PDA

View Full Version : Weis and Hickman


WGW
11-12-2010, 05:15 PM
The only other fantasy series I enjoyed was W&H's Rose of the Prophet series. I haven't read any of their others, and I couldn't get into Lord of the Rings because of the ridiculously long speeches. Anyone else feel the same way?

HunterOTS
11-13-2010, 07:39 AM
I haven't read that series but I read their Dragonlance books ages ago and enjoyed. When I worked at a used book store and got an employee discount I bought just about every fantasy novel that came through the doors so I probably have them somewhere in boxes. There are literally thousands of them and I assumed most were crap and just bundled away all but the ones I knew I'd read.

DahLliA
11-13-2010, 11:37 PM
I've read their Dragonlance books too. can recommend them if you want some decent low fantasy between all the epicness of high fantasy.

haven't read anything else by them though.

and never had any trouble with LotR. can't remember there being that many long speeches? :p

HunterOTS
11-13-2010, 11:40 PM
I don't think Dragonlance is low fantasy. They aren't on a personal quest or anything they're trying to save the world. I'm pretty sure thats what epic fantasy means.

Of course it isn't "epic" in the sense that WoT or LoTR or ASoFaI are but it is an attempt.

HunterOTS
11-13-2010, 11:46 PM
Hmmm... well apparently low fantasy means it is set in the real world but with magic introduced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_fantasy. What I was thinking of in my last response is a sub-genre called "sword and sorcery."

I guess the only low fantasy books I've read are Gaiman's novels.

Tamyrlin
11-14-2010, 01:08 AM
The only other fantasy series I enjoyed was W&H's Rose of the Prophet series. I haven't read any of their others, and I couldn't get into Lord of the Rings because of the ridiculously long speeches. Anyone else feel the same way?

I think it's Weis and Hickman's best - it's a seven book series. I read it a few times.

Jonai
11-14-2010, 03:37 AM
The only other fantasy series I enjoyed was W&H's Rose of the Prophet series. I haven't read any of their others, and I couldn't get into Lord of the Rings because of the ridiculously long speeches. Anyone else feel the same way?

About Lord of the Rings? I don't think so. I read it the first time in the 5th grade. lol.

DahLliA
11-15-2010, 05:07 PM
Hmmm... well apparently low fantasy means it is set in the real world but with magic introduced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_fantasy. What I was thinking of in my last response is a sub-genre called "sword and sorcery."

I guess the only low fantasy books I've read are Gaiman's novels.

oh. I was thinking about how there's like 10 characters and they're pretty much sterotypes ripped from RPGs(not that that's bad in itself). thought that was the definition of low fantasy while high was WoT style with 100s of characters and stuff :p

Daekyras
11-15-2010, 05:49 PM
oh. I was thinking about how there's like 10 characters and they're pretty much sterotypes ripped from RPGs(not that that's bad in itself). thought that was the definition of low fantasy while high was WoT style with 100s of characters and stuff :p

thats exactly what i thought. :)

as for dragonlance. Loved it as a kid. Find it almost at goodkind levels of bad now. Not quite as bad as that but close. Still, WoT could do with a "sturm" moment...

HunterOTS
11-15-2010, 06:11 PM
oh. I was thinking about how there's like 10 characters and they're pretty much sterotypes ripped from RPGs(not that that's bad in itself). thought that was the definition of low fantasy while high was WoT style with 100s of characters and stuff :p

I guess that can stand as a definition. The entire series was based off a D&D campaign the authors had, so of course the characters are RPG clones. If that is your definition though than by far most fantasy would be low.

DahLliA
11-16-2010, 08:51 AM
I guess that can stand as a definition. The entire series was based off a D&D campaign the authors had, so of course the characters are RPG clones. If that is your definition though than by far most fantasy would be low.

yeah. I don't mean it's bad. it's good to have a breather from the heavy stuff like WoT once in a while. but it does have the same epicness either.

maybe if there isn't a term for it we could create one and go down in history :eek:

HunterOTS
11-16-2010, 09:04 AM
I think what you're using as a definition for "epic fantasy" fits the word "epic" far better than what the current accepted definition of that genre. I don't see why something being set in a world different from our own makes it epic.

DahLliA
11-16-2010, 04:58 PM
I think what you're using as a definition for "epic fantasy" fits the word "epic" far better than what the current accepted definition of that genre. I don't see why something being set in a world different from our own makes it epic.

true. who decides stuff like this? we should send a complaint :p

HunterOTS
11-16-2010, 05:07 PM
All this stuff was probably made up by the fantasy freaks of the 50s and 60s. The guy who originally owned the bookstore I used to work at was an old-school fantasy nerd. He was all into Michael Moorcock and Conan and all kinds of stuff like that. He wouldn't even touch most modern fantasy. He sold the place and moved away way before I found WoT but I wish I had a chance to ask him about that, which he might have given a chance since RJ wrote some Conan stuff.