The Sword and Laser discussion

Okay, I know that Veronica and Tom aren't fond of any topics about lemming book picks, so I try to explain my reasons to maybe engage others in a discussion.

I'm about a third through (about 35% according to my Kindle) so I guess I have so far given it a fair chance, especially considering that it isn't a short book.

My main reason for thinking about not finishing it is the absurd lack of female characters. I might be wrong, but even Tolkien who wasn't big on female characters either, at least tried to give the impression that there were women in Middle Earth. In SoS it feels like women don't even exist. So far I think I had one mention of a girl and that apparently was an illusion.

From what I gathered from other threads there will me at least one female character somewhen in the book, but I'm not sure if that's enough for me.

Don't get me wrong, the story is okay and interesting enough so I might keep going, but I'm somewhat annoyed by the lack of any female characters that it is affecting my enjoyment of the book. What bothers me the most is that it is so unnecessary. There is simply no reason to leave out women as radically as Brooks does. I don't even remember a woman in the Shady Vale, there are no women among the dwarfs, no women among the gnomes, at least none are mentioned and maybe it's just me projecting, but I got the impression that all the dwarfs and gnomes are male, at least the ones present in the book.

Is anyone else annoyed by this to the extent of thinking about not keeping on reading? Although I pay a lot of attention to these details they usually don't bother me as much. But in this case I'm just irritated to the point of... WHY? What's the point? Why did he do that? Is it intentional? Was it just the time when the book was written that fantasy was so male-centric? Will it get better?

There a dozens of lead female characters in the following books, as well as many secondary and minor female characters.

It was his first book, it is harder to write from a different gender's point of view. He may have needed to get a book written and published before he tried writing solid female characters. But still he should have had some female characters.

It's mainly why they chose Elfstones for the TV show (besides it being a better story), 2 of the 3 lead characters are female.

The lead character of the 3rd book is a female. There are several badass female warrior characters.

Granted it might get substantially better, I'm wondering though whether that makes it worth reading the first book.

"It was his first book, it is harder to write from a different gender's point of view."

It's not so much that there is no strong female main character. Up to now there have been just no female characters at all, at least as far as I remember (apart from that illusion). It feels like women don't exist in this world, which is what irritates me so much.

The only time I read this book, I was smack dab in its target demographic, and it was 1988. What 15 year old me utterly failed to notice was the lack of females. Considering that girls were often on my mind at that age, I wonder why I was so enthusiastic about a world where they barely existed?

God....I read this so long ago. I know I enjoyed it. But can't tell you anything about anything. 1988-89 sounds about right.

I also found that the reader I am now, picking this book up for the first time, found that the things that were interesting did not overcome the things that annoyed me and dropped it.

I was planning on only lightly contributing to the discussion this month, but then I was reading The Novice which reminded me of Arrows of the Queen, which I did read at the right time in the right demographic. And I realized that there are people who read Shanara at the right time and are frustrated that I can't see what they saw in it like I was frustrated about Arrows. And there were people who tried Arrows for the first time and felt that the annoying to good ratio was too much for them like I felt about Shanara now.

So yay, empathy.

Anne wrote: "Okay, I know that Veronica and Tom aren't fond of any topics about lemming book picks, so I try to explain my reasons to maybe engage others in a discussion.

I'm about a third through (about 35% a..."

I have up on it around 50%, but for very different reasons

Anne wrote: "Granted it might get substantially better, I'm wondering though whether that makes it worth reading the first book.

I found the book to be a rough read. I am surprised I still have teeth from all the grinding they were doing forcing my way through it.
Alannon (A**hole Gandalf) more or less sums up the events and conclusion of SoS in Elfstones pretty early on. So there is that to consider.
If you can stomach it, the deus ex machina characters that appear for Shea around the halfway point are probably the most interesting characters in the story. Not sure if that says much though.

If you do not like the book, put it down. You will not like everything you read, I certainly do not. To be fair to the book, not every story has to have women in it to be good.

Papaphilly wrote: "If you do not like the book, put it down. You will not like everything you read, I certainly do not. To be fair to the book, not every story has to have women in it to be good."

But that is just the current wave within the last few years in the SFF genre to have more women characters and writers.

Kevin wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "If you do not like the book, put it down. You will not like everything you read, I certainly do not. To be fair to the book, not every story has to have women in it to be good."
..."

Since we a talking about The Sword of Shannara, it is only fair to talk about Terry Brooks. His next book, The Elfstones of Shannara had strong women characters and many of his later book have strong female characters. His first book did not, big deal. However, he has been using them for at least 34 years. He is not a Johnny-come-lately.

To the larger issues that you note, so what? Times change and people change with the times. Using today's mores to compare yesteryear books is plain silly. The standard now used did not exist when it was written.

Papaphilly wrote: "To be fair to the book, not every story has to have women in it to be good."

To you, perhaps, but to a lot of people that isn't the case. Whether or not a book is "good" is so subjective and some people have trouble enjoying books without women. There's nothing wrong with that. Many of those people are probably women themselves, or people who realize ignoring half the world's population is unnecessary, isolating, and unrealistic. Most female SFF fans have consumed a decent chunk of media that ignores their very existence, and if its gotten to the point where they're tired of being ignored and can't enjoy something that does so, there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone likes the same things.

Kevin wrote: "But that is just the current wave within the last few years in the SFF genre to have more women characters and writers."

Brooks had plenty of female contemporaries in the 1970s and plenty of female predecessors. This isn't a "current" thing or a new trend. People just can't get away with ignoring women as easily these days.

I'm a little amused that this thread keeps getting play. SoS doesn't have women in it. If that bothers someone enough to make them not want to read it (and I can totally see why it might), then stop. It's not like talking more about it will cause the story to suddenly have female characters.

From other posts it's obvious that later Shannara books do have female characters and apparently fairly strong ones so if someone likes the universe and writing, yay. If, on the other hand the writing or the universe isn't for you, then you can stop here.

Papaphilly wrote: "Using today's mores to compare yesteryear books is plain silly. The standard now used did not exist when it was written."

But it isn't silly at all. It is a fair criterion to judge a book by. SoS may not have what it takes to survive into the next generation of Fantasy readers, and that's okay, because it makes the art of being a "timeless" classic that much more artful.

Some books should be allowed to die of natural causes. It's okay to mourn their passing.

Regarding "If you don't like it, just don't read it":

I'm usually not someone who doesn't finish a book, so this decision to me might be a bigger deal than it is to others. So far I've kept on reading and will very likely finish the book. I just wanted to share the feeling and the reasons behind it with the group, because... duh... this is what a book club is for. Saying "I'm not sure if I am going to finish this book and here is why..." and getting the answer "You don't have to finish it" isn't really a discussion. I am well aware of the fact that I don't HAVE TO finish the book, thank you very much.

Regarding "Well, it doesn't have any women in it, that doesn't mean it is a bad book, so what?":

Actually, it IS a big deal. Even Tolkien at least mentioned that there were women (or female Hobbits, Elves, whatever) in Middle Earth. Even this is lacking in SoS. I'm about 60 percent in, so that must be about 500 pages and as far as I remember there were three distinct women mentioned, one of them Shea's mother who conveniently left and died, one of them an illusion and one of them an unnamed love interest of one character's back story. Even in the Shady Vale I can't remember that any female characters were even alluded to (I might be wrong). When they stay in Culhaven: No female characters. When they are cared for by the nurse gnomes: No female characters.

You can of course say, well maybe, they had both male and female gnomes and he just didn't care to mention that. Well, that could be. But in a book that is pretty focused on detailed descriptions of pretty much everything that happens, it just seems odd to me.

Which brings me to my last point: I just find it odd and irritating and that is why I brought the discussion up. As a women I'm getting less and less interested in reading books or watching movies when I get the feeling that whoever wrote or made it, just forgot that half of the world's population even exists. And with SoS, at least so far it is as bad as it could get. It is also unnecessary. I can deal with the group being male only for various reasons. I can also deal with all the bad guys and armies being male only because it kind of fits with certain fantasy (and real world) stereotypes or cultural conceptions. But Brooks world - at least in this book - is pretty much devoid of females in any form. And that isn't odd?

Regarding "Well you can't judge a book from 40 years ago by today's standards":

Well, sure. Sure I can. I can judge the hell out of a book written 40 years ago by my humble modern standards. I have to take the time it was written in into account, but I can still like it or not like it based on what I know about writing and books today. I am also pretty sure that books and also fantasy books back in the days did have female characters in them. I give Brooks all the credit due for the story and setting especially considering the time it was written. But I'm pretty sure that there were women as well as female characters in literature in the Seventies, so while I might not apply the Bechdel Test in full force here, I can still question why nobody thought that adding a female character here and there could be a nice idea.

Regarding: "Later books have female characters in them":

First of all that makes me glad. It still doesn't help with the book I'm reading, though and it doesn't really make the irritation go away.

I have to agree with the folks saying judging a book from the 60s/70s and 80s to the late 90s/00s and 10s is just ridiculous. trying to force a feminist point of view on people is ridiculous. Science fiction and fantasy wasn't seen as a girl's genre until very recently. Big deal.

and I agree, if you don't lie it, don't read it.

Lou wrote: "I have to agree with the folks saying judging a book from the 60s/70s and 80s to the late 90s/00s and 10s is just ridiculous. trying to force a feminist point of view on people is ridiculous. Scien..."

Yes, because very obviously all the other books from that era (and earlier) didn't include women either. My memory of all the other SF/F books must be failing me.

You're seeing a feminist discussion where there is none, just a discussion of a kind of sloppy writing.

Lou wrote: "I have to agree with the folks saying judging a book from the 60s/70s and 80s to the late 90s/00s and 10s is just ridiculous. trying to force a feminist point of view on people is ridiculous. Scien..."

I totally agree. That is part of the reason many Gen Y don't really anything older than 10 years, and would prefer new releases as opposite to older ones, even if its only a couple years old because they find the genre is more developing along with their thinking.

S. K. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Using today's mores to compare yesteryear books is plain silly. The standard now used did not exist when it was written."

But it isn't silly at all. It is a fair criterion to ju..."

I have a high regard for your opinion, that you know. To say the The Sword of Shannara does not have staying power is plain wrong. It is in print 40 years and that alone should tell you something. This book is no where near fading in popularity. It is the one book that brought fantasy to the mass markets followed up by Lord Foul's Bane in 1977. it literally created the mass market fantasy genre.

I am not talking about literary merits either. For whatever reason, the book was a game changer for the genre.

I am not nor will say someone has to like or not like any book for any reason. I do not defend the story other than I liked it. If someone else does not like it, that is their right and I defend their right not to like it and say so. I draw the line when a social test is put on a book long after the book was written and then notes the book fails said test. If that is legitimate, then it is legitimate for me to call hogwash on the test.

Every story has the right to stand on its own legs.

Well, sure. Sure I can. I can judge the hell out of a book written 40 years ago by my humble modern standards. I have to take the time it was written in into account, but I can still like it or not like it based on what I know about writing and books today.

Agreed, but that's not what most people mean by not judging a book by modern standards (or at least not what I mean...). I think what's meant is more often this - you can't expect the author who was writing in 197x to have the attitudes or the knowledge of people in 2016.

When I was in grad school (Russian history), we were warned this was a common failing among novice historians, especially since the time differences are much larger and thus the attitudes are far more foreign. "But why didn't people in the Middle Ages realize that..." utterly sidesteps all of the intervening knowledge that we take for granted (for example, about how disease happens... we know about germs and take their existence for granted). It's easier to forget that things have changed a lot even in a fairly small window of time, such as the last 40 years.

Brooks, in SoS, seems to have been tone deaf on the presence of females to a much greater degree than even his contemporaries, though. I initially thought he might have been quite young but he was in his 30s at the time. It's an odd omission but to his credit, he did correct it in the next books. No, it doesn't help with this book bot if you're talking about the Shannara universe as a whole it's also not fair to judge it by just this book.

Emily wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "To be fair to the book, not every story has to have women in it to be good."

To you, perhaps, but to a lot of people that isn't the case. Whether or not a book is "good" is so s..."

Did you read what you wrote? If every woman is as bothered as is claimed, then why don't they leave the genre alone? If what you claim is true, then sales would go down and either the genre changes or dies.

Emily wrote: "Brooks had plenty of female contemporaries in the 1970s and plenty of female predecessors. This isn't a "current" thing or a new trend...."

By your own words you acknowledge there was no dearth of female writers both during and before Terry Brooks. Should they be criticized for not writing female characters? Should Frankenstein or The Lathe of Heaven, or be criticizedMoby-Dick; or, The Whale for not having female characters. Two of which were written by females and all three are considered classics.

Does changing one or two characters to female make the story any better?

"Females"

Anne wrote: "Regarding "If you don't like it, just don't read it":

I'm usually not someone who doesn't finish a book, so this decision to me might be a bigger deal than it is to others. So far I've kept on rea..."

Tell me something, does it bother you that Mary Shelley did not make Frankenstein or the monster a female? Does Moby-Dick; or, The Whale bother you it has no female characters? Both are still taught in school and are considered classics and they both are still around 150 ears after initial publication. Would it bother you if The Sword of Shannara was all female with no male characters and the story is still the same? Does every book ever written have to have characters of both sexes to be legitimate? Once you are done with this book, will you read on knowing from the posts on this thread that the rest of his books either are chock full of female characters or leads?

Please understand I am not poking fun at you or your reasoning for liking a book or not. It is your opinion and it is as legitimate as any other.

Anne wrote: "Okay, I know that Veronica and Tom aren't fond of any topics about lemming book picks, so I try to explain my reasons to maybe engage others in a discussion.

I'm about a third through (about 35% a..."

To actually answer the original topic of this discussion, I finished the book and didn't find it worth it. I wrote my reasons for not enjoying it in my review, but there were too many things that annoyed me throughout that didn't resolve themselves or balance out in the end. There is one female character about two thirds in, but she isn't very important or interesting, and to me, the lack of women in the books was only one of the many things that bothered me in this book.

If you're not enjoying it, it's probably best not to waste your time and maybe just read a summary of what happens if you're curious. The ending wasn't satisfying to me, and I don't intend on picking up another Shannara book any time soon. I'm not really disappointed that I read it, but I didn't get much out of the book except it cured my curiosity about the series.

Brendan wrote: ""Females""

????

Anne wrote: "Lou wrote: "I have to agree with the folks saying judging a book from the 60s/70s and 80s to the late 90s/00s and 10s is just ridiculous. trying to force a feminist point of view on people is ridic..."

That is not sloppy writing, that is an authors writing choice. Sloppy writing would be plot holes, undeveloped characters, or poor sentence structure.

Emily wrote: "Brendan wrote: ""Females""

I prefer wenches, or dames."

what does lemming a book mean?

Papaphilly wrote: "Emily wrote: "Brendan wrote: ""Females""

I prefer wenches, or dames."

what does lemming a book mean?"

Lemming means to give up or quit reading a book. The word came about because Veronica couldn't finish Memoirs Found in a Bathtub by Stanislaw Lem, so "lem" became the official unofficial verb for quitting a book.

Emily wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Emily wrote: "Brendan wrote: ""Females""

I prefer wenches, or dames."

what does lemming a book mean?"

Lemming means to give up or quit reading a book. The word came about beca..."

Thanks, learn something new everyday.

A brief aside, folks... I was alive and reading F&SF in the 1970s and things weren't so different than they are now. We're not talking about some mythical Theosophist-style lost epoch. It was just the 70s. Roller disco. 8-tracks. Feminism was quite "the thing" among the arts & letters crowd then.

And we should distinguish between Feminism per se in literature versus female representation as characters. You could write a "Feminist" novel about three gay men spending a weekend on Fire Island together, talking about and reflecting on the various women in their lives...

George wrote: "A brief aside, folks... I was alive and reading F&SF in the 1970s and things weren't so different than they are now. We're not talking about some mythical Theosophist-style lost epoch. It was just ..."

I do not see any confusion between the two on this thread.

Anne's initial comment above regarding the "absurd lack of female characters," equating such with "sloppy writing," is an implicitly gender-political critique... My point is that it's not necessarily a Feminist one.

Also that forty years ago was more like today than, say, the 1930s were like the 1970s.

Lou wrote: "I have to agree with the folks saying judging a book from the 60s/70s and 80s to the late 90s/00s and 10s is just ridiculous. trying to force a feminist point of view on people is ridiculous."

The point of literature, no matter how fantastic, is to provide insight into humanity and the world we live in. A book that doesn't feature any female characters and isn't set in an isolated environment like a submarine or prison, completely fails at its job. This has nothing to do with feminism and is just a plain failure by Brooks. Whether he corrected it in later books doesn't matter -- a man who is so blind to reality is a shitty writer.

Sean wrote: "Lou wrote: "I have to agree with the folks saying judging a book from the 60s/70s and 80s to the late 90s/00s and 10s is just ridiculous. trying to force a feminist point of view on people is ridic..."

The man has sold over 26 million books. In plain English, that many people think his books are worthwhile reading. He has been writing professionally for 40 years and all of his works are still published. He singly changed the fantasy genre to bring it to a wider audience. That was not from being a lousy writer. You want to argue about his literary merits, that is fine, but that is not what you are really writing about.

Are you stating that his book does not look into humanity and the world we live within? Are you aware that the story is post-apocalyptic with all of its implications? Are you insinuating that there is nothing to learn from a group of men on a quest?

Are you saying that every story must have both men and women in it to be worthy? If you are, then the literary world would be much poorer.

Kevin wrote: "But that is just the current wave within the last few years in the SFF genre to have more women characters and writers."

That's not really true.

There have always been women writers and characters in SFF. They didn't often get the notice they were due, but by the 1970s they were front and center.

As an example, look at the women writers winning Hugos in the '70s: http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-his...

I really wish we had read "Elfstones" or "Wishsong"

Not only are they much better stories. But we wouldn't be having this ongoing discussion about the 1 Book out of the 28 Books in the Shannara series that doesn't have a lead female character.

Yes Terry Brooks f***ed up by not having women in "Sword".
If anyone really stuffed up, it was the editor and publisher for not realising they were alienating female readers.

Terry Brooks had a formula he wanted to write to for his first novel and stuck to it to the letter. He has said many times that having no women in the book was not intentional.

T.Brooks: Sure, I heard from the female readers of the first one, “How come there are no women in this story?” I didn’t even think about it at the time. I was very much under the influence of Tolkien and using his format. I was really rewriting William Faulkner but that’s another story. But I was under the influence of that.

He learnt his mistake and if you can get past the first book the series does improve.

Papaphilly wrote: "Every story has the right to stand on its own legs."

My sentiments exactly, as soon as we add the words "or fall" into the above sentence.

For the record, I loved this book when I was 15. I read it before I read Lord of the Rings so any derivation was completely lost on me. And apparently 15 year old me was at peace with no women in the story because as a dice rolling RPG-er, I intuited that women wouldn't be a part of my story for years to come.

Papaphilly wrote: "The man has sold over 26 million books. In plain English, that many people think his books are worthwhile reading. "

First of all, if you're going to go for the "popularity equals quality" argument, you could at least get the facts right. 26 million copies sold does not equate to 26 million readers unless you suppose that nobody who has ever read one of his books has ever read another, which would rather undermine your point. If Wikipedia's to be trusted he's written 37 novels, so his average book sells about 700,000 copies, which is certainly nothing to sneeze at, but it's not that impressive (by comparison, Wheel of Time has sold 44 million copies of 15 volumes, and ASoiaF 60 million of five), especially when you consider that the first few books in the series are probably pushing the average up thanks to their initial popularity in the '70s and '80s.

But putting that aside -- popularity does not signify quality. People read shitty books all the time. Just look at the best seller lists from decades past -- you don't believe The Bridges of Madison County was a major work of literature, do you?

Even I read crap. It's fun. It's relaxing. It's a great escape. But it doesn't mean I think I'm reading good literature when I do it, and I would hate for anyone to count my purchase of a Tom Clancy novel as a sign that I think he's a quality author.

S. K. wrote: "My sentiments exactly, as soon as we add the words "or fall" into the above sentence...."

I agree. When I wrote the statement, I was referring to the idea that a story should stand on its merits, not some artificial construct of a societal norm. If any book fades into obscurity due to the lack of interest over time, that is fine. However, if a book is pushed off of a cliff because someone finds it offensive for whatever reason (reasonable or not) that is wrong.

Counterpoint: The merits of a book are an artificial construct.

Papaphilly wrote: "Are you stating that his book does not look into humanity and the world we live within? Are you aware that the story is post-apocalyptic with all of its implications? Are you insinuating that there is nothing to learn from a group of men on a quest? "

Whether the setting is connected to our world is irrelevant to whether the narrative offers an accurate reflection of it. Gone with the Wind is set entirely in our world, yet Margaret Mitchell's depiction of slavery fails utterly to engage with reality.

And a group of men on a quest is a perfectly fine plot. A group of men on a quest who somehow manage to traverse half the world without ever running into one single woman, on the other hand, is shit. It's indicative of a shortsighted writer who thinks that men are the only people who ever do anything and therefore there's no need to include women, not even in the most cursory of roles.

People keep pointing to the time the book was written as though that's some excuse. I'm sorry, even in the Middle Ages you would not find an adventure story even a tenth as long as this pile of crap that doesn't contain one single female character. Hell, the Iliad, written in the freaking Bronze Age has a woman appear on the first page. There's no excuse for Brooks other than being a crappy writer.

Papaphilly wrote: "Are you stating that his book does not look into humanity and the world we live within? Are you aware that the story is post-apocalyptic with all of its implications? Are you insinuating that there is nothing to learn from a group of men on a quest?

Are you saying that every story must have both men and women in it to be worthy? If you are, then the literary world would be much poorer."

Not every story must have both men and women in it, but if you leave out one gender nearly completely (I have now reached the part of the book where there is an allusion to a women that I'm guessing will play a bigger role, but that's a couple of hundred pages into the book) than you better have a reason for that.

If you take a book that plays in a confined space and also within a specific setting or culture there may be perfectly good reasons why there are no women (or no men) in the story.

This is not what Brooks does. Fantasy like the one we have in SoS relies a lot on detailed world building and in my opinion that includes the acknowledging of both genders at least in passing. If that doesn't happen and there's no explanation, it is a sign of sloppy world building.

I'm not saying that Brooks is a crappy writer or that all his books are bad, but this one has at least one specific fault which should have been caught if not by Brooks himself than by his editors or someone in the whole process. This is not a feminist issue by the way, it's more that I find a world in which one gender is nearly completely missing unbelievable and that is what's screwing with my enjoyment of reading it.

There can be a thousand reasons why one gender could be underrepresented in any given SF/F setting. Take "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for example, which does have strong female characters, but also a consistent explanation as to why men are in a majority. Moby Dick would be believable without women because in its specific setting it would be unrealistic if there were women.

Shea and Flick only have a father, the mother is never mentioned. As well as Balinor who has a father, the king as well as a brother. No mother either, no sister, no nothing. They aren't even dead, they are just not there.

Since I don't know any of his other books I will gladly believe that he learned from his mistakes. Nobody here said that Brooks was a bad misogynistic writer, just that there might a problem with SoS that could be addressed since after all this is a book discussion forum.

Sean wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "The man has sold over 26 million books. In plain English, that many people think his books are worthwhile reading. "

First of all, if you're going to go for the "popularity equa..."

The book has been in constant publishing for forty years. That tells me that the book is standing the test of time. For whatever the reason, people like this book. The Sword of Shannara changed the fantasy genre. Without this book, the genre itself still may be nothing more than a niche market. It was a game changer.

What you really want to argue is that it is not a literary masterpiece, not a quality work and thus, should not be taken seriously. OK fair enough, I would not call it a literary masterpiece either. But then Tarzan is not a literary masterpiece either , nor is John Carter of Mars and yet they are in continual publication since 1912. You want to say they are not quality and important?

Literary masterpiece, maybe not. However, when a book permanently changes a genre for the better, it is important.

As for The Bridges of Madison County I have not read it and have no opinion.

The key points of disagreement here are "quality" and "for the better."

Papaphilly wrote: " The Sword of Shannara changed the fantasy genre. Without this book, the genre itself still may be nothing more than a niche market. It was a game changer."

Yes, Shannara, combined with Thomas Covenant and D&D, convinced a generation of authors and publishers that the only way to succeed in fantasy was to blatantly rip off Tolkien. Why is that something we should be celebrating? It made the genre more profitable? Yeah, by squeezing out the interesting fantasy novels of the '70s for the Extruded Fantasy Product of the '80s and '90s. That's not a good thing.

But then Tarzan is not a literary masterpiece either , nor is John Carter of Mars and yet they are in continual publication since 1912. You want to say they are not quality and important?

From an academic point of view they're interesting in much the same way as the works of Le Queux and Sax Rohmer, but in terms of literary importance, Burroughs would be no more remembered than James Branch Cabell or Lord Dunsany if not for Hollywood.

Sean wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: " The Sword of Shannara changed the fantasy genre. Without this book, the genre itself still may be nothing more than a niche market. It was a game changer."

Yes, Shannara, combi..."

At least you admit it is an important book. As for stealing from the The Lord of the Rings, every epic has to tilt its hat to that series. It set the template for the genre. That also includes Star Wars.

For the future, please refrain from cursing. It is undignified.

Papaphilly wrote: "At least you admit it is an important book. As for stealing from the The Lord of the Rings, every epic has to tilt its hat to that series."

You're highlighting the problem right there -- there's no reason fantasy needs to be epic. There are plenty of other subgenres out there, but Shannara and its copycats pushed them into the margins of the genre, and it's only in the last decade that we've seen any of them (particularly urban fantasy) reassert themselves -- except now they're equally homogenized because fantasy has become a mass produced genre where authors look to copy success rather than be actually creative. (And when authors actually are creative, you get people complaining about it.)

But even within epic fantasy, there's a wide range between a "tip of its hat" and slavishly copying Lord of the Rings. You can write an epic fantasy that nods to Tolkien without needing to write about a group of guys going on a quest for some magical dingus, fighting a Dark Lord, hanging out in castles, etc., etc. The narrow focus on Tolkien (and even grim dark fantasy is still focused on him in the way it presents itself in opposition to Lord of the Rings) has turned what's supposed to be a genre of imagination into a pile of cliches.

And yet, Sean, that's immensely popular. So can we really fault authors and publishers when as an audience, we lap it up and make them rich for doing precisely this?

I've mentioned Beyond Redemption before as a very creative work of fantasy but if you look at awards lists and bestseller lists we don't see books like this - good stuff but from less known authors. Instead, we see the same old stuff. Look at the World Fantasy awards or the Nebula (which does included fantasy as well as SF). Where are the surprises, the authors and books we've not heard of?

Book groups, especially large ones like this, could do a minor service by reading less known newish works, but most of them (including this one) don't do that.

Anne wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Are you stating that his book does not look into humanity and the world we live within? Are you aware that the story is post-apocalyptic with all of its implications? Are you ins..."

I am not criticizing your not liking the book at all. As I noted earlier, you have the right to your opinion. I am also not saying this is Feminist claptrap either.

You do not find his world building believable, OK fair enough. However, you have read most of one book and not others that fully flesh out his world with strong female leads, so you have at best an uninformed vision of his world. I originally suggested for you to put down the book because of your complaint of a dearth of female characters. I knew the book would drive you nuts from your writing and there is no reason to climb up the wall over a novel. As for believably, I want to point out something interesting. It is a FANTASY genre NOVEL. It is all made up, it is a STORY and you are asked to suspend your belief.

I asked you a few questions to see what your thinking is related to women in novels. You answered them and I appreciate that very much. Defending ones position is very important to me because it means it is thought out and your are willing to defend yourself. You are providing an intelligent rational argument for your view and that is all I can ask.

We have one major disagreement. The lack of women is not a mistake, it was a choice the author made as is his right. You do not have to like his choice or approve of it. You do have to respect it whether you like it or not. It is his world, not ours and he has the right to form that world as he sees fit.

I do have one last set of questions for you. If Terry Brooks made Allanon into Alana (female) or any other characters with nothing else changed, would that be OK? If he made every women into sexual subservients, would that be OK? If the entire novel was ALL female and no males, would that be OK? If the all women novel had men as sexual subservients for the women's pleasure, would that be OK? These are all choices Brooks could have made and did not. If any of these choices were made or all of them, I would defend the novel exactly the same way. I may or may not enjoy the story, but I would have the same respect for his choices.

I will leave you with a suggestion, other than the lack of female characters, if you enjoyed his writing style, I suggest that you read some more of his works. This book is an aberration to his larger body of work. If you cannot get past this book or do not like his writing style, then of course do not read on further.

Sean wrote: First of all, if you're going to go for the "popularity equals quality" argument, you could at least get the facts right. 26 million copies sold does not equate to 26 million readers unless you suppose that nobody who has ever read one of his books has ever read another, which would rather undermine your point."

Just found out out that he has actually sold over 30 million books. To your actual point, it does not actually undermine my point. 30 million sold means just that. Whether I read one or multiple, each book I read counts as one reader for each book. You are actually under counting because you are assuming that each book sold is read only by one person and do not account for it being passed among others, which is not captured on sales figures.