Scan barcode
rcrikkit's review against another edition
3.0
Well that was a beast to get through - 2 months. The last like 5 chapters were intense and I could understand some of the build up descriptions in order to feel more connected to the characters. I read this because I want to read The Elfstones, and I still plan to, but I'm glad I finally finished this one.
rkking's review against another edition
3.0
This book gets a ton of flack due to it's resemblance of Lord of the Rings. Yes, there are direct copies/doppelganger characters that are exactly like LotR (Shea=Frodo, Allanon=Gandalf, the Warlock Lord=Sauron etc) but at the same time I give these things a bit of a pass due to when it was written. It was the one real fantasy book that revitalized the genre long after LotR had passed over time. It brought MANY readers back into the realm of fantasy, which in turn allowed for further series by many authors to be told. Plus, further entries in this series actually veers FAR away from LotR with its post-apocalyptic earth setting etc. So it gets a pass on that from me, I mostly just wish Allanon didn't explain pretty much EVERYTHING the characters needed to know, it led to the most exposition I've ever heard...
This audiobook edition included annotations from Brooks that showed insight into various aspects of the writing of the book, which to me as a writer, I found interesting and preferred over another edition I might have obtained otherwise.
Join the RK King readers' list for an exclusive FREE short story, plus inside info, musings, promos and more: RK King Writes
This audiobook edition included annotations from Brooks that showed insight into various aspects of the writing of the book, which to me as a writer, I found interesting and preferred over another edition I might have obtained otherwise.
Join the RK King readers' list for an exclusive FREE short story, plus inside info, musings, promos and more: RK King Writes
katyanaish's review against another edition
2.0
Getting through this book was tough. I wanted to read it, because it's considered one of the classic staples of the genre (or so I've heard), but... it's dry. Really really dry.
Firstly, it is so obviously a retelling of Lord of the Rings that it was shocking. And secondly, like LotR (which I love), it is filled with miles of descriptions on every detail of every setting (which I skim, mostly, on re-reads).
It was so slow that I couldn't keep my attention on it for more than 20 min or so at a time. And that's so unusual for me - I plow through books at hyperspeed, generally. It felt like I had ADD or something.
So I was disappointed. Maybe it's just that this book was so a product of its time that it doesn't read well to modern audiences, which is fair. There are tons of books that were beloved in my youth that, as an adult I tried to re-read and regretted it horribly, because it destroyed the book for me (I'm looking at you, Dragonriders of Pern). But whatever the reason, I definitely won't be reading onward. I barely finished this one.
Firstly, it is so obviously a retelling of Lord of the Rings that it was shocking. And secondly, like LotR (which I love), it is filled with miles of descriptions on every detail of every setting (which I skim, mostly, on re-reads).
It was so slow that I couldn't keep my attention on it for more than 20 min or so at a time. And that's so unusual for me - I plow through books at hyperspeed, generally. It felt like I had ADD or something.
So I was disappointed. Maybe it's just that this book was so a product of its time that it doesn't read well to modern audiences, which is fair. There are tons of books that were beloved in my youth that, as an adult I tried to re-read and regretted it horribly, because it destroyed the book for me (I'm looking at you, Dragonriders of Pern). But whatever the reason, I definitely won't be reading onward. I barely finished this one.
aranafyre's review against another edition
3.0
I just do not like this book as much as everyone else. The first time I read it in high school I remember feeling like it was a poorly done Lord of the Rings rip off. I still feel that way. There is the mysterious, traveler Allanon (aka Gandalf), the south land were the people lived peaceful, seclude lives (the shire), the faithful Flick (Sam) so devoted to Shea (Frodo), the band of friends from all the races, the dark practically invincible Brona (Sauron), the skull bearers (nazghuls), the fight for Tyrese with the disfunctional, royal family (mix of Rohan and Gondor fights).
This time I particularly hated the verbose writing. (I know ironic since I love LOTR). I get Allanon needs to tell Shea about all the war of the races but can't he be more succinct. And there is just a lot of descriptions that are boring. I eventually started skipping paragraphs and I never do that. Also, Brooks uses third person omniscient but will flip character perspectives within a single paragraph. I found that annoying.
I reread this because it was a book of the month recently for Sword and Laser and there is the new TV show. I am glad to have refreshed my memory but I could have been reading something better. And while I remember liking the next books better, the memories are not found enough to have me reread them again now. I might only if it jumps to Will's story which I think it did jump a generation between the second or third book.
This time I particularly hated the verbose writing. (I know ironic since I love LOTR). I get Allanon needs to tell Shea about all the war of the races but can't he be more succinct. And there is just a lot of descriptions that are boring. I eventually started skipping paragraphs and I never do that. Also, Brooks uses third person omniscient but will flip character perspectives within a single paragraph. I found that annoying.
I reread this because it was a book of the month recently for Sword and Laser and there is the new TV show. I am glad to have refreshed my memory but I could have been reading something better. And while I remember liking the next books better, the memories are not found enough to have me reread them again now. I might only if it jumps to Will's story which I think it did jump a generation between the second or third book.
xavierdragnesi's review against another edition
2.0
I went into this book with no background about it aside from the knowledge that the series had been made into a show, but by all accounts it was quite a fantasy classic. So I had quite high hopes for The Sword of Shannara, but this one really didn't click for me.
Most of the criticism leveled against it seems to be due to its very heavy use of The Lord of the Rings as its source material. This I didn't actually mind that much, since there's a reason that Tolkien is as popular and influential as he is, and though the resulting plot is understandably unoriginal, it is still a good story. However such a close adaptation automatically invites comparison with the original, and in all respects, I feel like Brooks' work falls short.
The characters are less well rounded out and engaging, the plot is less cohesive, and the prose far more clunky. Even the world, although populated with a nice assortment of races and cultures, did not feel particularly well crafted, with some elements more fleshed out than others, and random bits of information which often seemed irrelevant. I also expected this interesting premise of a world 2000 years after a nuclear war to bring something extra to the standard fantasy setting, but there was little to be found. Brooks' narration style didn't help, with a weird third person omniscience sometimes jumping to character perspective which seemed to break up the narrative flow.
In saying that, The Sword of Shannara does have its moments, and the story is solid enough that I was able to finish it without feeling like it was a trial, so I won't relegate it to one star status. But it remains to be seen what Brooks can bring to the table in the rest of the trilogy to prove his place as a fantasy great.
Most of the criticism leveled against it seems to be due to its very heavy use of The Lord of the Rings as its source material. This I didn't actually mind that much, since there's a reason that Tolkien is as popular and influential as he is, and though the resulting plot is understandably unoriginal, it is still a good story. However such a close adaptation automatically invites comparison with the original, and in all respects, I feel like Brooks' work falls short.
The characters are less well rounded out and engaging, the plot is less cohesive, and the prose far more clunky. Even the world, although populated with a nice assortment of races and cultures, did not feel particularly well crafted, with some elements more fleshed out than others, and random bits of information which often seemed irrelevant. I also expected this interesting premise of a world 2000 years after a nuclear war to bring something extra to the standard fantasy setting, but there was little to be found. Brooks' narration style didn't help, with a weird third person omniscience sometimes jumping to character perspective which seemed to break up the narrative flow.
In saying that, The Sword of Shannara does have its moments, and the story is solid enough that I was able to finish it without feeling like it was a trial, so I won't relegate it to one star status. But it remains to be seen what Brooks can bring to the table in the rest of the trilogy to prove his place as a fantasy great.
book_badger's review against another edition
adventurous
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
sarah_j_r's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
geekwayne's review against another edition
3.0
As a reader, they tell you not to reread books you cherished as a child, so I felt pretty safe when my book club picked 'The Sword of Shannara' by Terry Brooks. I remember liking the book, but not having much more impression than that. I wondered how myself as an older reader would react.
At the time the book was published I was an early teen and heavily into SF. I primarily liked science fiction, but occasionally delved into fantasy. The grandfather of epic fantasy was (and still is) Lord of the Rings, and I devoured it, along with any Robert Howard stories. I also liked the Fafhrd and the grey mouser stories by Lieber. When 'The Sword of Shannara' arrived, it promised the sort of epic storytelling that I wanted more of after reading Tolkien. Since I also picked books based on page length, I like the massive 700 page book. It also included some full page paintings by the Brothers Hildebrandt who had put out Tolkien calendars.
The problem with wishing for more of something is the need to make comparisons. The new thing can only hope to measure up, and this book felt a bit like a tarnished copy. I still remember devouring it, but while I bought the next book, I don't remember finishing it.
It's a first book, and has it's flaws. For it's time, it feels right, but by today's standards, it doesn't have the sarcasm or violence that we've come to expect. Also, in the entire 700 pages, there is only one female character, and she is there simply to be rescued. My younger self didn't seem to have a problem with this, but my older self does.
So, do we judge a book based on it's time, or how it holds up? Do we unfairly compare it to ideals it can't hope to attain or the feelings it gave us a younger and first time reader?
It's a long book, and the word 'valeman' appears much too often (also the word 'stocky'), but for it's time it gave me more of what I wanted. I enjoyed my reread, and judging by the number of books in the series at this time, someone out there must really like it. I've read later works by Terry Brooks, and, thankfully, his writing improved. I've met him and he's a nice man, and gets trashed way too much by fandom for simply giving us more of what we wanted.
Be careful what you wish for, dear reader. You just might get it.
At the time the book was published I was an early teen and heavily into SF. I primarily liked science fiction, but occasionally delved into fantasy. The grandfather of epic fantasy was (and still is) Lord of the Rings, and I devoured it, along with any Robert Howard stories. I also liked the Fafhrd and the grey mouser stories by Lieber. When 'The Sword of Shannara' arrived, it promised the sort of epic storytelling that I wanted more of after reading Tolkien. Since I also picked books based on page length, I like the massive 700 page book. It also included some full page paintings by the Brothers Hildebrandt who had put out Tolkien calendars.
The problem with wishing for more of something is the need to make comparisons. The new thing can only hope to measure up, and this book felt a bit like a tarnished copy. I still remember devouring it, but while I bought the next book, I don't remember finishing it.
It's a first book, and has it's flaws. For it's time, it feels right, but by today's standards, it doesn't have the sarcasm or violence that we've come to expect. Also, in the entire 700 pages, there is only one female character, and she is there simply to be rescued. My younger self didn't seem to have a problem with this, but my older self does.
So, do we judge a book based on it's time, or how it holds up? Do we unfairly compare it to ideals it can't hope to attain or the feelings it gave us a younger and first time reader?
It's a long book, and the word 'valeman' appears much too often (also the word 'stocky'), but for it's time it gave me more of what I wanted. I enjoyed my reread, and judging by the number of books in the series at this time, someone out there must really like it. I've read later works by Terry Brooks, and, thankfully, his writing improved. I've met him and he's a nice man, and gets trashed way too much by fandom for simply giving us more of what we wanted.
Be careful what you wish for, dear reader. You just might get it.