Fantasy Book Club discussion

Now that the final book of the series, Magician's End, is due for publication, I was wondering why during the current revival of Fantasy literature that his books are never mentioned in discussions of the classics. For thirty years now, Raymond Feist has without fail added to his extremely grand scale overarching story with novels and subseries all towards a definitive end. It seems to me that when discussing authors like Robert Jordan or Stephen Erickson with their long series, it would make sense to add Ray Feist whose storyline stretches out over more than double the length of books that Jordan/Sanderson have produced. Certainly not all of Feist's books have been of equal quality but the last six leading up to the final book show him back to his best form.

Is Ray Feist "forgotten" or is he simply not trendy to the media that is currently focused on, for example, George R.R. Martin or Joe Abercrombie?

He was one of my first fantasy authors. I'm planning a huge reread of the whole series in the near future.

I just finished Magician: Apprentice, and I really liked it.

I have reread his books many times he is my favourite author along with terry pratchett

Among "serious" Fantasy fans, Feist seems to be regarded as a guilty pleasure. Sort of a notch above RPG novels (I suppose because the Midkemia world came from an RPG -- of which I own a couple of modules).

I have read the first couple books of the Riftwar Saga and really liked it. This is when Feist first began the Series. Other books came along and I never got around to finishing.

I disagree about them being RPG......I believe the books were written first.
*shrug*

Eh...so I was wrong. But it still didn't influence me.
Midkemia ... a replacement for D & D .....how widespread was it?

Not widespread at all although nerds like me who hung out in game stores knew about it.

:)

Maybe someone just needs to start nominating him for reads in a group.

Or start a buddy read.

The first group of books were great, then, somewhere along the line it seemed that he quit telling a great story and was trying to make a game/novel, the dialogue became very stilted and formulaic, but, I agree, in the last couple of books, it appears that he has gotten back to his roots. I look forward to seeing how it ends.?....

I don't think Feist went any further off the mark than Jordan did after book four or five of his series. Feist did stick to a tried and true formula but I never found his books lacking for action whereas I found Jordan's books eventually got to the point where there just was not a whole heck of a lot going on to warrant a four inch thick brick.

And, Feist has finished a large number of series . . . He just wrote in the same world.

And, I do agree with Thomas - I read several of them - They just started sounding trite.

I've always enjoyed them and own them all. Yes, they are formulaic, but I guess that's one of the things I enjoy about them. It's like eating a well liked meal. I always know what I'm going to get when I pick up one of his books.

I prefer L.E. Modesitt, Jr.'s Recluce books, though.

Riftwar as a whole is a very good series, but Magician all by itself is a classic :)

I've read them all - some are better than others. My favorite was "Rise of a Merchant Prince"

I picked up Magician recently not having grown up with it and after reading GRRM, Robin Hobb, Erikson, etc. I was very underwhelmed with pretty much all aspects of it. It's similar to my reaction when I read Belgariad. Who knows, maybe the later books are improved? If it were just being written today I don't think it would be very well received.

I've read him over the years, some I liked, some not so much. Still, I would try the first book of a series and go from there. Overall, I'd give him a 3.5 rating. I like his characters for the most part, and the length of his novels is good.

I enjoyed his Talon of the Silver Hawk arc

I think he's good, but I don't him up there as a master of the genre (e.g., Tolkien would qualify as a master). But I do like that he finishes things, which is a much overlooked quality nowadays.

I just never thought he was very good, right from the start. One of the few things I can remember about the Magician books was how a major turning point scene, where a magician learns his true name, was just tossed off in a sentence or two. I hope in his long career he's learned to write better than that. Was he also the one who wrote those rather undistinguished Midkemia books?

I love Raymond E. Feist, I have followed him since his first three books the Rift War Saga where complete. I think he was a master of his own story but he had some very large pitfalls along the way.

While I disagree with some of the critics here I don't think all of them are completely wrong. I don't think his work should be classified as young adult but I do believe it can be enjoyed by both young adult and adults. I also believe that if it was written today it would probably have about the same level of success but with more critics because I believe there are many more people into fantasy then when this series was first written and that the large majority of those fans tend toward the grim dark or what is referred to as more realistic fantasy so it would never receive the popularity of George R. Martin but there is a fan base for his writing that would still gravitate to it.


I personally think of his style and others from the time period such as David Eddings, Robert Jordan, or from earlier such as J.R. Tolkien as pure fantasy. By this I do not mean it is better then today's style, I personally can enjoy both types. What I mean is that they do not need to be grounded down by what we feel is realistic in our own world I always felt that the characters and events in what I call pure fantasy are realistic within their own worlds, so if the characters or events do not always act as I think they might in our own world I have usually without really thinking about it put this down to the fact that they are not characters in our world but are characters in a different world with a different culture and history and laws of nature and if all the gaps are not filled in my imagination has always obliged me by filling in the details.

Having said all that I think there are a few things more seriously wrong with some individual books in Raymond's series then compared to say Robert Jordan. I think even though Robert Jordan had some books that received lower ratings that all of his WOT series was written with equal skill. I think that his main failing was that when certain books had been released fans had been waiting with incredible anticipation to see certain issues resolved, many where angry because they where not and they new it would be years more before they would receive the next book. I think that in years to come we will find fans who did not have to wait for the next book will not really notice as much but there will always be those who think his book's had to much description. I also think people will notice more the difference in style after Brandon Sanderson took up the task of finishing WOT, don't get me wrong I think he did an incredible job finishing it and I love him for it but I think we would have had something even more wonderful if it had been finished by Robert Jordan but that I think may come down to personal taste at the end of the day. I can see arguments from some that it might have been better if Sanderson had penned the whole thing.

In contrast to that I think that Raymond E Feist just had some books that where badly written. Overall his books where I felt written with a certain quality and skill but there where a few that just felt very different. First there are his collaborations, the ones with Jany Wurts turned out great aside from that I have only read one other of them and it was not at all what I felt A Feist book should be but that can be forgiven since it was actually penned by somebody else. Then we move on to his Krondor series at least one of these books read like Feist to me and at least one very much did not. It has been awhile since I read them so I can't elaborate with more detail. In addition there was at least one or two books from his last two series that also did not at all have what I expected from Feist in quality. Also there was one of his last books that was loaded with editorial errors, I enjoyed the book myself and it felt like Feist style but there was a very large number of errors that disappointed many fans. As A personal opinion those few books that I felt where not up to Feist quality where so different in style to me that I truly believe they may have been ghost written.

At the end of the day because of those few books that where so different from what I felt was his normal skill he falls just short of the very few I would put on the master list, but also saying that I could place authors whose stories I don't like as much on a masters list because I can see their quality even if I don't enjoy their story quite as much.

I look at it as progression - there wouldn't be any Martin's or Abercrombie's if it wasn't for earlier writers - everyone builds on what comes before.

There are very few writers who are true masters (and who gets to decide who is a master).

IMHO Feist is 10 times the writer Martin will ever be and 100 times the writer that Abercrombie will ever be.
I find Feist fun and entertaining with great characters and interesting plots.
I find Martin to be boring, predictable and oh did I say boring.
Abercrombie I find to be just a bad writer.
BUT that's just my opinion - I know tons of people that like Martin and Abercrombie.
I consider Feist to be a Master of the Craft (and I have yet to meet a person in real life that hasn't loved his work) but what do I know.

Nice conversation thread - everyone has great opinions and thoughts, really enjoying them.

Scott wrote: "I look at it as progression - there wouldn't be any Martin's or Abercrombie's if it wasn't for earlier writers - everyone builds on what comes before.

There are very few writers who are true maste..."

You raise a very good point here. I'm a fan of horror fiction, and you can clearly see how the genre has built itself up from the gothic days to the early 20th century and through to now. Lovecraft, for example, wrote an essay discussing precisely how the field had, in his view, evolved, and I know that writers like King and Lumley are very much aware of how they have built on the work of others. I'd love to see a detailed study of how fantasy of the past 20 years has evolved from earlier work. Obviously, everyone acknowledges the influence of Tolkien, but there are other writers who've been highly influential, and while I don't consider Feist as part of the very highest echelon of fantasy writers, I do rate him highly and I do think he has been quite influential.

Admittedly, Feist's work has flaws, but I'm sure that all works do on some level. The perception is in the experience of the reader. Jordan is too long winded, Martin is too rapey and kill-happy, Abercrombie is too nihilistic, Eddings and Brooks are too samey. There are endless criticisms of authors who are considered stalwarts of the genre. Even someone like Elizabeth Moon, whose Paks books are considered a cut above the rest, is not immune to some criticism.

The way I see Feist's Midekemia series is the way I see a show like Star Trek or, more apt, a soap opera. The setting is familiar and becomes an old friend. Some characters, like Pug, hang around from beginning to end. Others show up, endear themselves, and then grow old and die. It's an interesting thing he's done to have the stars of one trilogy as old men in the next. The loss a reader feels when a character passes away of old age is something unique to the experience of reading a series. Many trilogies or even long running series are narrowly focused in time. Either that or the characters miraculously don't age in a logical way. The example that comes to mind is the Nero Wolfe books by Rex Stout. Age is not mentioned even though decades pass.

In this one regard, I consider Feist somewhat unique.

I certainly wouldn't say overlooked - they gave him a computer game way back in '94 or so.

I wouldn't call him a master, more like a journeyman - he has regularly produced readable novels for 30 something years. He has his Midkemia and while it is obviously heavily influenced by Tolkien, he managed to do something very interesting with the Rift Wars and the culture of Kelewan on the other side.

I really enjoyed the first book Magician and the story of Pug and Tomas and their eventual maturing into powerful almost godlike men while maintaining their boyhood friendship. I stopped reading him after about 9 books because as the Midkemian years passed and the stories focused on different characters, none of them appealed to me as much as those 2, though the stories were still pretty good. And the Empire trilogy set in Kelewan written with Janny Wurtz is still one of my favorites.

I do want to read them all again someday, now that he has completed the series. So a master? Maybe not, but definitely a competent and enduring contributor to the Fantasy genre.

I won't go into the 94 top ways that Abercrombie fails as a writer because That does nothing but cause divide and tension - let's just leave it at "tastes vary"

I think Abercrombie is a good writer and I love his books a lot. The only thing that often seems excessive is the aforementioned nihilism. I like dark and I like noir but his books really take it to another depth.

I do think he is a bad writer, I could point out many things that he does wrong that are taught in Writing 101 - I do not think he's a bad writer because he's too dark - I think he's a bad writer because of the mistakes he makes (and doesn't correct). I'm not going to post in this thread again because I really don't want to start a fight. Tastes vary. There are many bad writers that I actually enjoy reading just as I enjoy watching the movie "Real Genius" even though I know it's crap.
The two points are separate - not only do I think he's a bad writer but I also don't enjoy his books.
But that's me and my opinion should only count for my reading, nobody else's.
The original point was to say "who decides which author is a master" and I still think it's a valid point.

Enjoy the day everyone.

I would agree with Paul. His incessant darkness does turn me off a bit. I thought the writing was fine.

One person said he's a "bad" writer.

More talk about Feist and less being jerks please.

Everyone has an opinion and there will be disagreement, however trying to change those opinions can be aggravating to all.

Please be mindful, and return to the original subject.

In the end, Feist may not be a "master" of fantasy but I do agree that he is a journeyman writer with some interesting ideas in his novels. I would put him on par with a writer of a multi-book thriller or mystery series. It may not win awards but it's competent and enjoyable all the same.

Defending your favorite authors is fine. We all do occasionally.

Just remember your words.