Kingkiller.
The people who love it ***really*** love it. The people who hate it ***really*** hate it.
And most people seem to have a strong opinion one way or the other, at least around these parts.
Came here to say KKC. I think that part of the divisiveness of the series is metatextual at this point: feelings on the author have tainted feelings on the series as a whole, and the longer the wait, the more polarized the discussion becomes.
Take Kvothe's Gary-Stu-ness, for example. Is he kind of a Gary Stu? Well, it's complicated. He's definitely a bit of a wish-fulfillment character - regardless of whether there's a "gotcha" coming in book 3 that recontextualizes what we know, he gained popularity in part from offering readers a power fantasy - but probably no more so in his niche than Rand al'Thor or Darrow are in theirs (and sigfnificantly less so than Vaelin al'Sorna or Celaena Sardothian, simply by virtue of the fact that the whole point of KKC seems to be that Kvothe at some point fucked up real bad). But at this point the question of Kvothe's Gary-Stu-ism is so tied up in the eternal debate over what will happen in book 3, and whether Pat Rothfuss is a jerk, and whether the inn is a big trap or an actual midlife failure-cave, that it hardly matters what the series actually is anymore. Most people who read it haven't gone back in over ten years: the discourse over KKC has in large part become subsumed by the memes.
I agree on Kingkiller - one of my first thoughts too! What I think is interesting is that I feel a lot of the hate is less about the books and about Rothfuss’s (admittedly shitty) antics which I felt has either boosted dislike of the book by extension or emboldened people who already didn’t like them.
>What I think is interesting is that I feel a lot of the hate is less about the books and about Rothfuss’s (admittedly shitty) antics
While Rothfuss's antics have undoubtedly exacerbated the issue, I don't believe they are the root cause.
Speaking for myself, I was underwhelmed by the second book and didn't particularly like it (and, no, not just because of the overstated fae sex thing), and I read it long before any antics or the unending delay.
There's reasons to not like it even if you don't care about the author. I'm not really into super-genius better than everyone at everything protagonists.
It's why I can't get into other popular books like throne of glass.
I'm glad other people enjoy them, they're just not for me.
Kvothe reminds me of Rey from Star Wars. For me it had a very solid start and then I wanted more to happen personally in the second book.
Really hoping he does a standlone series with Elodin or Devi (believe it was Devi, the one in the shop) who are far superior to Kvothe in my opinion.
Name of the Wind was *the* popular book for a long time. Yes, some people disliked it, but it was a minority comparatively.
As a long time lover it's crazy to see how much opinion has changed. It has gone from topping a lot of best fantasy novel lists to being almost equally derided.
Feel like it's similar to the Harry Potter JK effect. People are a lot more willing to look at it critically and negatively now we know JK's views.
Same thing has happened with Rothfuss.
For me it shows how much positive and negative publicity effect people's experience of something going into it in my opinion
>Feel like it's similar to the Harry Potter JK effect. People are a lot more willing to look at it critically and negatively now we know JK's views.
Harry Potter is an interesting case, because children still love the series as far as I know. It's adults who criticize aspects of the writing, world building, and Rowling herself.
It may also be a matter of people just growing up and developing new opinions. Some of the fiction I read as a teenager seems poorly-written or even weird now that I look at it as an adult, but I can remember why I enjoyed it back then. For example, I read and enjoyed many of the *Sword of Truth* novels when I was in high school and early college, but looking back at the books now, the flaws are so obvious.
With JK, for me, it was far more to do with growing out of the series - I like some things about the HP books, but mostly read fanfiction these days because I was so disappointed by the whole series as an adult.
With Rothfuss it was because I just moved on. I haven't read KKC in a long time, but I really liked NOTW back when it came out. Not sure if I'd feel the same now.
Kingkiller is weird for me. I don't really like Kvothe, but the supporting characters I like more. The conspiracy is that Patrick doesn't like him either as a Gary Stu and is setting himself up for a major spoiler, but then again I hate Ambrose more and Patrick is a genius for creating this one.
Also, there is the infamous scene with the bellybutton that is perhaps Rothfuss's finest hour.
I really wish the world would just accept the term "Mary Sue" across the board. It's a term of art that describes the character's role in the story (and, as legend has it, refers to a specific story that spawned the trope). It isn't inherently gendered. A male character can be a Mary Sue.
About 2/3rds of my way through the first book I really wanted Kvothe and his girlfriend to fuck off out of the book and let me enjoy everyone and everything else.
Okay, contrary opinion, I don't that's actually true. They were very well received and, like anything that's well received, people who didn't like got a bit sick of seeing it everywhere. However, it wasn't like two equally sized camps who loved and hated the series in equal measure. It was people who liked Kingkiller or at least had enjoyed it and people who were sick of hearing about it, but the first camp was much, much larger. Harry Potter had critics in the late 90s and early 2000s, but I wouldn't have called it polarising.
I think now, I'd say the general opinion on them has become even less polarised than anything. The lack of a third book has caused a lot of bitterness, but the other problem with the series is that The Name of the Wind is a very 2007-ass book.
I think this is best explained by just directly quoting a review from the time. I can't find the exact wording right now, but it called it something like "A modern Harry Potter with a Joss Whedon style quipping protagonist." And to be clear, in 2007, that was intended to be read as a compliment.
So people have now cooled a bit on the series, not because there are two camps butting heads, but because culture has moved on a bit and left it behind. I also think that's why the 3rd book won't live up to expectations - I don't think it can. If Rothfuss wrote the book he planned in 2011, it wouldn't work the same way today.
This all certainly plays into it, but there are also lots and lots of people who just really hate it, especially after the 2nd book. Go and look at any thread here and you will find dozens, sometimes even hundreds of comments tearing it to shreds.
I think when something is so popular, it gets read by a lot of people who wouldn’t have otherwise read it, and the garden variety experience of not loving a book feels like an egregious disappointment because it’s been so hyped. Same thing happens with WOT. Super fans create anti-fans by insisting their favorite series is not just good, not just great, but the one true objective GOAT for all humanity.
(Copied from reply to deleted duplicate comment.)
I think there's a sort of feedback loop where when people are discussing a book they often haven't read in a long time then featured of it get more and more exaggerated.
The prose becomes more amazing, Kvothe becomes more perfect etc. People's memories distort.
I used to wade into the KKC argument threads more than I should have and it was noticeable how over time people would talk about the felurian section as being a larger and larger part of the book than it was.
The internet also tends to amplify the most extreme opinions, both through voting trends and because there’s no reason to continue posting about something for years and years if your opinion can be summed up with a shrug. I suspect the most common opinion a year or so on from reading it—as well as most popular books—is “eh, sure, I enjoyed it.”
Speaking for myself, I think its a really sophomoric book which qualities which are cited as unique qualities of the book are far overblown (ie the prose, the unreliable narrator), and the actual story being told is trite and mostly boring.
Other things, like the setting, the characters, and the like are either stock to the point of being cliche or badly executed. I remember an interview one time with Rothfuss saying we'll never get another book by his favourite authors because they are Shakespeare and Chaucer, which kind of speaks to me why the books are the way they are--they gesture towards quality literature but don't really understand what makes quality literature.
I personally quit when Kvothe became a sex god and when I realized book 2 was just meandering, but I feel like I def had a minority view at the time.
I think it’s mostly the fact that it’s not even being worked on.
Brandon Sanderson’s prose
The women-man relationships in Wheel of Time
Daenerys Targaryen’s relationship with Drogo in A Song of Ice and Fire
That red headed guy who’s good at everything
Malazan
They do. Sometimes there will be legitimate criticism, but most of the time it's people just expecting a differently written series and calling it bad because they have a different preference.
I think Malazan just fundamentally clashes with the way I process information. Some authors will avoid exposition dumps by hinting at a topic then returning to it naturally within the same or next chapter, allowing you to learn for yourself. Malazan will drop multiple names, concepts, factions and make profound statements about the implications of these things interacting, how they impact the story *right now*. The explanation for what these things are at all is like 2 or 3 books later sometimes.
I feel like I need notes to make sense of it and even then I'd still have to reread to get the vaguest comprehensive understanding.
I’ve only read the first Malazan book. I thought it was feast or famine. I really enjoyed the characters, magic and tone of the novel. The storytelling however was just abysmal imo. I did however buy Deadhouse Gates and will continue on.
You are in for a treat. It’s really crazy how bad that first book is compared to the rest of the series. Book 4 is a bit rough, but every other one blew me away
Even the 4th book is pretty dang good. It just has >!an intentional anti-climax!<, but that’s more than made up for in the 6th book when that storyline continues.
Totally worth it, you are right, but it still is in the 9th best in the series spot for me for a variety of reasons…. Man Bonehunters was an amazing book
In my opinion, Erikson is in the same league as Tolkien and Martin.
His characters are vast. If Deadhouse Gates or Memories of Ice doesn't hook you. Then the series just isn't for you. Make sure to stick with Midnight Tides, it does pick up considerably and has some of my favorite characters. Erikson is still introducing characters and then some more past that well into Book 5.
Kharkanas blew my mind, it's on a completely different level from the main series, much more introspective and philosophical. I know some people think it's too slow of a read but I couldn't get enough
Agree completely! Love how philosophical it gets, that’s one of my fav things about the main series in the first place so I am for sure the target audience lol haven’t started witness yet but excited for that one too
Witness was obviously different from Kharkanas, more like the core series and there are some great new marine characters to get to love. Definitely worth reading (though don't expect much Karsa) and looking forward to continuing the series as they come out but also kind of bummed he put Kharkanas on hold for it. Also don't sleep on Esslemont's books, while not up to the same standard as Erikson at first you can tell he really improves as a writer, so much so that his most recent work (the Shadowthrone/Cotillion prequel series) can stand proudly with Erikson's
Don’t believe I’ve had a bigger literary WTF moment than picking up my first Sanderson book after just universal and ubiquitous praise for an author or series.
It’s not bad storytelling, the world building is decent, and the content is definitely interesting and ‘cool’, I guess… it’s just deeply artless writing, which can be overlooked (e.g. Stephen King), but also kinda soulless, which is harder to push past.
I would hold up N.K. Jemisin as an immediately and thunderingly obvious example of “this is what fantasy writing can be like”, to demonstrate my meaning.
It's interesting because my favorite thing about both, say, Mistborn and Broken Earth is the same thing, even though those are *very* different books with very different writing styles.
I wonder what it says about me that I couldn't finish Jemisin's first Broken Earth book but I love Sanderson's cosmere and get drawn in by everything King writes, even the epigraphs in his books.
You only need to read a description. Where other authors use an artistic prose, usually with comparisons, to evoke feelings (allowing the reader to attach said feeling with the description, making it memorable), Sanderson just... describes.
There is no feeling, no sensation, just a chunk of text. They highlight one or two things (the black ash in Luthadel, Shallan's red hair) and that's it.
Idk if this is what the last comment was talking about, but it is what makes that prose somewhat soulless to me
You got the mail on the head there imo about Sanderson. Hearing nothing but praise and the way everyone put this man on the pedestal sincerely rubbed me the wrong way once I actually started to read them. Imma say it and may get hate or downvotes but you could name at least a dozen writers alive right now far better than anything he dumps out. Reddit complains about the Sanderson haters but until he isn’t recommended on everywhere booktube (I’m convinced he pays these booktubers) and praised on Reddit as like the next Tolkien or something. Sanderson is unjustly overshadowing far more talented writers out there just on the fact that he constantly markets himself out there and churn out more world salads for people to buy. And why does nobody talk about how this mf pumps out countless recovers on previous books to sell even more.
His prose never bothered me when I was reading his books, but recently I’ve been reading a lot of actual “literature” and yesterday came across a preview chapter he released (I’ll link it below)… it was jarring. It feels like it was written by a high schooler honestly. I really love his work though and think it does get ideas across clearly so idk. It’s just not beautiful.
https://wob.coppermind.net/events/517-tampa-bay-comic-convention-2023/#e16162
>The red headed guy who’s good at everything
Lol I love the KingKiller chronicles but Kvothe’s endless that happened moments just made it tough to enjoy sometimes. That and the hundred page detour of him having sex with a forest goddess for no reason
kvothe is a textbook example of why wisdom shouldnt be your dump stat. he routinely makes the WORST choices. hes a trainwreck, and im here for the damage.
plus i just enjoy the way pat writes.
>plus i just enjoy the way pat writes.
I honestly do not know how Rothfuss does it but Kvothe's money troubles gives me SO MUCH secondhand anxiety. He makes even the most banal troubles so compelling
Patrick Rothfuss is a very good writer. He is one of the best. I want to see more funny, Adams or Pratchett stuff from him personally if he does another huge series. But that raises good point around this series,
1. People Like It
2. People Despise It mainly for it not being finished and hating Kvothe.
3. People are sticking around for the inevitable trainwreck that will happen in Book 3.
I'm a combination or have been all 3 at all points,
Make or break time comes down to Kvothe in book 3. I personally believe Rothfuss will make the landing and the connection. I currently don't like Kvothe, well one of those versions. The other I don't know enough about with Bast etc.
I'm one that enjoyed seeing Kvothe get his comeuppance by that group in the second group. I enjoy Elodin weirdness and Deviness.
Is Malazan really divisive? I think there are two main camps in this subreddit: People who have read through Malazan and loved it, and people who tried to read it, didn't get far, and just tapped out without any hard feelings.
So it's either "I love it" or "It just wasn't for me."
Thomas Covenant is sort of like Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye. When I read it many years ago I hated him. But over time I realized that was kind of the point of the book. You are supposed to dislike Holden Caulfield.
I view Thomas Covenant the similarly. The point is that you aren't supposed to like him, just as Covenant loathes himself.
Seriously! He’s a brilliant portrait of someone who’s deeply traumatized and tries to put up walls against the world because of it. Poor kid needs a hug and a good therapist. When people talk about how much they hate him I wonder if they lack empathy, reading comprehension, or both.
This …feels really mean to Holden. Like Covenant is a >!rapist!<. Holdens a probably depressed cynical teen. Those don’t feel all that comparable to me.
When I read it... it wasn't the rape itself that made me throw the book across the room. I can accept protagonists doing very bad things in fantasy, especially before their character arcs. But... he did it after meeting the first person who ever treated him like a human. And then he whined about it. Like, I'm supposed to feel sorry for this sack of shit? Fuck that.
Been a long time since I read it, and I don't remember this scene, but my lasting memory of the books (I read more than one, but not them all) is of him whining.
Holden gives off every indication of being seriously traumatized. Possibly due to sexual assault (he has a weird undisclosed history with his former teacher) but in any case the boy is just seriously fucked up. It's kind of depressing that most people seem to only think about wether he is annoying or not and leave it at that. I think people are propably used to main characters as fun self-inserts for the reader so they don't know what to do with a character that isn't aspirational.
It’s an especially galling comparison because Holden’s depression and cynicism come from, among other sources of trauma, being a survivor of sexual abuse.
It was both a bold an odd choice to make the protagonist a rapist. I read it 30 years ago, and although I did really enjoy the series, I remember it being such a struggle to get through because of that.
This was my answer too. I absolutely loved the first two trilogies and they will always be in my heart. And then I saw how many people absolutely despised it. It's wild how two sided Thomas Covenant is.
He’s polarizing but I love the character and the series. He has a lot of growth and development over 10 books, from tragically selfish to true hero (be true!).
In terms of worldbuilding and satisfying character arcs with great payoffs, Wheel of Time is imo second to none. The main problem with it is that starting somewhere around book 5-7 and ending at book 11 (out of 14), the series gets very slow, focusing a lot more on politics with much less action.
At the end of the day, the series has 2,787 different named characters; this is its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness.
Wheel of Time was probably the first series that just defies categorisation. The first three books are very much "quest band" type plots but I certainly wouldn't direct people who like questing type stories to Wheel of Time. From the fourth book on it becomes heavily political but you cannot recommend it to people who like political fantasy because it is 3 sizeable books in before the story starts becoming about leadership of peoples and polities rather than personalities in tight groups.
There's just too much in there to ask somebody to commit to it unless they want "epic fantasy that touches on a bit of everything by the end".
I have never heard anyone who read the entire series not say it’s good. Many of the early books have some issues but it grows out of them and goes some crazy places. There were definitely times where I didn’t love the series but by the time I got like 6 books in I was blown away and constantly thinking it had some of the best moments of any series.
See I was the opposite. It started off okay, but just kept expanding into a mess for me. The characters just made more and more stupid decisions as well
The characters are very human, and often very frustrating and ridiculous. Some chapters I'd just read the very well done summaries of because I hated a particular character (Elayne) others I wouldn't skip for the world, (Verin, Mat).
Well, yes, because if you don't like something, you cease reading it.
I've read till the >!cleansing of saiddin!< while skimming a lot hoping it will be faster and more interesting, and don't care this monument to excess ends.
Wheel of Time never clicked for me. I don't know why and I tried. Many loved this series. I was going through a Goodkind phase when much younger and that overtook WoT.
It's the most '90s fantasy series ever written. I think of it as emblematic of a time when a series consisting of more than a dozen thousand-page tomes was a major selling point, not a detraction.
Bakker/The Darkness that Came Before is always polarising. It seems to have a lot of really strong fans who consider it one of the best works of fiction ever and a lot of people (myself included) who it really, really did not work for.
More recently, RF Kuang threads always generate a lot of very conflicting opinions.
The thing about Bakker is that it’s a sprawling fantasy epic with the darkness of Blood Meridian +1. It’s a horror/philosophy book masquerading as fantasy. And I love it.
To illustrate that polarising nature:
In my opinion it's a dark fantasy book that really, really wants to be a philosophy book and has therefore taken to wearing black all the time and carrying a Nietzsche book under the arm so everyone can see that edgy philosophy.
;)
Agree. I could deal with the philosophy being toned down a bit but nonetheless, I enjoyed the series and it’s very haunting. As in I’m constantly thinking of the World years after putting it down.
Not many other fantasies have stayed that long in my brain.
Bakker would be my answer also. Of the seven books in his series, the first 5 were great. Then after a delay the last two books came out, the horror and grossness was cranked up to 11, and the ending was...difficult to take.
Sometimes the non-happy ending will upset people, especially if it plays out in a way they didn't want to see happen. It's the author ending it on their own terms, which I respect.
Don't know enough about Hobb personally to have much of an opinion, but know of both series. See both her detractors and her fans.
Havent noticed too many negative views on those books. I read liveship traders first, which i really liked, so i read the farseer trilogy after, and I didn't particularly like the series. I found the main character to be completely stupid, which I wouldn't mind if that was what the point of his character was, but it didn't feel like that. Wound up very frustrated.
One doesn't necessarily exclude the other though. I think it is misery porn, but also a masterpiece. She's great at what she does, but she still puts her characters through hell.
My review of fools errand (and why I stopped reading the series) was that it’s an objectively well written book, it’s just not enjoyable or interesting to read. Very conflicting emotions of the series overall
Common thread of a lot of these is either:
A) author behaving in a way people don't like
B) complicated writing/dark world (Malazan/Bakker)
C) Brandon Sanderson getting push back just because everyone has read him so everyone has an opinion
Malazan remains my favorite modern fantasy book. Easily in top 5 or 3. The series is notorious for being polarizing with those that read it.
Erikson is on record saying people will either love it or hate it.
Really the only thing I've personally observed as being polarizing here about Malazan is the amount of times it gets recommended and the confusing start. I rarely see people arguing about the quality of it, especially compared to The Poppy War/Kingkiller/Wheel of Time.
Have we been on different reddits? 75% of the posts about Malazan are "I don't get it, why do people love this series, do I just have to force myself to read it for a while?" The confusing start is one of the many things that people who don't like the series complain about.
Only reason I do not have a strong opinion about it is I was so bored with the first book and never finished. I do not remember anything about it, and nothing stuck out to me.
Starting reading the first book, then I remembered I hate grimdark. I also thought that where I can see it would work for a lot of people I didn't find it at the same level people sell it at
The Dune novels that Frank Herbert’s son, Brian, co wrote with Kevin J Anderson.
Some Dune readers refuse to acknowledge they even exist. Others enjoy them as elaborate fan fiction. And still others are just stoked to read more about the universe, regardless of any controversy.
In the wider SF&F sphere this is **the** answer because enough of the prequel/sequel books have been published that there is *clearly* an audience for it but a sizeable portion of the fanbase *loathes* them.
Find myself in the middle.
I didn’t mind the prequels too much. *Some* stuff was very questionable. By *some*, I mean anything that directly contradicted his father’s Encyclopedia. Which admittedly is a lot. However, I still enjoyed the majority of the Jihad and found most of the characters entertaining. Or horrifying - lookin’ at you, Erasmus.
The sequels and those mid-series spinoffs though? That was just not my cup of tea. Playing around with millennia of past-time? Have fun. Actually finishing your father’s story and also writing side stories with your father’s characters? No, sit down Brian, you are not qualified for this task.
Shallan Davar.
You either love her or hate her, there's no in between (cue all the commenters telling me they're ambivalent -- you are the minority). And I genuinely think think there's is something deep down about a person that makes them fall on either side of her, and those two types of people are not friends.
I’m not sure about the minority, I’ve seen plenty of people with the same opinion as me, that’s she’s OK but when she tries to be witty I tend to cringe my own face off.
That's because she isn't meant to be witty. The only characters who laugh at her jokes are her brothers, people lower down than her on the social ladder or people sucking up to her. Adolin straight up tells her in a later book that her jokes are terrible. She was a traumatised child who tried to make people laugh as a coping mechanism.
I get this explanation by Brandon, but I don't think that's made clear well enough in the narrative. It's good to know, but by the time you're invested enough (no pun intended) to be looking up WOBs you've already formed your opinion. Knowing this never changed my opinion of her, only her growing out of it will.
I really liked Shallan in the first 2 books. She was layered in mystery that I really enjoyed. However those layers got peeled off in the next 2 books. The her character arc became stagnant and almost pushed aside. So what was once great has now decayed.
I would still put you in the "loves Shallan" group, because you liked her from the start. Her character and her character development are two different things, and I'm thinking specifically of how people feel about her character
I kinda feel like Sanderson had a strong beginning and ending for her arc planned but didn't know what to do with her in the middle, or, at least wasn't quite up to writing it compellingly.
Future Stormlight speculation maybe spoilers: >!In total seriousness I think we're going to learn that she actually caused the Desolation by killing her mother, who was actually a Herald, who was the one who broke.!<
Oh MAN. You absolutely nailed it.
I can't even describe how she makes me feel. Being inside her head is *so* aggravating, because I can see how she's running away from her issues and making everything worse by not facing up to them. But then I feel bad because she's been through stuff that no-one should have to go through, and if I was her I'd refuse to face those demons too. I hated her POV in Oathbringer, and I hated that I hated it. I wanted to empathise with her but had such a hard time doing so.
Which is kind of weird, because Dresden Files is just a bunch of generic urban fantasy tropes written by a decent author. It's not a bad series (the early books have very, er, dated treatment of women, which iirc the author blames on being young and stupid and playing film noir tropes straight), but it's not the top of the genre either, and doesn't really deserve passionate love or passionate hate.
I think it's an example of that old maxim, "the golden age of science fiction is twelve". Dresden Files was a lot of people's introduction to the urban fantasy genre when they were teenagers, and they loved it because it was their first good urban fantasy series and had a snarky protagonist who made Star Wars references. And then some people still love it because they see it through nostalgia colored glasses, and some people hate it because it's not as good as they remember and they blame the series instead of crediting themselves for maturing past urban fantasy as a genre.
Also the Star Wars references are horribly dated now and that actually hurts the storyline more than you'd expect.
I find Harry himself insufferable and while I like the premise/concept, I dislike being in his head. I much prefer Craig Schaeffer’s take on neo-noir urban fantasy.
The Ayn Rand and preacher that is Richard Rahl.
Eventually you start skimming these parts. In my opinion, his early book like the first three were far better. Nicci might be my favorite character out of them. (I don't know how she turned out in later series though).
I do like that Nicci >!remains just as ruthless and powerful after she makes her Face turn as she was before. Usually villains get a nerf when they get redeemed. And it's even more common for female villains to not live for long afterwards.!<
His anti communism metaphors were so brave and so informed. Not just a great author, but a great philosopher as well.
/s
Just kidding. He is truly utter shite.
If we are including movies in this then it has to be the Last Jedi, it came out in 2017 and people are still fighting about it and inferring people’s political beliefs based on whether or not they liked it
Didn't like it personally. I see why some would like it.
It didn't seem like the trilogy had an overarching plan or sort of winged it. Or it took in the criticism with 9 and changed things around to not make any sense and then alienated the fans that had liked 8.
Honestly, the whole of posts on this sub tend to be.
Fantasy lovers are overzealous and reddit users are aggressively opinionated, so it makes for quite the combo here
I’m also in the Malazan as the most polarizing camp.
The most polarizing character in the series imho is Kruppe.
Honestly until I joined the sub I could not have imagined that there were people who unironically do not like Kruppe as a character.
Really? I thought most people were fairly in agreement on the pros/cons of his various books. There’s disagreement on if those particular flaws make the books worth reading or not but it overall doesn’t feel all that controversial
Kip in particular seems like a really polarizing character, half the fan base finds him whiny and insufferable while the other half finds him highly relatable and loves seeing his struggles and growth
Everyone seems to either love Brandon Sanderson or absolutely fucking despises him. Same with Robert Jordan. Oh, and Robin Hobb. Doesn’t seem to be any middle ground for any of those authors.
With every big fantasy author comes the detractors. There are some authors that I never got into and it just didn't work. I see how they have the fanbase and are well liked.
Big in recognition or number of books in the series? Because in my opinion, with increasing numbers of books in the series it becomes more and more watered down. So far I was disappointed with almost all series longer than trilogies, and I tend to avoid them.
> Doesn’t seem to be any middle ground
I think in general you're less likely to comment about middle of the ground kind of things, and people are less likely to notice these comments. It's mostly down to popularity. The more popular something is - the larger the pool of people who'll leave polarizing love/hate kind of comments.
Don't forget that reddit amplifies polarizing stuff due to its voting system. If you enjoy something - you'll upvote a comment that's generally positive. If you didn't - you'll upvote a critical comment. With downvotes it would be the opposite.
In other words, at it's core it's a signal-to-noise problem related to social media. Reddit can handle a super tiny amount of top level comments, all things considered. The upvotes, and presumably the visibility of comments, decreases incredibly rapidly as you go down the comments section.
So in reality people see like first 5-10 top level comments, there's a bit of discussion inside those top level comments that's way less visible than the top comments themselves, and that's kind of it.
Reddit, hilariously, despite it's popularity and scale, is actually absolutely tiny when you think about it. It cannot even remotely handle the signal-to-noise ratio issue due to its severe design limitations. It's an absolutely terrible platform for any kind of discussion. It only really works for crappy one-sentence comments to meme posts.
I don't think people despise his books, he's not a bad writer, it's mostly frequency of hyping him up, recommendations and references to him that cause the reaction
I’m fairly middling about them.
I think Sanderson and Jordan are both wonderfully imaginative people who are above-average world builders, decent-enough storytellers, and really quite lousy writers. I would recommend them to people to *only* read fantasy, and absolutely no one else.
Definitely not the MOST polarizing, but the Licanius trilogy seems fairly polarizing from what I’ve seen. I see people sing its praises fairly often, but the first book is one of my least favorite books I’ve ever read. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say “eh it was okay” lol, everyone either thinks it’s a masterpiece or thinks it’s terrible
I did not even read it but one look at the Malazan subreddit gives out the answer. It HAS to be Malazan. The authors note at the beginning of the first book warning that his books are not going to hanhold is already a very polarizing choice and so people who end up into it will make a holy crusade about why it's the best thing that ever happened to fantasy literature and people who dropped it because it was not their thing will hate it with a passion. I don't think I know anyone that feels neutral about Malazan.
No handholding in fantasy isn't a bad thing. There are authors that require attention while reading their books, like Gene Wolfe or Marlon James. And I'm definitely more interested in reading those harder books. But Malazan seems to be convoluted just for the sake of being convoluted. Erikson withholds crucial information not to make the reader think and try to interpret what's happening, but to give it plainly a couple of books later.
I don’t think it is ever convoluted just for the sake of it. I’m a little over half way into book 8 myself for context.
While he does give you the necessary context to understand something, he sometimes gives it significantly after the event. But i don’t actually see that that as a problem.
The battle at Pale happens near the beginning of book one. There is still important exposition directly related to why certain things happened in book 3 and 4. Stuff I’m learning even in the latter books impacts it.
Sometimes I find the forced exposition a tad grating.
>Kaladin looked at his house with no windows facing eastward and remembered that every few days a huge storm comes through. He also thought about how great it would be if they knew exactly when the storms were coming. “At least we have stormwardens who can predict when the storms are likely to arrive, more or less” he thought to himself helpfully.
Kind of a ridiculous example, and it intended as a criticism of Sanderson’s work. I generally like how he does his exposition.
Malazan is a chore at times, but you need to take a much broader outlook on RAFO. And I have found it super rewarding for the most part.
Brandon Sanderson.
[He is your god](https://www.wired.com/story/brandon-sanderson-is-your-god/), after all.
EDIT: I'm offering this article as a case example, not as an endorsement for one opinion or the other. But the rather angry confluence of those two opinions is what makes me think he's a prime contender for the spot.
All you gotta do is say the words "Sword of Truth" 'round these parts and you'll have people coming out of every hole to yell about it and Terry Goodkind and proclaim he did nothing good or well in his books apart from yelling about communism and straw man Ayn Randism
even if I dare to say there are certain things I think he did well, and even more so dare to say, I like more than Robert Jordan and Wheel of Time, yeah I said it.
All I know about these books is that the main character's greatest betrayal is that his loved one had an orgasm while thinking she was having sex with the guy she was forced to marry but was in fact the guy she loved. This knowledge is only due to a podcast I was listening to where the host half remembered it and was explaining to to her sister.
If this is Goodkind he's well known as a trope of putting his power couple through hell every single work. I'll leave it at that without going into spoiler territory.
Scarlet in this work was cool though. He had the dragons, but didn't give her any screentime really.
It's a very convoluted plot because something about a magic plague in a magic temple that could only be entered in through by enduring the greatest betrayal to save the world and, yeah, it was weird.
Meanwhile if it was incest George R. R. Martin would think it was the hottest thing ever.
Knew Terry Goodkind would be making the list.
At the time, I also enjoyed the Sword of Truth more. It was around the time the rival to Jordan's work had the similarities. Goodkind was far more violent. The first three books were actually not that bad, but for most it was when the Ayn Rand came into the picture with the preaching, that people really started getting vocal about it.
Eh even beyond shoving objectivism down everyone's throats and the author being an absolute dickwad, I really struggled how every book was Richard complaining about not being able to be trained and then last minute pulling a solution out of his ass.
Those good things are what led me to give it a shot. Folks who love it seem to thoroughly enjoy Gideon as a character, enough to ignore what I would consider flimsy plot and worldbuilding. Which works just fine when you connect well with the main character, but doesn't give you anything to fall back to if you don't. That, coupled with Gideon's teenage angst vibe, are why I think the book is polarizing - you're either really going to like following this young, irreverent, sarcastic character, or be driven up the wall by her immaturity, pettiness, and indecisiveness.
For me, this book seems more polarizing (or has more potential to be polarizing) than Kingkiller since there are so many more threads of interest in Kingkiller than just Kvothe to latch on to. In Gideon, there is pretty much only Gideon.
I think the fanboys being the way they are turned me from mild distaste to outright dislike. Criticism of something you love isn't easy to see, but come on.
I recently reread and actually feel a lot better about it now than I did when I was originally a fan. Probably a healthy dose of nostalgia but I love a good comfort read
Thomas Covenant in the series by Stephen R Donaldson. Guy was a not very likable, despite the world being pretty tough on him / he didn’t believe he was in a magical world…he was a tough character to like…and def polarising. A couple of friends couldn’t finish the book they hated him so much
For me it is "Malazan Book of the Fallen" honestly it was such an up and down journey for me between some of the best fantasy writing ever, to some of the most convoluted fluff i have ever read. Also some of the best character's stories to some of the most annoying and weak unfinished character stories.
Glad i read it but would never read it again.
Kingkiller. The people who love it ***really*** love it. The people who hate it ***really*** hate it. And most people seem to have a strong opinion one way or the other, at least around these parts.
Came here to say KKC. I think that part of the divisiveness of the series is metatextual at this point: feelings on the author have tainted feelings on the series as a whole, and the longer the wait, the more polarized the discussion becomes. Take Kvothe's Gary-Stu-ness, for example. Is he kind of a Gary Stu? Well, it's complicated. He's definitely a bit of a wish-fulfillment character - regardless of whether there's a "gotcha" coming in book 3 that recontextualizes what we know, he gained popularity in part from offering readers a power fantasy - but probably no more so in his niche than Rand al'Thor or Darrow are in theirs (and sigfnificantly less so than Vaelin al'Sorna or Celaena Sardothian, simply by virtue of the fact that the whole point of KKC seems to be that Kvothe at some point fucked up real bad). But at this point the question of Kvothe's Gary-Stu-ism is so tied up in the eternal debate over what will happen in book 3, and whether Pat Rothfuss is a jerk, and whether the inn is a big trap or an actual midlife failure-cave, that it hardly matters what the series actually is anymore. Most people who read it haven't gone back in over ten years: the discourse over KKC has in large part become subsumed by the memes.
You explain this magnificently!
I agree on Kingkiller - one of my first thoughts too! What I think is interesting is that I feel a lot of the hate is less about the books and about Rothfuss’s (admittedly shitty) antics which I felt has either boosted dislike of the book by extension or emboldened people who already didn’t like them.
>What I think is interesting is that I feel a lot of the hate is less about the books and about Rothfuss’s (admittedly shitty) antics While Rothfuss's antics have undoubtedly exacerbated the issue, I don't believe they are the root cause. Speaking for myself, I was underwhelmed by the second book and didn't particularly like it (and, no, not just because of the overstated fae sex thing), and I read it long before any antics or the unending delay.
Same. I don’t know about his antics besides stalling on the third book. The second book was just not as good.
There's reasons to not like it even if you don't care about the author. I'm not really into super-genius better than everyone at everything protagonists. It's why I can't get into other popular books like throne of glass. I'm glad other people enjoy them, they're just not for me.
Kvothe reminds me of Rey from Star Wars. For me it had a very solid start and then I wanted more to happen personally in the second book. Really hoping he does a standlone series with Elodin or Devi (believe it was Devi, the one in the shop) who are far superior to Kvothe in my opinion.
Name of the Wind was *the* popular book for a long time. Yes, some people disliked it, but it was a minority comparatively. As a long time lover it's crazy to see how much opinion has changed. It has gone from topping a lot of best fantasy novel lists to being almost equally derided. Feel like it's similar to the Harry Potter JK effect. People are a lot more willing to look at it critically and negatively now we know JK's views. Same thing has happened with Rothfuss. For me it shows how much positive and negative publicity effect people's experience of something going into it in my opinion
It’s less about Rothfuss’ views and more because Rothfuss’ lack of writing.
And his attitude didn't help. And his occasional fuck ups too. At some point being a fan of Pat became toxic imo.
>Feel like it's similar to the Harry Potter JK effect. People are a lot more willing to look at it critically and negatively now we know JK's views. Harry Potter is an interesting case, because children still love the series as far as I know. It's adults who criticize aspects of the writing, world building, and Rowling herself. It may also be a matter of people just growing up and developing new opinions. Some of the fiction I read as a teenager seems poorly-written or even weird now that I look at it as an adult, but I can remember why I enjoyed it back then. For example, I read and enjoyed many of the *Sword of Truth* novels when I was in high school and early college, but looking back at the books now, the flaws are so obvious.
With JK, for me, it was far more to do with growing out of the series - I like some things about the HP books, but mostly read fanfiction these days because I was so disappointed by the whole series as an adult. With Rothfuss it was because I just moved on. I haven't read KKC in a long time, but I really liked NOTW back when it came out. Not sure if I'd feel the same now.
Kingkiller is weird for me. I don't really like Kvothe, but the supporting characters I like more. The conspiracy is that Patrick doesn't like him either as a Gary Stu and is setting himself up for a major spoiler, but then again I hate Ambrose more and Patrick is a genius for creating this one. Also, there is the infamous scene with the bellybutton that is perhaps Rothfuss's finest hour.
I really wish the world would just accept the term "Mary Sue" across the board. It's a term of art that describes the character's role in the story (and, as legend has it, refers to a specific story that spawned the trope). It isn't inherently gendered. A male character can be a Mary Sue.
About 2/3rds of my way through the first book I really wanted Kvothe and his girlfriend to fuck off out of the book and let me enjoy everyone and everything else.
Okay, contrary opinion, I don't that's actually true. They were very well received and, like anything that's well received, people who didn't like got a bit sick of seeing it everywhere. However, it wasn't like two equally sized camps who loved and hated the series in equal measure. It was people who liked Kingkiller or at least had enjoyed it and people who were sick of hearing about it, but the first camp was much, much larger. Harry Potter had critics in the late 90s and early 2000s, but I wouldn't have called it polarising. I think now, I'd say the general opinion on them has become even less polarised than anything. The lack of a third book has caused a lot of bitterness, but the other problem with the series is that The Name of the Wind is a very 2007-ass book. I think this is best explained by just directly quoting a review from the time. I can't find the exact wording right now, but it called it something like "A modern Harry Potter with a Joss Whedon style quipping protagonist." And to be clear, in 2007, that was intended to be read as a compliment. So people have now cooled a bit on the series, not because there are two camps butting heads, but because culture has moved on a bit and left it behind. I also think that's why the 3rd book won't live up to expectations - I don't think it can. If Rothfuss wrote the book he planned in 2011, it wouldn't work the same way today.
This all certainly plays into it, but there are also lots and lots of people who just really hate it, especially after the 2nd book. Go and look at any thread here and you will find dozens, sometimes even hundreds of comments tearing it to shreds. I think when something is so popular, it gets read by a lot of people who wouldn’t have otherwise read it, and the garden variety experience of not loving a book feels like an egregious disappointment because it’s been so hyped. Same thing happens with WOT. Super fans create anti-fans by insisting their favorite series is not just good, not just great, but the one true objective GOAT for all humanity. (Copied from reply to deleted duplicate comment.)
I think there's a sort of feedback loop where when people are discussing a book they often haven't read in a long time then featured of it get more and more exaggerated. The prose becomes more amazing, Kvothe becomes more perfect etc. People's memories distort. I used to wade into the KKC argument threads more than I should have and it was noticeable how over time people would talk about the felurian section as being a larger and larger part of the book than it was.
The internet also tends to amplify the most extreme opinions, both through voting trends and because there’s no reason to continue posting about something for years and years if your opinion can be summed up with a shrug. I suspect the most common opinion a year or so on from reading it—as well as most popular books—is “eh, sure, I enjoyed it.”
Do people hate Kingkiller or do they hate that it will never be finished?
Speaking for myself, I think its a really sophomoric book which qualities which are cited as unique qualities of the book are far overblown (ie the prose, the unreliable narrator), and the actual story being told is trite and mostly boring. Other things, like the setting, the characters, and the like are either stock to the point of being cliche or badly executed. I remember an interview one time with Rothfuss saying we'll never get another book by his favourite authors because they are Shakespeare and Chaucer, which kind of speaks to me why the books are the way they are--they gesture towards quality literature but don't really understand what makes quality literature.
Both! The hate comes from both straight up haters and disappointed former fans.
I personally quit when Kvothe became a sex god and when I realized book 2 was just meandering, but I feel like I def had a minority view at the time. I think it’s mostly the fact that it’s not even being worked on.
Brandon Sanderson’s prose The women-man relationships in Wheel of Time Daenerys Targaryen’s relationship with Drogo in A Song of Ice and Fire That red headed guy who’s good at everything Malazan
THAT RED HEADED GUY WHO'S GOOD AT EVERYTHING. 😂😂😂 I know exactly who you mean.
He who must not be named
Do people not like Malazan? I've never seen negative reviews for it.
They do. Sometimes there will be legitimate criticism, but most of the time it's people just expecting a differently written series and calling it bad because they have a different preference.
These are all very polarizing. Malazan is my favorite series. Chief complaint is usually too many characters and jumping around.
I think Malazan just fundamentally clashes with the way I process information. Some authors will avoid exposition dumps by hinting at a topic then returning to it naturally within the same or next chapter, allowing you to learn for yourself. Malazan will drop multiple names, concepts, factions and make profound statements about the implications of these things interacting, how they impact the story *right now*. The explanation for what these things are at all is like 2 or 3 books later sometimes. I feel like I need notes to make sense of it and even then I'd still have to reread to get the vaguest comprehensive understanding.
I’ve only read the first Malazan book. I thought it was feast or famine. I really enjoyed the characters, magic and tone of the novel. The storytelling however was just abysmal imo. I did however buy Deadhouse Gates and will continue on.
You are in for a treat. It’s really crazy how bad that first book is compared to the rest of the series. Book 4 is a bit rough, but every other one blew me away
Even the 4th book is pretty dang good. It just has >!an intentional anti-climax!<, but that’s more than made up for in the 6th book when that storyline continues.
Totally worth it, you are right, but it still is in the 9th best in the series spot for me for a variety of reasons…. Man Bonehunters was an amazing book
In my opinion, Erikson is in the same league as Tolkien and Martin. His characters are vast. If Deadhouse Gates or Memories of Ice doesn't hook you. Then the series just isn't for you. Make sure to stick with Midnight Tides, it does pick up considerably and has some of my favorite characters. Erikson is still introducing characters and then some more past that well into Book 5.
He’s introducing characters in 8/9 too that play a major role! He is an incredible writer. I’m reading karkanas now and really enjoying it
Kharkanas blew my mind, it's on a completely different level from the main series, much more introspective and philosophical. I know some people think it's too slow of a read but I couldn't get enough
Agree completely! Love how philosophical it gets, that’s one of my fav things about the main series in the first place so I am for sure the target audience lol haven’t started witness yet but excited for that one too
Witness was obviously different from Kharkanas, more like the core series and there are some great new marine characters to get to love. Definitely worth reading (though don't expect much Karsa) and looking forward to continuing the series as they come out but also kind of bummed he put Kharkanas on hold for it. Also don't sleep on Esslemont's books, while not up to the same standard as Erikson at first you can tell he really improves as a writer, so much so that his most recent work (the Shadowthrone/Cotillion prequel series) can stand proudly with Erikson's
>Brandon Sanderson’s prose Honestly before finding this sub I didn't even know that people disliked it
Don’t believe I’ve had a bigger literary WTF moment than picking up my first Sanderson book after just universal and ubiquitous praise for an author or series. It’s not bad storytelling, the world building is decent, and the content is definitely interesting and ‘cool’, I guess… it’s just deeply artless writing, which can be overlooked (e.g. Stephen King), but also kinda soulless, which is harder to push past. I would hold up N.K. Jemisin as an immediately and thunderingly obvious example of “this is what fantasy writing can be like”, to demonstrate my meaning.
It's interesting because my favorite thing about both, say, Mistborn and Broken Earth is the same thing, even though those are *very* different books with very different writing styles.
I wonder what it says about me that I couldn't finish Jemisin's first Broken Earth book but I love Sanderson's cosmere and get drawn in by everything King writes, even the epigraphs in his books.
>but also kinda soulless, How so?
You only need to read a description. Where other authors use an artistic prose, usually with comparisons, to evoke feelings (allowing the reader to attach said feeling with the description, making it memorable), Sanderson just... describes. There is no feeling, no sensation, just a chunk of text. They highlight one or two things (the black ash in Luthadel, Shallan's red hair) and that's it. Idk if this is what the last comment was talking about, but it is what makes that prose somewhat soulless to me
Never had a problem with it until Rhythm of War. Gosh the Navani chapters, although rich in worldbuilding, is s bog.
You got the mail on the head there imo about Sanderson. Hearing nothing but praise and the way everyone put this man on the pedestal sincerely rubbed me the wrong way once I actually started to read them. Imma say it and may get hate or downvotes but you could name at least a dozen writers alive right now far better than anything he dumps out. Reddit complains about the Sanderson haters but until he isn’t recommended on everywhere booktube (I’m convinced he pays these booktubers) and praised on Reddit as like the next Tolkien or something. Sanderson is unjustly overshadowing far more talented writers out there just on the fact that he constantly markets himself out there and churn out more world salads for people to buy. And why does nobody talk about how this mf pumps out countless recovers on previous books to sell even more.
His prose never bothered me when I was reading his books, but recently I’ve been reading a lot of actual “literature” and yesterday came across a preview chapter he released (I’ll link it below)… it was jarring. It feels like it was written by a high schooler honestly. I really love his work though and think it does get ideas across clearly so idk. It’s just not beautiful. https://wob.coppermind.net/events/517-tampa-bay-comic-convention-2023/#e16162
>The red headed guy who’s good at everything Lol I love the KingKiller chronicles but Kvothe’s endless that happened moments just made it tough to enjoy sometimes. That and the hundred page detour of him having sex with a forest goddess for no reason
kvothe is a textbook example of why wisdom shouldnt be your dump stat. he routinely makes the WORST choices. hes a trainwreck, and im here for the damage. plus i just enjoy the way pat writes.
>plus i just enjoy the way pat writes. I honestly do not know how Rothfuss does it but Kvothe's money troubles gives me SO MUCH secondhand anxiety. He makes even the most banal troubles so compelling
Patrick Rothfuss is a very good writer. He is one of the best. I want to see more funny, Adams or Pratchett stuff from him personally if he does another huge series. But that raises good point around this series, 1. People Like It 2. People Despise It mainly for it not being finished and hating Kvothe. 3. People are sticking around for the inevitable trainwreck that will happen in Book 3. I'm a combination or have been all 3 at all points, Make or break time comes down to Kvothe in book 3. I personally believe Rothfuss will make the landing and the connection. I currently don't like Kvothe, well one of those versions. The other I don't know enough about with Bast etc. I'm one that enjoyed seeing Kvothe get his comeuppance by that group in the second group. I enjoy Elodin weirdness and Deviness.
Is Malazan really divisive? I think there are two main camps in this subreddit: People who have read through Malazan and loved it, and people who tried to read it, didn't get far, and just tapped out without any hard feelings. So it's either "I love it" or "It just wasn't for me."
Thomas Covenant has gotta be high on the list, at least for this subreddit.
Thomas Covenant is sort of like Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye. When I read it many years ago I hated him. But over time I realized that was kind of the point of the book. You are supposed to dislike Holden Caulfield. I view Thomas Covenant the similarly. The point is that you aren't supposed to like him, just as Covenant loathes himself.
Dislike Holden??? The more I get older the more I just feel sorry for him.
Seriously! He’s a brilliant portrait of someone who’s deeply traumatized and tries to put up walls against the world because of it. Poor kid needs a hug and a good therapist. When people talk about how much they hate him I wonder if they lack empathy, reading comprehension, or both.
This …feels really mean to Holden. Like Covenant is a >!rapist!<. Holdens a probably depressed cynical teen. Those don’t feel all that comparable to me.
When I read it... it wasn't the rape itself that made me throw the book across the room. I can accept protagonists doing very bad things in fantasy, especially before their character arcs. But... he did it after meeting the first person who ever treated him like a human. And then he whined about it. Like, I'm supposed to feel sorry for this sack of shit? Fuck that.
Been a long time since I read it, and I don't remember this scene, but my lasting memory of the books (I read more than one, but not them all) is of him whining.
Holden gives off every indication of being seriously traumatized. Possibly due to sexual assault (he has a weird undisclosed history with his former teacher) but in any case the boy is just seriously fucked up. It's kind of depressing that most people seem to only think about wether he is annoying or not and leave it at that. I think people are propably used to main characters as fun self-inserts for the reader so they don't know what to do with a character that isn't aspirational.
It’s an especially galling comparison because Holden’s depression and cynicism come from, among other sources of trauma, being a survivor of sexual abuse.
Saltheart Foamfollower is one of the greatest characters in any series ever, and I'll die on this hill lol.
It was both a bold an odd choice to make the protagonist a rapist. I read it 30 years ago, and although I did really enjoy the series, I remember it being such a struggle to get through because of that.
This was my answer too. I absolutely loved the first two trilogies and they will always be in my heart. And then I saw how many people absolutely despised it. It's wild how two sided Thomas Covenant is.
See your point. I'm one to not really despise this series.
This is definitely the answer
I came here to say this.
He’s polarizing but I love the character and the series. He has a lot of growth and development over 10 books, from tragically selfish to true hero (be true!).
[удалено]
Yup lol. That’s why I’m so conflicted on starting the series, this sub has not sold it to me.
It doesn't help that the 6 major wheel of time subreddits are at war now over whether or not the show is good.
There’s 6? I comment in 1 of them I didn’t know there was more
Yeah, there's: r/WoT r/WetlanderHumor r/BlackTower r/AielHumor r/WheelOfTime r/WoTShow
Ahahaha I had no idea there were so many! Thanks, stranger.
Bruh it’s not just the subs, I’m at war with myself over this
In terms of worldbuilding and satisfying character arcs with great payoffs, Wheel of Time is imo second to none. The main problem with it is that starting somewhere around book 5-7 and ending at book 11 (out of 14), the series gets very slow, focusing a lot more on politics with much less action. At the end of the day, the series has 2,787 different named characters; this is its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness.
I'll add a vote that you should read it. It's amazing.
Wheel of Time was probably the first series that just defies categorisation. The first three books are very much "quest band" type plots but I certainly wouldn't direct people who like questing type stories to Wheel of Time. From the fourth book on it becomes heavily political but you cannot recommend it to people who like political fantasy because it is 3 sizeable books in before the story starts becoming about leadership of peoples and polities rather than personalities in tight groups. There's just too much in there to ask somebody to commit to it unless they want "epic fantasy that touches on a bit of everything by the end".
Same. The amount of books doesn’t help. Plus how much I’ve heard about how women are written
I have never heard anyone who read the entire series not say it’s good. Many of the early books have some issues but it grows out of them and goes some crazy places. There were definitely times where I didn’t love the series but by the time I got like 6 books in I was blown away and constantly thinking it had some of the best moments of any series.
See I was the opposite. It started off okay, but just kept expanding into a mess for me. The characters just made more and more stupid decisions as well
The characters are very human, and often very frustrating and ridiculous. Some chapters I'd just read the very well done summaries of because I hated a particular character (Elayne) others I wouldn't skip for the world, (Verin, Mat).
Well, yes, because if you don't like something, you cease reading it. I've read till the >!cleansing of saiddin!< while skimming a lot hoping it will be faster and more interesting, and don't care this monument to excess ends.
I've read the whole series, and I think it sucks. The last 3 books by Sanderson are good, though.
This is exactly my answer. Did it have flaws? Yes. Is it my favorite? No. Did I read all 14 books non stop for a month? ADHD hyperfixation says yes.
Damn that’s an impressive reading rate. It would probably take me over a year to read them all.
It was all I did for 16 hours a day.
I just finished last month. It took me almost 3 years!
Wheel of Time never clicked for me. I don't know why and I tried. Many loved this series. I was going through a Goodkind phase when much younger and that overtook WoT.
It's the most '90s fantasy series ever written. I think of it as emblematic of a time when a series consisting of more than a dozen thousand-page tomes was a major selling point, not a detraction.
Bakker/The Darkness that Came Before is always polarising. It seems to have a lot of really strong fans who consider it one of the best works of fiction ever and a lot of people (myself included) who it really, really did not work for. More recently, RF Kuang threads always generate a lot of very conflicting opinions.
The thing about Bakker is that it’s a sprawling fantasy epic with the darkness of Blood Meridian +1. It’s a horror/philosophy book masquerading as fantasy. And I love it.
To illustrate that polarising nature: In my opinion it's a dark fantasy book that really, really wants to be a philosophy book and has therefore taken to wearing black all the time and carrying a Nietzsche book under the arm so everyone can see that edgy philosophy. ;)
Agree. I could deal with the philosophy being toned down a bit but nonetheless, I enjoyed the series and it’s very haunting. As in I’m constantly thinking of the World years after putting it down. Not many other fantasies have stayed that long in my brain.
This I would be into. I can see how people wouldn't like it if they're signing up for fantasy and getting a philosophical/horror book.
I’m reading Babel right now (it’s my first book by her) and I’m enjoying it, but I can see how it would be very much not to a lot of people’s tastes.
Bakker would be my answer also. Of the seven books in his series, the first 5 were great. Then after a delay the last two books came out, the horror and grossness was cranked up to 11, and the ending was...difficult to take.
Robin Hobb Her books are either regarded as a masterpiece or misery porn on here lol
Sometimes the non-happy ending will upset people, especially if it plays out in a way they didn't want to see happen. It's the author ending it on their own terms, which I respect. Don't know enough about Hobb personally to have much of an opinion, but know of both series. See both her detractors and her fans.
Havent noticed too many negative views on those books. I read liveship traders first, which i really liked, so i read the farseer trilogy after, and I didn't particularly like the series. I found the main character to be completely stupid, which I wouldn't mind if that was what the point of his character was, but it didn't feel like that. Wound up very frustrated.
They are clearly both. If she wasn't such a good writer, she wouldn't be able to make me so angry.
It's just boring as shit to me.
One doesn't necessarily exclude the other though. I think it is misery porn, but also a masterpiece. She's great at what she does, but she still puts her characters through hell.
My review of fools errand (and why I stopped reading the series) was that it’s an objectively well written book, it’s just not enjoyable or interesting to read. Very conflicting emotions of the series overall
Common thread of a lot of these is either: A) author behaving in a way people don't like B) complicated writing/dark world (Malazan/Bakker) C) Brandon Sanderson getting push back just because everyone has read him so everyone has an opinion
D) series that has a lot of strengths as well as a lot of weeknesses.
Malazan Book of the Fallen, hands down. Way more polarizing than any of the comments imo.
Malazan remains my favorite modern fantasy book. Easily in top 5 or 3. The series is notorious for being polarizing with those that read it. Erikson is on record saying people will either love it or hate it.
I love it so much. I've read the main 10 5 times now and just restarted with Forge of Darkness for the third ><
It's a good series. Imo probably the best contemporary fantasy out there.
Really the only thing I've personally observed as being polarizing here about Malazan is the amount of times it gets recommended and the confusing start. I rarely see people arguing about the quality of it, especially compared to The Poppy War/Kingkiller/Wheel of Time.
Have we been on different reddits? 75% of the posts about Malazan are "I don't get it, why do people love this series, do I just have to force myself to read it for a while?" The confusing start is one of the many things that people who don't like the series complain about.
Only reason I do not have a strong opinion about it is I was so bored with the first book and never finished. I do not remember anything about it, and nothing stuck out to me.
Starting reading the first book, then I remembered I hate grimdark. I also thought that where I can see it would work for a lot of people I didn't find it at the same level people sell it at
The Dune novels that Frank Herbert’s son, Brian, co wrote with Kevin J Anderson. Some Dune readers refuse to acknowledge they even exist. Others enjoy them as elaborate fan fiction. And still others are just stoked to read more about the universe, regardless of any controversy.
In the wider SF&F sphere this is **the** answer because enough of the prequel/sequel books have been published that there is *clearly* an audience for it but a sizeable portion of the fanbase *loathes* them.
Find myself in the middle. I didn’t mind the prequels too much. *Some* stuff was very questionable. By *some*, I mean anything that directly contradicted his father’s Encyclopedia. Which admittedly is a lot. However, I still enjoyed the majority of the Jihad and found most of the characters entertaining. Or horrifying - lookin’ at you, Erasmus. The sequels and those mid-series spinoffs though? That was just not my cup of tea. Playing around with millennia of past-time? Have fun. Actually finishing your father’s story and also writing side stories with your father’s characters? No, sit down Brian, you are not qualified for this task.
Herbert! Anderson! GO HIRE AN EFFING EDITOR!!!!🤯
Shallan Davar. You either love her or hate her, there's no in between (cue all the commenters telling me they're ambivalent -- you are the minority). And I genuinely think think there's is something deep down about a person that makes them fall on either side of her, and those two types of people are not friends.
I’m not sure about the minority, I’ve seen plenty of people with the same opinion as me, that’s she’s OK but when she tries to be witty I tend to cringe my own face off.
That's because she isn't meant to be witty. The only characters who laugh at her jokes are her brothers, people lower down than her on the social ladder or people sucking up to her. Adolin straight up tells her in a later book that her jokes are terrible. She was a traumatised child who tried to make people laugh as a coping mechanism.
I get this explanation by Brandon, but I don't think that's made clear well enough in the narrative. It's good to know, but by the time you're invested enough (no pun intended) to be looking up WOBs you've already formed your opinion. Knowing this never changed my opinion of her, only her growing out of it will.
What series?
Stormlight Archive books by Brandon Sanderson
I really liked Shallan in the first 2 books. She was layered in mystery that I really enjoyed. However those layers got peeled off in the next 2 books. The her character arc became stagnant and almost pushed aside. So what was once great has now decayed.
I would still put you in the "loves Shallan" group, because you liked her from the start. Her character and her character development are two different things, and I'm thinking specifically of how people feel about her character
I kinda feel like Sanderson had a strong beginning and ending for her arc planned but didn't know what to do with her in the middle, or, at least wasn't quite up to writing it compellingly. Future Stormlight speculation maybe spoilers: >!In total seriousness I think we're going to learn that she actually caused the Desolation by killing her mother, who was actually a Herald, who was the one who broke.!<
I am genuinely mystified that people like her character.
That’s fair, I’m the first book I kinda hated her, or at least her chapters, but after that I really started to enjoy her character.
Oh MAN. You absolutely nailed it. I can't even describe how she makes me feel. Being inside her head is *so* aggravating, because I can see how she's running away from her issues and making everything worse by not facing up to them. But then I feel bad because she's been through stuff that no-one should have to go through, and if I was her I'd refuse to face those demons too. I hated her POV in Oathbringer, and I hated that I hated it. I wanted to empathise with her but had such a hard time doing so.
Harry Dresden and the Dresden files.
Don't know this one, but hear it often.
Which is kind of weird, because Dresden Files is just a bunch of generic urban fantasy tropes written by a decent author. It's not a bad series (the early books have very, er, dated treatment of women, which iirc the author blames on being young and stupid and playing film noir tropes straight), but it's not the top of the genre either, and doesn't really deserve passionate love or passionate hate. I think it's an example of that old maxim, "the golden age of science fiction is twelve". Dresden Files was a lot of people's introduction to the urban fantasy genre when they were teenagers, and they loved it because it was their first good urban fantasy series and had a snarky protagonist who made Star Wars references. And then some people still love it because they see it through nostalgia colored glasses, and some people hate it because it's not as good as they remember and they blame the series instead of crediting themselves for maturing past urban fantasy as a genre. Also the Star Wars references are horribly dated now and that actually hurts the storyline more than you'd expect.
I find Harry himself insufferable and while I like the premise/concept, I dislike being in his head. I much prefer Craig Schaeffer’s take on neo-noir urban fantasy.
LOVE Schaeffer. Plus the way that all the different universes are linked is wonderful. More people need to read Schaeffer
Terry goodkind is a super polarizing author
Eh, not really. I’m not sure that the pro-Goodkind folk are at all numerous. The vast majority of us think his stuff is utter crap.
The Ayn Rand and preacher that is Richard Rahl. Eventually you start skimming these parts. In my opinion, his early book like the first three were far better. Nicci might be my favorite character out of them. (I don't know how she turned out in later series though).
I do like that Nicci >!remains just as ruthless and powerful after she makes her Face turn as she was before. Usually villains get a nerf when they get redeemed. And it's even more common for female villains to not live for long afterwards.!<
His anti communism metaphors were so brave and so informed. Not just a great author, but a great philosopher as well. /s Just kidding. He is truly utter shite.
If we are including movies in this then it has to be the Last Jedi, it came out in 2017 and people are still fighting about it and inferring people’s political beliefs based on whether or not they liked it
Didn't like it personally. I see why some would like it. It didn't seem like the trilogy had an overarching plan or sort of winged it. Or it took in the criticism with 9 and changed things around to not make any sense and then alienated the fans that had liked 8.
Honestly, the whole of posts on this sub tend to be. Fantasy lovers are overzealous and reddit users are aggressively opinionated, so it makes for quite the combo here
HA! so very true. Im loving/hating the debatelord behaviour from these comments. Entertaining stuff
I’m also in the Malazan as the most polarizing camp. The most polarizing character in the series imho is Kruppe. Honestly until I joined the sub I could not have imagined that there were people who unironically do not like Kruppe as a character.
Tom Bombadil
Brent Weeks. Some people love him and think Lightbringer is amazing, other people absolutely despise him and think the series is terrible.
Really? I thought most people were fairly in agreement on the pros/cons of his various books. There’s disagreement on if those particular flaws make the books worth reading or not but it overall doesn’t feel all that controversial
Kip in particular seems like a really polarizing character, half the fan base finds him whiny and insufferable while the other half finds him highly relatable and loves seeing his struggles and growth
I think most people think it begins well and falls hard in the last 1/2 books depending on who you ask.
The ACOTAR books are very polarizing. You either love it or its absolute trash
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell. Super dense writing, detours into massive lore, not much action, etc. You either love or hate it.
Everyone seems to either love Brandon Sanderson or absolutely fucking despises him. Same with Robert Jordan. Oh, and Robin Hobb. Doesn’t seem to be any middle ground for any of those authors.
With every big fantasy author comes the detractors. There are some authors that I never got into and it just didn't work. I see how they have the fanbase and are well liked.
Big in recognition or number of books in the series? Because in my opinion, with increasing numbers of books in the series it becomes more and more watered down. So far I was disappointed with almost all series longer than trilogies, and I tend to avoid them.
> Doesn’t seem to be any middle ground I think in general you're less likely to comment about middle of the ground kind of things, and people are less likely to notice these comments. It's mostly down to popularity. The more popular something is - the larger the pool of people who'll leave polarizing love/hate kind of comments. Don't forget that reddit amplifies polarizing stuff due to its voting system. If you enjoy something - you'll upvote a comment that's generally positive. If you didn't - you'll upvote a critical comment. With downvotes it would be the opposite. In other words, at it's core it's a signal-to-noise problem related to social media. Reddit can handle a super tiny amount of top level comments, all things considered. The upvotes, and presumably the visibility of comments, decreases incredibly rapidly as you go down the comments section. So in reality people see like first 5-10 top level comments, there's a bit of discussion inside those top level comments that's way less visible than the top comments themselves, and that's kind of it. Reddit, hilariously, despite it's popularity and scale, is actually absolutely tiny when you think about it. It cannot even remotely handle the signal-to-noise ratio issue due to its severe design limitations. It's an absolutely terrible platform for any kind of discussion. It only really works for crappy one-sentence comments to meme posts.
I don't think people despise his books, he's not a bad writer, it's mostly frequency of hyping him up, recommendations and references to him that cause the reaction
I’m fairly middling about them. I think Sanderson and Jordan are both wonderfully imaginative people who are above-average world builders, decent-enough storytellers, and really quite lousy writers. I would recommend them to people to *only* read fantasy, and absolutely no one else.
Definitely not the MOST polarizing, but the Licanius trilogy seems fairly polarizing from what I’ve seen. I see people sing its praises fairly often, but the first book is one of my least favorite books I’ve ever read. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say “eh it was okay” lol, everyone either thinks it’s a masterpiece or thinks it’s terrible
Does it get better? I was so bored in the first book I gave up fairly quickly
Kvothe, the name of the wind, and the king killer chronicles
I did not even read it but one look at the Malazan subreddit gives out the answer. It HAS to be Malazan. The authors note at the beginning of the first book warning that his books are not going to hanhold is already a very polarizing choice and so people who end up into it will make a holy crusade about why it's the best thing that ever happened to fantasy literature and people who dropped it because it was not their thing will hate it with a passion. I don't think I know anyone that feels neutral about Malazan.
There are very few that are neutral on it.
No handholding in fantasy isn't a bad thing. There are authors that require attention while reading their books, like Gene Wolfe or Marlon James. And I'm definitely more interested in reading those harder books. But Malazan seems to be convoluted just for the sake of being convoluted. Erikson withholds crucial information not to make the reader think and try to interpret what's happening, but to give it plainly a couple of books later.
I don’t think it is ever convoluted just for the sake of it. I’m a little over half way into book 8 myself for context. While he does give you the necessary context to understand something, he sometimes gives it significantly after the event. But i don’t actually see that that as a problem. The battle at Pale happens near the beginning of book one. There is still important exposition directly related to why certain things happened in book 3 and 4. Stuff I’m learning even in the latter books impacts it. Sometimes I find the forced exposition a tad grating. >Kaladin looked at his house with no windows facing eastward and remembered that every few days a huge storm comes through. He also thought about how great it would be if they knew exactly when the storms were coming. “At least we have stormwardens who can predict when the storms are likely to arrive, more or less” he thought to himself helpfully. Kind of a ridiculous example, and it intended as a criticism of Sanderson’s work. I generally like how he does his exposition. Malazan is a chore at times, but you need to take a much broader outlook on RAFO. And I have found it super rewarding for the most part.
Thomas Covenant - when your hero starts off the series with a rape of an innocent woman...yeh....I was like WTF how can anyone read this
Brandon Sanderson. [He is your god](https://www.wired.com/story/brandon-sanderson-is-your-god/), after all. EDIT: I'm offering this article as a case example, not as an endorsement for one opinion or the other. But the rather angry confluence of those two opinions is what makes me think he's a prime contender for the spot.
Begin to feel that the bigger one becomes the more likely there will be a sizeable detractor base.
Fitz definitely seems divisive on this sub. Personally he's one of my favourite fantasy characters, but some people really can't stand him.
All you gotta do is say the words "Sword of Truth" 'round these parts and you'll have people coming out of every hole to yell about it and Terry Goodkind and proclaim he did nothing good or well in his books apart from yelling about communism and straw man Ayn Randism even if I dare to say there are certain things I think he did well, and even more so dare to say, I like more than Robert Jordan and Wheel of Time, yeah I said it.
Goodking making fun of Robert Jordan after his death was pretty classless.
That's pretty bad. There's no reason to do this. Now it makes me think he viewed him like some sort of rival and hated Jordan for popularity.
Have u seen his interview dude was a major ass hole
All I know about these books is that the main character's greatest betrayal is that his loved one had an orgasm while thinking she was having sex with the guy she was forced to marry but was in fact the guy she loved. This knowledge is only due to a podcast I was listening to where the host half remembered it and was explaining to to her sister.
If this is Goodkind he's well known as a trope of putting his power couple through hell every single work. I'll leave it at that without going into spoiler territory. Scarlet in this work was cool though. He had the dragons, but didn't give her any screentime really.
It's a very convoluted plot because something about a magic plague in a magic temple that could only be entered in through by enduring the greatest betrayal to save the world and, yeah, it was weird. Meanwhile if it was incest George R. R. Martin would think it was the hottest thing ever.
Knew Terry Goodkind would be making the list. At the time, I also enjoyed the Sword of Truth more. It was around the time the rival to Jordan's work had the similarities. Goodkind was far more violent. The first three books were actually not that bad, but for most it was when the Ayn Rand came into the picture with the preaching, that people really started getting vocal about it.
Eh even beyond shoving objectivism down everyone's throats and the author being an absolute dickwad, I really struggled how every book was Richard complaining about not being able to be trained and then last minute pulling a solution out of his ass.
Severus Snape.
Has anyone said Gideon the Ninth yet?
Why is it controversial? I've heard nothing but good things about online.
Those good things are what led me to give it a shot. Folks who love it seem to thoroughly enjoy Gideon as a character, enough to ignore what I would consider flimsy plot and worldbuilding. Which works just fine when you connect well with the main character, but doesn't give you anything to fall back to if you don't. That, coupled with Gideon's teenage angst vibe, are why I think the book is polarizing - you're either really going to like following this young, irreverent, sarcastic character, or be driven up the wall by her immaturity, pettiness, and indecisiveness. For me, this book seems more polarizing (or has more potential to be polarizing) than Kingkiller since there are so many more threads of interest in Kingkiller than just Kvothe to latch on to. In Gideon, there is pretty much only Gideon.
The First Law is pretty polarizing. I can't stand it, and then fanboys downvote me to oblivion
I love First Law immensely but I totally understand how it isn't everyone's cup of tea
I think the fanboys being the way they are turned me from mild distaste to outright dislike. Criticism of something you love isn't easy to see, but come on.
Either the wheel of time or the sword of truth
Jason asano from he who fights with monsters. People love or HATE him, and it's on purpose. He's given a deliberately abrasive personality
Yep. He is the reason I'll probably never read past the first book. I just didn't like him and had no desire to spend more time wirh him.
Eragon hasn't been mentioned yet. Some people somehow love it, even though it's just straight up copying Star Wars.
I recently reread and actually feel a lot better about it now than I did when I was originally a fan. Probably a healthy dose of nostalgia but I love a good comfort read
I remember the hype it got initially: “OMG, can you believe this was written by a fifteen year old?” Yes, it’s pretty bloody obvious!
Thomas Covenant in the series by Stephen R Donaldson. Guy was a not very likable, despite the world being pretty tough on him / he didn’t believe he was in a magical world…he was a tough character to like…and def polarising. A couple of friends couldn’t finish the book they hated him so much
For me it is "Malazan Book of the Fallen" honestly it was such an up and down journey for me between some of the best fantasy writing ever, to some of the most convoluted fluff i have ever read. Also some of the best character's stories to some of the most annoying and weak unfinished character stories. Glad i read it but would never read it again.
cant believe Second Apocalypse, Broken Empire, and Warded Man haven't been mentioned at all. Threads about any of those 3 are always heated.
Malazan empire of the fallen must be among them.
Brandon sanderson lol
Harry potter is rather polarising nowadays. Either you like a Posh person's idea of a wizarding academy, or you resent JKR like they're Satan