that now there were too many choices. That's what scares me too. If our choices become limited or taken away completely, our creativity and imagination is diminished.

Edding's Belgariad came out in 1982, I think. I seem to recall Marg starting it about the time one of the boys was born. Shannara was earlier - 70's? I think I read it as a teenager, but well after reading the LOTR.

Amelia wrote: "Janny wrote: "Amelia wrote: "One of the books I read recently had a world where creativity was extremely discouraged and the government had even selected only 100 past works (poetry, songs, art, hi..."

Searing. I will never forget.

There are immigrants from Russia here, helped all the time by selfless volunteers - who barricade themselves into their houses in terror of shopping....in Russia, then, you stood in line FOUR HOURS to get what the 'supermarket' had to eat. No choice. You ate what they had.

This trip - I went to see art collections in museums, primarily - was JUST LIKE HAVING YOUR NERVES INJECTED WITH NOVOCAINE. And your eyes. And your awareness. Like living under a blanket of black gauze. Drab sameness, and dull lack of hope - what animated the people the state gave us to 'show us their country' was bare, fanatical ideology.

WE escaped that leash, because we had a native Russian speaker among us - but the edgy feel of being out of the coop, and the way we were - gently, politely asked what we had been doing after - this was my only trip abroad EVER where the entire plane of people burst out cheering and clapping the instant the wheels cleared the runway - totally spontaneous joy to be OUT OF THERE.

Notwithstanding the cultural treasures (Russian and other) that we saw and the people we experienced, there.

Jim wrote: "Edding's Belgariad came out in 1982, I think. I seem to recall Marg starting it about the time one of the boys was born. Shannara was earlier - 70's? I think I read it as a teenager, but well aft..."

I believe it was 1977. I only remember that because I read Sword of Shannara and Lord Foul's Bane almost simultaneously because they were published in the same year. And possibly the first Xanth book as well (although that could have been later in the 80s ... I'll have to go check the publication date on A Spell for Chameleon).**

But, hey, we've gotten completely off the topic of Elves, Goblins and Dwarves! :)

And on a completely different tangent, what is the proper spelling for the plural of 'dwarf'? My spellchecker refuses to accept 'dwarves'.

** Just checked ... Xanth #1 was also published in 1977 ... what a great year for SF & Fantasy (think 'May the Force Be With You!') :)

OK, I had to look it up. According to Fantastic Fiction, The Sword of Shannara (1977) & Pawn of Prophecy (1982). It's funny how we remember when they came out. Connecting the birth of a kid with a fantasy book probably isn't normal.
;-)

I wouldn't say it's off topic at all! I just made the thread as a general side discussion starter, feel free to meander all you want :)

Dwarves. Hmm, my spell check doesn't like it either. But I'm pretty sure that's the right way!

Dawn wrote: "Dwarves. Hmm, my spell check doesn't like it either. But I'm pretty sure that's the right way!"

I thought dwarfs is correct, but Tolkein made a point that linguistically, he felt he'd rather use dwarves; and it stuck.

Dwarves just looked right to me, I never even thought to check!

Well I use Firefox and its spell checker is a complete idiot, so I wouldn't let that stop me. I would think either dwarfs or dwarves would be correct, although it's now underlining dwarves.

Dawn wrote: "Dwarves. Hmm, my spell check doesn't like it either. But I'm pretty sure that's the right way!"

Didn't Tolkien in an appendix demand that 'dwarves' was the correct spelling? I wonder if was being linguistic or literary. I've added it to my spellcheckers.

Interestingly, 'dwarves' is not in the OED online, even though Tolkien was a contributor, but it is included as one of the plurals, though dwarfs is 1st at .

In the OED etymology section it says "But the plural dweoras became dwerwhes, dwerwes, dwerows, dwarrows... which may be a reason Tolkien used 'dwarves' though he actually considered 'dwarrows' the correct pleural. [see ]

Like elves being tall and beautiful, Tolkien rules, IMO. (Sorry for the OT, but I love words.)

Kernos wrote: "Dawn wrote: "Dwarves. Hmm, my spell check doesn't like it either. But I'm pretty sure that's the right way!"

Didn't Tolkien in an appendix demand that 'dwarves' was the correct spelling? I wonder ..."

There you go. Remembered that. Of course you'd recall WHERE Tolkein said that. (I also have a copy of his published book of letters - so wasn't sure where to start looking for the reference.)

And I just had another completely spurious thought.

If dwarfs is acceptable as a plural of dwarf, why is elfs not for elf?

::chuckling::

Jon wrote: "And I just had another completely spurious thought.

If dwarfs is acceptable as a plural of dwarf, why is elfs not for elf?

::chuckling::"

The insanity of the English language.

Janny wrote: "...Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea
Stephen R. Donaldson

Urshurak came out about then, too, to much hype.
There was also Joy Chant - AWESOME. She did too few books.
Evangeline Walton...."

Of course Earthsea published in 1968, but I didnt read it until the '80s and again after the TV miniseries. With Donaldson I have a love/hate relationship and was never sure I was enjoying myself. But, I have strong images of his world in my mind—Complex Noir Fantasy, worth a re-read probably.

Evangeline Walton was a wonderful discovery. At the time I 1st read her ('70s) the only available translation of The Mabinogion was that by Lady Charlotte Guest done between 1838 and 1849 and not very readable or accurate. The last 2 decades have seen several modern translations written in modern English and a lot more approachable. But, Walton brought the tales to life as only a novelist can do. Even so they feel dated and were based on Guest including all of her mistakes and I wish somebody new would novelize these great Welsh myths. BTW, the sources for these tales are the "Red Book of Hergest" and the "The White Book of Rhydderch" which one wonders might have been penned by Bilbo and Frodo in the Third Age of Middle Earth...

I have not read Urshurak but well remember the wonderful Tolkien calendars done by the Brothers Hildebrandt. I still have many packed away somewhere.