Authors Need to STOP Rewriting Lord of the Rings
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- Should authors stop rewriting Lord of the Rings? Is The Poppy War edgey YA? Is Steven Eriksen bad at character work? Thanks to @PhilipChaseTheBestofFantasy for joining me to discuss your unpopular opinions!
Join the Book Club here: / libraryofaviking
Join the Viking Clan and get access to the Viking Book Club⚔️
🢚 / libraryofaviking and get access to exclusive benefits!
🢚 JOIN THE DISCORD: / discord
🢚Get 5% off at The Broken Binding using the code LIBRARYOFAVIKING7
🢚 Get 5% off at Inkstone Books using the code VIKINGOFFER5
Other links!
🢚Instagram - / libraryofaviking
🢚Blog - www.libraryofaviking.com
🢚Goodreads - / library-of-a-viking
🢚Twitter - / libraryofaviki1
🢚Amazon Wishlist - www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/...
Contact me? (Review requests allowed but not likely to get reply)
libraryofaviking@gmail.com
0:00 - Intro
0:47 - Reviews from Goodreads are problematic
3:03 - Stop Rewriting Lord of the Rings
5:59 - Robin Hobb is overrated
7:43 - Most grimdark is bad
9:33 - Malazan should be read as an anthology
10:27 - Steven Eriksen is bad at character work
12:50 - Age of Madness is better than First Law
15:02 - Sanderson's characters have the same voice
16:05 - The Poppy War is edgey YA
17:27 - Jade Legacy was the worst book
Music by Naomi - Nebula - thmatc.co/?l=D54CC386
Music by Damien Sebe - Goodmorning, My Love - thmatc.co/?l=A052F6D6
Music by Mark Generous - Orange And Pomegranate - thmatc.co/?l=13F71691 
Развлечения
Thank you for inviting me on, Johan! My apologies for throwing a nuclear bomb right from the start. 😁That said, I had a fantastic time discussing unpopular opinions with you!
Thank you so much for joining and for sharing your hot takes! I had so much fun!
Given the style of the video, I think your opener was entirely appropriate.
I also disagree almost completely with your take. 8-)
A review is, and should be, a report of your response to something, not the imagined response of some platonic ideal of a reader. The fact that Joyce is beloved of a certain class of readers does not entitle his work to 5 stars from everyone who might write a review. (Feel free to insert Shakespeare, Tolkien, Hobb, Weber, Bradbury, Faulkner, or whoever you wish in place of Joyce; the point stands.) Just because many people (or "all the great and the good") are rating some work 5 stars does not mean that anyone for whom that work fails needs to give 5-star reviews to that piece.
Further, I consider it part of the job of a writer to compel my attention. If I want to solve a puzzle, I'm not going to a work of fiction for that experience. I do not consider that a failing on my part, even if others disagree. (Hence my use of Joyce in the previous paragraph.) Nor do I consider a good review from someone who _does_ seek that kind of work to be in some way incorrect.
Negative reviews of popular works are just as important as positive reviews, in that they can give readers a more nuanced view of what that work is and help them determine whether the work will be appropriate for them. The same applies to positive reviews of works that do not share that kind of critical popularity.
About 70% of the books I read get a rating in the 3- to 4- star range. I don't buy or read books that I think will be unpleasant, so there's a selection bias at work, but most published books fall into the "entertaining, but not life-changing" range. "I liked it" isn't enough to get 5 stars, and "It was entertaining, but kind of forgettable" isn't enough to get 2 stars from me.
Those middling reviews can be the hardest to write. Something like Tolstoy's comment about families in Anna Karenina applies to books, "All decent books are alike; every bad book is bad in its own way." (And every great book is great in its own way, too.)
With that in mind, when I write a review of a book that I've given a 1- or 2-star rating, I feel the need to justify that score with details. The same applies to 5-star reviews. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
The place where I do agree (I think) with your position, is that in a more ideal world, a 1- to 5-star range wouldn't be treated as binary. But that's at least as much a problem for 5-star ratings as for 1-star ratings.
Finally, I hope you'll see this to be not an attack, but a considered response with a different opinion.
I'd give your statement 2 stars. 8-)
I 100% agree with you!!!
Sorry for giving you anxiety 😁
"instead of giving hamlet one star maybe you should work on your one star vocabulary and reading comprehension" , spitting fires this early.
I had to go check and Middlemarch has 4.02 on Goodreads. Hamlet too. That's just embarrassing.
So, I should force myself to like something I definitely don't like?
I think, forcing myself to "love" classics is a hypocrisy and cargo cult. Everyone should have their OWN opinion, not the opinion of some snobish "experts"
There is no "good" or "bad" taste - everything is subjective
@@bxp_bass Disagree. Art is not always subjective. If there aren't at least some standards for art, then the point of art is lost. If we only go by people's subjective opinions, some classics would never be considered classics because some people inherently dislike those classics or don't understand them. I mean, you can like a generic pop song more than a Pink Floyd song, but I don't think people with a little understanding of music would ever claim that a generic pop song is better than a Floyd song. I dislike some classics, but can recognize why those books I dislike are considered great.
@@FrancT- I am a musician and I was an admin in VK metal music community (I posted albums, reviews and so on, 5 times a day, for years), I listen to things far beyond Pink Floyd. For me, Pink Floyd is pop music for shallow snobs. I've seen so radically different opinions from people who were definitely very well listened and knowledgeable. I've attended so many debates about "objectivity" of art, so, we decided that this topic is completely cursed and we're not gonna take part in it anymore.
As for the classics I'd say so: I can hear where it's bad music and where it's good music but it's not mine. But this good-o-meter regularly breaks. For example, in my teens I hated electronic music, I thought that everything but rock, jazz and classical music is worthless garbage. Oh how I was wrong!
Good taste by the way, Pink Floyd is great, do you have lastfm page as well? :)
@@bxp_bass Can you list some bands? Looking to expand my horizons a little :)
The thing about classics is that most are read in school for school which inherently puts them in a category of reluctant readers and possibly in a genre they don't prefer. Personally, this had put all "classic" books as an immediate turn off for me until I was out of school for 5 YEARS! Just hearing that a book was a classic, I avoided it like a plague.
When I finally read some classics as an adult because the summary interested me did I finally realize I had a negative bias to classics. I reread some of the books I read in high school and college and was like "oh, they are good. lol" though of course I like some authors writing better than others. I think whatever book you read you have to want to read it.
As for classics, the books are well thought out and had multiple edits before print, whereas a lot of contemporary books could do with 2-3 more edits. This doesn't make the books bad but certainly lack a more polished and complete feeling.
I contend that labelling something a "classic" is about as meaningful as saying an author is on the bestseller list. Art is inherently subjective and should not be treated as a contest.
My hot take: fantasy as a genre has been stagnant for awhile now, especially when it comes to the technical aspects of writing. The majority of what we read, especially the popular ones, have either serviceable prose or bland/dull -- but a lot of readers give those books a pass because the ideas therein are attractive enough. There's just not a lot of experimentation going on in the genre (again, in terms of writing and presentation; not ideas), which is really odd considering the genre is FANTASY where literally the only limit is imagination.
Yup, it’s strange to me how a lot of classic fantasy is much more diverse and experimental than modern fantasy. You think it would be the other way around.
Elric of Melnibone, Dragonriders of Pern, Wizard of Earthsea, The Belgariad, Dying Earth, Chronicles of Amber, The Black Company, Gormenghast, Legend of Drizzt, Chronicles of Narnia, Lord of The Rings, The Dark Tower etc are all incredibly unique from each other and that’s just scratching the surface of classic fantasy.
Agreed. Reading the silmalarian and then Branden Sanderson made me realize how mediocre modern fantasy is
That probably has something to do with the average reading comprehension and vocabulary having been in decline for decades.
Although I did try to read the first couple books of the Faithful and Fallen and the prose was worse than most YA books I’ve seen. So sadly it might be starting to decline rapidly.
@@derraldlosey1118 see, I believe our generation is actually smart despite of it all. I pin the blame somewhat mostly on people with platform: the publishers, the folks who market books, influencers, etc. It's trend vs quality for these people. It's all about jumping on the bandwagon, promoting books that would sell while the really excellent ones are swept under obscurity. And trends and trend-chasing tend to reinforce patterns, way of thinking/writing etc.; e.g., if worldbuilding and 'magic systems' are the names of the game and the thing that would sell/make money then that's what current and future writers would focus on.
@@WayTooUnderatedYou say ‘mediocre’, I am never more astounded by fantasy authors who use ‘real world’ religions/systems of government/lifestyles (the Will of the Many, the Demon Cycle, the Bound and the Broken) instead of making up their own. It is pure laziness on the author’s part.
Robin Hobb and Joe Abercrombie manage to think about their worlds in their entirety so as a reader we are transported to a new experience.
Philip is absolutely correct that, if readers do not enjoy a book, this is not necessarily the book's fault. I can attest that there are some very good books that I did not personally enjoy when I read them, whether because I was not ready for them, or they weren't what I was looking for, or I didn't have the right background to fully appreciate them, or I wasn't particularly interested in what the author was trying to do, or... (And in a few cases, I enjoyed or appreciated the book a lot more when I re-read it much later.)
That said, rating books according to one's personal enjoyment of them is ONE perfectly legitmate way of rating them, as long as we don't mistake (lack of) enjoyment for (lack of) objective quality.
Also, some very popular books are mid at best
That's why ratings in apps like goodreads cannot be taken as a reflection of the quality of a book, just as an average enjoyment. To assess the quality it takes someone trained to do so.
If I read for enjoyment, why would I rate books any other way than how much I enjoyed them?
Because art isn't just about enjoyment.
@@neutral_10 Art is about the relationship between the art and the viewer. Everything else is a circlejerk.
@@PlatinumAltaria sure but pretending it's all should be enjoyment is also just circle jerking.
what a very intelligent thoughtful and interesting guy Philip Chase is. Why haven't I been aware of him! A big oversight on my part. I'll hot foot it over there now and also start reading his books😀 I already watch all your videos , thank you for introducing me to Phil Chase too.
Highly disagree with the first take. He's confusing critic review with audience review. Goodreads in particular is literally based on HOW MUCH YOU LIKED THE BOOK. Saying people shouldn't be reviewing a book based on their enjoyment is honestly a bit snobby. The average reader isn't a literature critic. Kinda seems to be gatekeeping to say average people need to be trained before leaving a review on Goodreads. There's spaces for both.
There's definitely room for both. I think he was just trying to say a reader's enjoyment of a book isn't necessarily an indication of the quality of the book. If you can differentiate the two, all good. But a lot of readers conflate the two.
I strongly agree with his opinion. Getting on Goodreads and seeing 1 start for Lord of the Rings when the same person leaves 5 start for Fourth Wing is insane and horrible and should not be allowed (I'm joking ofc, but come on).
@@PierreLeSang Nah, that should definitely be allowed. I read plenty of negative reviews that don't deter me from reading the book because the things they complain about don't bother me. There's a difference between someone saying a book is slow and boring, which I don't necessarily mind, and a review that attacks the actual writing, structure, prose etc.
I personally don't really care about literary merit. I can acknowledge it, but I much prefer how a book made me feel or think.
It's definitely not a perfect rating system, but I always prefer audience reviews to critics reviews.
@PierreLeSang I don't disagree with that part. It's absurd to give a classic a 1 star. I honestly think a 1 star is pretty damn low for any book, but that's just me.
I also agree that my personal enjoyment of a book doesn't mean a book is good or bad. Goodreads rating also doesn't mean much to an extent. A 4.1 isn't really any worst than a 4.6, etc.
However, Goodreads is literally designed to find book recommendations and to rate how YOU liked a book. If thousands of people didn't enjoy a book, it doesn't matter all that much if the book was written well. I read for enjoyment. I am not a literature critic. If I don't enjoy a book, what rating am I obligated to give if it's written well?
Also who decides the true ratings of these books? LOTR is a good example of a classic that we should all be able to agree is "good." But what other books are good?
Not rating on enjoyment basically makes most of these review sites pointless imo. There's critical spaces for literature reviews. Goodreads is not the place to go for critic reviews. If someone's following a book reviewer who rates Fourth Wing 5 stars but rates LOTR 2 or 3, it kind of makes sense. Different people have different taste.
Agree. It screams of elitist snobbery. The purpose of reading a novel is to spend your time being entertained or enlightened. What entertains you might not entertain others.
Wow 🤩 like the video!! Interesting concept.. happy reading to you!!!
Thank you :)
Interesting thing about school. We have a lot of classical literature in school (high school) including War and Peace, Hundred Years in Solitude and such. So when I read Lord of the Rings when I was 17 I enjoyed it pretty much. But I have to add to this discussion that if someone only read modern fantasy not even scifi (and especially classic scifi) that narrows the view to literature definitely. We can see the change at Merphy Napier’s channel, and she reads more non-fantasy books over the last years. And I am at booktok now this reflects there too. Some people made videos about how their reading habits changed based on this.
As for Poppy War…. Both is true… the main character is a Mary sue and annoying as heck. The base story tho is a very good delivery. 🤷♂️
I do not agree with the comment that literature should not be valued based on personal enjoyment. According to my perception and my path as a reader, everything depends on what you are looking for when reading. In my case, that my purpose is to enjoy a story, to feel connected to it and make me live experiences, the main factor I judge is how much I like something. I think most people read for fun, they don't approach a book in an academic way or with professional critical foundations, that's generally left for those who do it, redundantly, in a professional way. It's like food, I don't care if the food is made in a restaurant with 5 Michelin stars, by one of the best chefs in the world, under an innovative and complicated technique of molecular cuisine, if in the end I don't like it. I am one of those who think that everyone has to be clear about what they are looking for and with that criterion to judge. To grow as a reader is an expected good, which may or may not be found in each book, something that should be sought, but not the end in itself. So I leave the freedom for everyone to judge the book as they want, in the parameters they want, as long as they know that their public opinion will always be exposed to debate, but most of the time I respect when someone tells me: I didn't like this book, I'm sorry, I didn't connect with anything about it. Sorry for the long comment or maybe the bad English.
"instead of giving hamlet one star maybe you should work on your one star vocabulary and reading comprehension"
So, I should force myself to like something I definitely don't like because some authorities told me so? If a book isn't interesting to me - it's not other people's business.
I think, forcing myself to "love" classics is a hypocrisy and cargo cult. Everyone should have their OWN opinion, not the opinion of some snobish "experts"
The first few minutes of this were extremely thought-provoking! Well done conversation!
I just don’t really agree with the first take. Goodreads wasn’t designed to discuss the literary quality of different works, most of the users probably didn’t study literature or English. Goodreads was designed for people who enjoy reading to discuss books they’ve enjoyed or did not enjoy. Perfect example, I just finished reading Lord of the Rings, which is considered a masterpiece, and I can acknowledge it’s beautifully written, but I was pretty bored most of the book. The copies that I own the Battle of Pelennor Fields was about 10 pages but there are 30 page chapters where nothing happens except the fellowship is on their journey and lots of descriptions about the scenery. While I generally liked the books they were honestly boring at times for me. Right now I’m ready Leviathan Wakes, and I’m having a blast reading it. Is it of the same literary quality as Lord of the Rings, no. But I’m having much more fun reading this than Lord of the Rings. Should that not be part of my decision when creating a review on Goodreads?
I don't think it's a hot take, but to me it's obvious that some people take the scores on goodreads too seriously.
Within minutes it becomes quite obvious that some books have scores so high and so low by factors such as popularity and whether even if one agrees with the author's opinions or not.
Sanderson (because of the speed at which he writes) doesn’t ‘live’ with his characters and so doesn’t know them the way Hobb or Abercrombie do theirs. Don’t get me wrong, I love some of Sanderson’s characters (Kaladin), but others I hate (Dalinar, Adolin)!
Grimdark I think is more an overused term than genre. I also agree that depicting violence honestly is the best of grimdark. However using violence for the sole purpose of shock value cheapens the book dramatically. So I agree with both of you gentlemen on this one.
Solidly agree. Far more things are called grimdark than actual are. Morally grey characters and realistic violence is just realism without a grimdark setting.
100% agree that enjoyment as the sole criteria for book reviews is a horrifically flawed metric. Enjoyment is important. There is no doubt. But how much did the book make you think? Did it expose you to ideas you disagreed with or weren't even aware existed? Did it put me in a mentally challenging place that I might could learn something or use it in the future? Books are for more than enjoyment. They are tools. We need to use them!
It's like that McDonald's analogy: sure, you enjoyed your Big Mac -- I do too, as much as the next dude. But that doesn't mean it's 'good' for you, or that it's good.
That's also pretty arguable depending on what idea you subscribe to. If you're Oscar Wilde then probably no, books aren't for anything else.
I agree. Most of my favourite novels are heavily entrenched in religion and faith. I am an agnostic. I am clearly looking for something outside of myself and books of this nature draw me in.
Audience reviews are more useful to writers than snob reviews. If no one can read Hamlet anymore, I shouldn't waste my time writing a book in the style of Shakespeare cuz it won't sell.
Rewriting LOTR is a travesty!
Counterpoint, Terry Brooks Shanara trilogy was my gateway to Fantasy. I read it and Tad Williams before LOTR.
This was a lot of fun! Keep doing these for sure.
Thanks!
I understand where this dude is coming from. I also think it is very normal for readers, even avid readers, to rate based on enjoyment. I rate based on enjoyment. HOWEVER, I have also found that books that I didn't necessarily enjoy, but that made me work, somehow end up feeling a tad more rewarding.
Seveneves by Neil Stephenson made me realize there are books out there that may require a higher level of math and science than I possess. In finishing it though, the sense of accomplishment was amazing. Read for enjoyment, read for knowledge, read for what have you but READ. That's the important part.
Just an opinion. 🖖
10:28 I finished Deadhouse Gates last week and my theory was that High Fist Pormqual's only purpose is to counter the argument that to many of the Malazan characters are to intelligent for a realistic story😂
Too
Too
I think the main thing with Sanderson is that he mainly writes Epic Fantasy, especially in the Cosmere and when you're writing mainly epic fantasy, you're going to have some overlapping tropes that will make things similar or even make characters similar. Like there's the comedic relief that he often has in stories, such as Wayne in Mistborn Era two who is kinda similar to Lopen in Stormlight Archive, since they have similar roles and accents (Especially if you're listening to audiobooks where both are narrated by the epic and amazing Michael Kramer. So the two kinda sound similar. However, they are drastically different characters. Lopen comes from a huge family and is disabled, but doesn't seem as traumatized as Wayne who lived with a single mother who passed away and was can't hold a gun without shaking because of what he did. Then there's Lightsong who's also kind of a comedic character. But very different from the other two. At the same time, you also have the kind of epic heroes like Vasher, Kaladin, Dalinar Kkholin, Vin, Elend, Szeth, Sazed, Wax, Kelsier, and many others who kind of have similar arcs of redemption and these epic moments of heroism and self sacrifice. SO it's easy to kind of lump them together but these characters are all vastly different in unique ways. I wouldn't say that anyone of them have the exact same voice.
My hot take os that George WILL finish ASOIAF
These are always so fun!
Grimdark to me is the most interesting, emotional and experimental brand of fantasy out there. They’re not afraid to take risks, they’re not afraid to do things differently from all the popular bestselling trends and they’re not afraid of tackling controversial subject matter that will ruffle some feathers. Most grimdark I’ve read has been extremely good and very unique.
Manifest Delusions, First Law, Second Apocalypse, Elric of Melnibone, The Black Company, Thomas Covenant, Ash and Sand, The Dark Tower, War for the Rose Throne, Between Two Fires, Song of Ice and Fire, Iconoclast, Kane, Conan, Poppy War, Broken Empire, Raven’s Mark, Empires or Dust, Covenant of Steel,
And many many others have all been among the absolute greatest fantasy I’ve ever experienced.
Berserk too
@@_Ashin_ Absolutely, my favorite manga of all time.
Hi Johan, completely unrelated question here.
Is the Sword of Kaigen worth reading? I saw your review on Goodreads, but still I wanna know your thoughts.
Is it in the same level as The Way of Kings by Sanderson? (it hooked me, I read the first two books of Stormlight in just 20 days or less, 100 pages, or more, a day)
(3:56) "Reading tastes have changed a lot since Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings." True-but it's not as though LotR really reflects reading tastes of the mid-20th century either. Are reading tastes nowadays really any worse a match for LotR than those of when he was writing? It's not as though nobody has been reading or writing long, multi-volume, sometimes slower-paced fantasy recently.
And yeah, we don't need slavish imitations of Tolkien-but do we need slavish imitations of ANYBODY?
That judging book based on enjoyment argument. Here’s my 2 cents you don’t need a degree to judge a book everyone has different taste. I really don’t like Shakespeare does that mean his work sucks? No but it means I have much different taste when it comes to literature. Some people with degrees and PHD are the dumbest people on the planet. Look at politics they have many different degrees and they can’t do anything right.
Don't have to be a cook to criticize the cooking.
My one reply to this is that if you go to a restaurant and order a dry aged steak to medium rare and it comes out at the exact temperature of a medium rare but you don't like the way it looks because the aging process changes the moisture and color, it does not make it improperly cooked. You may want it different, and that is fine. But temp is temp.
Wanting something prepared differently to your tastes and criticizing the preparation can be two different things. I'm not saying this are always prepared perfectly or anything, but people watch the food network and think they know a whole lot more than they do.
This is fun 😊 first take offended me though LOL I totally disagree!
Love these videos
Thanks!
A take: taking a popular take and saying what is kind of the reverse, just makes for another popular take, same deal with hot takes. And I am being pedantic because have seen too many threads like these on social media, so don't mind me too much. Still, I do think the best hot/unpopular takes, are the ones people put out there innocently, and had no idea the internet drama they were about to commit themselves too, unfortunately I can't recall any media related ones I've seen.
Being less pedantic and more fun though.
I think spoiler culture has really negatively impacted reviews, so many reviews are written in a way that you can't actually tell if someone even read the book. It has got to the point that people still write in that way even when they don't necessarily mean to, no example, no specifics, never mind a nice little quote to illustrate their point, the review could be copy pasted on to so many other books. I say this, having done it myself. I have poked fun at them in the past, but I do think the people who just summarise books on goodreads as a review are doing something way more useful than overly non specific reviews, beyond just what their score adds to the aggregate.
Annoying music Johan
I love Philip Chase’s subtle jab at Johan. You just KNOW he was hinting at Johan giving up on Malazan 😂
The number one question you should ask yourself if you didn't like a book is: "Am I the audience this was written for?" If I read a book and it seems well written and has strong plot and characters, but I don't like it, then it goes on my "not for me" goodreads shelf and I leave the rating blank. On the flip side, when I am reading pulp fiction or serial romance novels, I rate them purely based on enjoyment, since that is what they are written for.
My unpopular opinion is that Wandering Inn is the best fantasy series i ever read in a long time. It starts in a simple way and blossoms into something bigger.
I love Philip and his channel but I can't disagree more with his spicy introductory opinion, hahaha. In my opinion, we should not judge each other by our "literary maturity" and how ready we are for certain books because at the end of the day books are written for entertainment (including philosophy since it can be entertaining for many) and people are entertained by different topics, writing styles, etc. I do agree that authors are probably too pressured to write what people would want to read rather than just writing for the sake of writing, for the art itself and it's sad that "cheap" romantasies are doing so well while really good books written by very talented writers don't do so well, BUT on the other hand we should be happy that people even read romantasies, because reading feels like a dying hobby for the last decades at least. Personally I do rate books in GR/StoryGraph entirely by enjoyment level - I read almost exclusively fantasy and I do prefer modern fantasy to classics like LOTR and Earthsea. Don't judge, I'm a child of today, so I'm glad writers like Sanderson exist that will write exactly what I need to read - is it the best fantasy ever? Maybe not, but it is exactly what I want to read and it feels like a 5/5 to me. However I almost never give 1 star reviews, 2.5-3 is usually the lowest I'd go with
I strongly disagree with the blanket statement that books are written for entertainment. Just because some level of enjoyment can be achieved through reading them doesn’t mean that it is their aim. This is certainly the case with most philosophy, theology, and history. If you were to ask St Augustine whether this was his aim he would deny it wholeheartedly. He would say that he wrote for the benefit of the Christian community so that it could turn to God. Same goes for St Thomas Aquinas and almost all of the Catholic tradition. I think your mindset is a very modern one, conditioned by the constant desire of authors, filmmakers, and content creators to grab our attention at every moment so that they can get our money. We are constantly surrounded by entertainment because this is what sells. However, this is only a very modern phenomenon and does not align with the reality of many authors’ intentions, especially in the past, but this goes for today as well.
@@jakubrosiecki443 I meant fiction, my bad. And that's why I explained further what I mean by entertainment - highly philosophical dense fiction novel can be as entertaining to a person with philosophy as a main hobby (or academic degree) as fantasy is entertaining to me. And as I already mentioned, I fully agree that writing is more job than ever, it almost feels like writers nowadays are forced to write what people want to read rather than writing for the art itself. And I don't mean pulp fiction since I don't read any pulp fiction, I don't consider Sanderson or Blake Crouch to be pulpy, but they are on the more "entertainment of the masses" side of things while still providing a lot of value in other aspects in my opinion. I do get that it's a very modern thing to try to please the masses with your writing, but again on a place like Goodreads it is exactly what you want - the more people enjoy a certain book, the bigger the chance for new readers to enjoy it as well, so it serves its purpose and it really leaves a bad taste in my mouth seeing how people judge "the masses" for not being literary mature in a way. Because those more "literary mature" books that are usually studied in high school are the biggest reasons people don't read nowadays. Many of my friends say things like "reading in 2024?!", "if the books you read are as boring as the ones we studied in school...", but in reality there are books for all types of people and my mission is to motivate more people to get back to reading, since it's a beautiful hobby even if you're like me and read just fantasy. Anyway, I respect your opinion, it aligns with my point of view a lot and I do admit I'm with a more zoomer mindset even though I'm millenial/gen Y. I wish people were spending more time reading any fiction than wasting their entire days and nights in TikTok, haha
@@Abken. Ok now I see where you’re coming from, and I definitely agree! Have a nice day mate :)
I feel he kinda missed the point of a review 😂 if all reviews were based on technical writing standards, we would have a very boring world.
Re: Brandon Sanderson’s characters… I wonder if the feeling of them having the same voice has anything to do with the narrators of most of Sanderson’s works being Michael Kramer and Kate Reading, so many characters in different stories literally do have the same sound to them. The narrators are incredible, but I have noticed various characters from different books sounding incredibly similar.
1:05 Usually I like Philip but wow that is incredibly snobbish and entitled. Does he want every person who rates on RottenTomatoes to have film degrees now too? Do he want every amazon reviewer to have a degree in the field of the product they're reviewing first?
What odd corners of the Interwebz did you end up on to find some of these opinions? They're . . . . interesting, to say the least 😂
You can thank my Instagram followers haha
100% agree on the first one. You enjoying a book does not mean it is a good literary work and you not enjoying a book does not mean it is a bad literary work
With all due respect, kinda have to disagree with the first one. Like, i kinda get where u came from but execution to it seems off.
first: You can like hamlet while not having the reading comprehension of a professional literature critic and vice versa. Assuming one's reading comprehension simply because hamlet didnt work for them seems pretty reactionary.
second: kinda doubt that you need god levels of reading comprehension and extensive vocabulary to understand and know a novel that is constantly being shoved onto everybody since middle school.
third: as someone who enjoys several classic novels, these novels are, just like any other novels, can be a hit and miss to the readers and that's completely okay. You cannot expect for everyone to like the book simply because it's often highly regarded. At the end of the day people have their own preferences and not anyone goes along the current.
fourth: enjoyment can be a legit factor in criticizing a novel. It measures on how well written and engaging your work is that makes readers care enough to deep dive into the world, the conflict, the characters, and the plot you're building. That's one of the purposes of storytelling.
fifth: several low star reviews in goodreads will neither be enough to usurp hamlet from it's throne nor force the dead author to roll out of his grave to care.
Rewriting implies that you don't agree with the original content/idea.
I don't think anyone has really done a good job at "rewriting" The Lord of the Rings yet. They always add some weird stuff that makes it un-enjoyable. I love Tolkien's exposition and description!
I don't speak english as a first language and I guess perhaps I'm in the intermediary level. Could you recommend 3 fantasy books easy to understand, with easy english ?
One thing about fantasy that might be particularly tricky for you is that as an author invents a new world, there are usually many made up words for the made up people, places, animals, and magic. So… it might be best to START with fantasy set in our world, and maybe fantasy designed for a younger audience, so that the vocabulary is easier for you to deal with as you continue to increase your English vocabulary. On that note, I think I would suggest Fablehaven or Percy Jackson or The Candy Shop War as books to start with.
Chronicles of Narnia -CS Lewis (written for younger readers, so the language is more clear. 7 books, but not long books. These are classics!). The Last Unicorn - Peter S. Beagle (the language is beautiful without being very fancy, and the story is like a fairy tale. It's a standalone, but does have some really good sequel short stories). Arrows of the Queen -Mercedes Lackey (magical school without too many made up fantasy words about a young girl finding her strength. 3 books in the first series).
Calling Hobb overrated is like saying that drinking water is unnecessary
deep
They're right that goodreads reviews are terrible. But critic reviews are just as bad. You get a group of people, all of whom have the same education, most of whom have the same beliefs regarding what makes an author acceptable or not, and they tend to push books that nobody actually wants to read. Most people are idiots, overeducated idiots included.
Loved this ❤😂😂
Hot Take: The Classic are good... for their time. Most of them are bad if you compare them to contemporary books.
Lord of the Rings' prose is great. But it's still dull. JRRT was writing an alternative history rather than a novel. And it shows.
That was fun 😜
Robin Hobb is indeed underrated. She deserved much more!
Hey I'm on TV
Modern Fantasy writers don't need to describe as much as Tolkien and other writers had to simply because the works of said older writers. Simply put, anyone even slightly interested doesn't need to be told what an elf or dwarf looks like. Tolkien couldn't assume that as couldn't other writers of old.
What is 'Traditional Fantasy'?
J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings`?
Fritz Leiber's 'Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser'?
Robert E. Howard''s 'Conan the Barbarian'?
Homer's 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey'?
I'm reading the first LotR book since 2021... I think I can already say that I prefer the movies.
Funny think about Lord of the Rings. I genuinely consider this Trilogy (and The Hobbit) as ground breaking and essential fantasy reading. It's impact cannot really be exaggerated....maybe.
Now having read hundreds of books since I first read LotR if a new reader to fantasy asked me I would say, "Yes, highly recommend. It's alright."
So yes, it is overrated but deservedly well loved.
Oh and I'm not a fan of Monty Python either....there I said it. :)
But it wasn't groundbreaking, every element of the storytelling and even the world building was already ancient when he wrote it. In fact, that was kind of the point.
@@DanLyndon Fair enough. I mixed important with ground breaking but yes I see your point.
0:47 - "Reviews from Goodreads are problematic" - that is why I don't even bother to rate books :D
Tolkein isn't fantasy as it was meant to be written?
here's my bad take: goodreads and booktok exist to build communities around specific fetishes for tropes, especially with regards to romance. the reviewing aspect is mostly about whether the trope was done to their taste or not, rather than the quality of the book as a work of literature.
Moorcock called it sword and sorcery not grimdark not sure when this changed
Around the 90s or 2000s. Def around the time of Warhammer. I would look into the origins of grimdark if you are interested :)
Definitely
I wouldn’t call Moorcock grimdark.
The Eternal Champion character is far too powerful for his general world to be an actual threat to him. He also doesn’t do much realism detailed violence.
Grimdark seems to be more often sci-fi than fantasy so s&s would be a bad title regardless.
2 minutes in the video and with that initial statement, Philipp convinced me to give his books a try. Great (and completely correct) perspective on the way books get rated.
It is a based opinion! I hope you'll love The Edan Trilogy!
Thoughtful discussion, thank you chaps! And I do like Philip’s opening remarks on star ratings - love that he has the credentials to say something like that😅
Thanks for watching!
I’m not sure… if I need to take a college class to be able to enjoy your book, is it good????
Imagine food, I should not know how to cook or how the mouth works in order to enjoy it
The thing is a lot of what you enjoy is partly based on your educational level. A reason why pop music is so popular is because it isn't complicated and people can appreciate it even without a musical education. But it's also why it is generally not thought to be real art by a lot of people, because compared to other genres that demand real mastery of your instruments (including voice), most of it can be done even by really mediocre musicians.
Same with foods. I can enjoy fast food as well as everyone but then as someone that cooks at home and knows a thing or two, I have a completely other level of appreciation for what real chefs do, and there's no way you could tell me that the big franchises are even near that quality with those products they make.
Books is the same. Yes, appreciation for the literary greats most of the time demands a certain investment in your literary education, so I don't blame anyone without that education if they can't appreciate Dickens the same way I do. The thing is, what that education also did for me was making me able to better differentiate between good stuff and mediocre/bad stuff in everything else I read. I still enjoy stuff that I wouldn't call great or even good literature, but you won't hear make me the claim that Salvatore is the best fantasy author of all times just because I enjoy his Drizzt books so much.
Of course there will be some stuff which is just bad, but there's a reason why the classics have been so highly regarded for so long, and it's a bit naive to think that if a book isn't immediately enjoyable to you then it must be bad. It's ultimately a matter of developing the taste to appreciate things. To go with a food analogy as you have, someone who only ever eats fast food probably isn't going to appreciate a meal from a Michelin star restaurant, but that's not because the food isn't good, it's because that person doesn't have the palate to appreciate it. We'd hardly say that McDonald's serves higher quality food than a Michelin star restaurant, even though McDonald's is far more accessible and more people enjoy it.
But as a chef. People have given reviews or critiques to a dish based on their own perception as their own quality as a home cook. Enjoyment is one thing but understanding how a dish is put together and constructed is another completely. I think the point being made is that enjoyment and quality can be mutually exclusive. I can enjoy something that is critically considered bad. But my dislike of something does not make it poor quality.
@@Bultarski I agree with you. And I guess then the question would be what is its purpose? What makes it good?
When it is something that is made for consumption, I would say the enjoyment of such a thing has a very heavy weight.
If it is something more functional, like a bridge or even some medicine, it doesn't really matter if you like it or enjoy it because its main function is to get something done.
I'm just thinking through it as I write, so I'm very curious to know your view on this. If fiction books are meant to be read (and enjoyed?), shouldn't then the deciding factor on them being good the enjoyability of them (idk if that's a word lol)
@@some5794 I think we are going to agree alot here and I think it's actually quite complicated. From a food perspective we made some dishes flat out knowing some people would not like it. Either because of ingredients, or flavor compositions, etc. That doesn't make it bad. My wife hates mushrooms. Does her dislike of a perfectly executed mushroom dish mean that it is objectively bad for everyone? I don't think so. We created things to hit a middle ground for many. And then would push diners with a few dishes, and then played safe with a few. I have worked places that have kept things on the menu that we all thought were awful but a group of regulars would complain if removed. Food is such a hard one and this discussion could last a while. Haha.
I think the example I was going to give someone else was movies. Roadhouse vs There will be Blood. I will watch Roadhouse if its on TV. Its a bit cheesy and fun. There will be Blood is objectively a better overall constructed movie. Acting, writing, cinematography, etc. But I would be hard pressed to find many people that wouldn't sit and enjoy Roadhouse more.
I read 100% for enjoyment and mood. When I give stars its based on how that book impacted me at that point in my reading journey. I don't considered myself a literary scholar and I don't write reviews but I would recommend things based on my reading style to see if someone relates to that. Sorry this is long and disjointed its just one stream of conscious.
Last example. I don't think the first assassin's trilogy by Robin Hobb. I may go back and reread all 3 but frankly I have no desire. I don't think the are terrible books. They just were not for me at all.
Good think I've never read LotR. I can't be accused of copying it 🤪😉
There are two reasons people call The Poppy War YA- and they are both pretty bad. 1) There is at the very least a subconscious, or for some an overt, bias toward placing female writers, particularly female fantasy writers, as YA. You can say many things both positive or negative about RF Kuang but that woman is NOT writing YA. 2) A lot of people get a)intellectually lazy and rely too heavily on short cuts to identify concepts in the world. So when people see a young person MC in a school setting they instantly call it YA or 2b) they can be intellectually dishonest about things they think they like and dislike for whatever reason and use "YA" as a put down.
Fully disagree with the tittle question. I will buy all of them and hope I find one that surpass the original. Now bye.
The opening remarks to time stamp starting Robin Hobb were spot on. Particularly the comments on vocabulary, however, I would add that readers and booktubers particularly, need to stop with the woke crap. Whether the book is white elitist, homophobic, or racist, or doesn't cater for the biophobics or the feminists. In many cases I sit wondering if these clowns have actually read the book or are they only doing book reviews to virtue signal their own delusions.
I would agree
I read a lot of fantasy..... For my taste, none natch LOTR, HP and The Wicher
My hot take: Both Joe Abercrombie and Robin Hobb are overrated. The problem with Abercrombie is that he’s one note. Even his characters are all variations on the same theme, that everyone and everything sucks, and nothing will change. He basically beats you over the head with it with every book he writes. Now, if you’re looking to explore that sort of nihilistic thinking, Abercrombie is your guy for sure, but if you want more than that… 🤷🏻♀️ Robin Hobb… It’s the plot holes for me. She focuses so hard on her characters that the plot suffers. I would also argue that despite her heavy character focus, there are decisions that everyone makes that makes no sense whatsoever. It’s like Hobb basically ignores what should logically happen in the story and instead asks herself, “What will inflict the most pain and suffering on Fitz?”
I rely on ratings to gauge my potential enjoyment. I'll leave English works that are "canon" worthy to the lit profs.
Agree to a certain extent, but come on, one can exaggerate, Finnegan’s wake …. no, just no.
I pretty much DNF’d Jade Legacy. Just isn’t my kind of fantasy.
Everyone makes fun of Philip for being pretentious. I guess he's just decided to double down and actually be as pretentious as possible :)
Great video, and Philip is amazing; I'm just making fun of him.
I'm just a cheap date. I find something good in everything 😂
Some here in the comments seem to misunderstand the first point in the video. It's not snobbish or elitist.
Thristan and the Classics channel does a great video about what makes a classic.
Basically in all areas of life their are people more expert, more experienced and have more refined tastes. Food, wine, art, movies I could go on.
It is only with expertise that you can appreciate the skill and talent that's gone into making a certain thing.
I might dislike a movie because it didn't entertain me. But someone with knowledge of movies beyond me could understand wow, how hard those scenes must have been to capture, the film type used, the lighting and sound etc.
I didn't think my comment was snobbish but I could have been less cutthroat about the LOTR is overrated lol. But I think like with any form of art people will have personal feelings about it. For example, my favorite forms of fantasy tend to be in dark realms so ASOIAF, Realm of the Elderlings, and First Law, and if someone said those are overrated and there need to be less of them, I think I might find those remarks "snobbish" but hey opinions are like assholes.
@@currangill430 I didn't think the comments were snobbish, I was referring to people saying the people in the video had a snobbish opening pov.
I used to only like whisky that was smooth. If it wasn't smooth I thought it poor. Years later and having developed a pallet i can now appreciate a wide spectrum of whisky.
If reviews are just based on one element then it will be very narrow and limiting
To me, it's simple. You can rate a book based on your enjoyment, but you have to recognise many times, the rating will be high for a book that isn't a 5-star book. You can be a fan of Katy Perry, and rate her albums very high, but you can't claim Katy Perry is better than Pink Floyd. It's simply nonsense when you look at it objectively. Pink Floyd inspired generations of musicians and can be enjoyed on the surface level, but also deeper than that. Plus, there is objectively more talent behind it. You might dislike it, and that's okay. The argument that art is always subjective, is beginning to feel like an excuse for talentless musicians, producers and writers to get a chance in the industry they don't belong in.
Couldn’t disagree more. There is no such thing as objective criticism, unless you’re God, and I’m assuming you’re not God. Your definition of talent is biased and I’m sorry you’ve been brainwashed. I think Katie Perry is way better than Pink Floyd. No snobby lecture can ever make your opinion into an objective fact. Objective criticism is an illusion. Take a few minutes to register that. Then grow up and realize Roger Ebert was an overpaid snob. You’re welcome.
@@RobertD55 There is no god. If we don't have any form of metric or standards for art, then anybody's art can be accepted as great. What is the point of art then? You might like Katy Perry more, and that's fine, but you have no arguments as to why it should be considered better because there is none. You just like it more, which basically means nothing. If you only critique stuff based on what you like and nothing else, you neglect talent, passion, etc. it's just stupid. It sounds like you are the one brainwashed here. You don't have to feel bad for having guilty pleasures. Grow up. Enjoy what you enjoy, but don't claim something is golden when it is bronze.
The public reviews of Hamlet and other literary classics are accurate. They are based on people’s enjoyment of those works (at large). Would you ever tell someone that just because they do not know how to make a movie, they cannot know what a good movie is? Movies are a better analogy for books than brain surgery.
Like how people are giving praise to the new Star Wars shows even though they are bad?
that first point was exactly the point being made. People's enjoyment isn't the only factor that should go into a review or a rating, and your personal enjoyment is a pretty bad indicator for the quality of any entity. And with regards to movies, you see people confuse that all the time, especially when political leanings come into play. That doesn't mean that you have to be an author to be able to review a book faithfully and in an unbiased way ( and I agree that as far as it made the discussion going that way, that analogy wasn't that well-chosen), but if, one the other hand, you think that your personal enjoyment entitles you to make factual statements about a movie or a book's quality, you're just plain wrong.
Now , as long as you read the goodreads star system as what it is, namely as an indicator of how many people enjoyed a specific book, there's nothing wrong with it, and it might serve as an indicator for if you'll like it as well. Doesn't say really much about a book's quality, because there's no nuance in most people's reaction to the book read.
It's also why I generally don't choose my books based on the goodreads star ratings, but based on actual reviews written by readers. And the way those ratings are written is always a good indicator for if you should take them seriously or not. I just went over to goodreads and looked at some of the reviews for The Way of Edan, and if a review starts by saying "I guess I’ll be the only nonbiased person to leave a rating." I already know that it's not worth putting any stock into it. (in this case, I read the rest, and while it was hilariously stupid, it confirmed what I already was thinking about whoever wrote it).
@@Eluarelonthe purpose of a review is to let other people know if they will enjoy a book. If you don’t like a book for personal reasons, give it a negative review for those reasons. The percent of people that share those reasons will determine what the average review is, making it an accurate representation of the likelihood an average person will like it. That is the purpose of reviews.
@@thrawncaedusl717 going back to the video, we're actually talking about ratings, not reviews. And no, a review is supposed to give an unbiased (as unbiased as possible) account about a book's quality. You can state your personal opinion about it (bonus points for giving the reasoning behind it), but if all it comes down to is "I love it so it's great/I don't like it so it sucks" there's no value to gain from it at all.
@@Eluarelon I fundamentally disagree with you on the purpose of reviews. Firstly, there is no such thing as unbiased. Everything is relative, everything is contextual. Secondly, why would we want “objective” ratings if they don’t line up with subjective experiences? Who has the right to “objectively” rate/review? There is no good answer to that last question (largely because objectivity does not exist).
I agree on LOTR, it is like The Beatles. Formative for the time and vastly influential but it has never moved me. Black and White stories of good and evil aren't interesting to me.
You should try John Gwynne,he does it in a special way 🙏
My list of Tolkien clones or imitators:
Shannara
Warhammer
Palladium
Fionavsr Tspestry
DandD hundreds of books
Memories, Sorriw and Thorn
Warlords videogames
The Black company
The death gate cycle
The Wheel of Time
The Witcher
Warcraft
Elder Scrolls
Arcanum
Lineage and Everquest
Second Apocalypse
Dragon age
Fortunately people stopped copying Tolkien after the movies.
Ive only read two grimdark novels.
In one all males were psychos and all females sexual victims.
In other, characters looked like zonbies, they had no life beyond killing for their master.
I don’t see grindark honest, just cartoonishly evil and pessimistic.
There is also Ryan Cahill, Eragon, and recent self pub have gone into the Tolkien/classic fantasy with a modern twist" so of recent there have been a lot of new authors who are recreating Tolkien/classic fantasy with a modern lens. For some it's great for me it's boring as hell.
@@currangill430 Eragon, the Tolkien/Starwars hybrid written by a teen so unoriginal i thougth unworthy of anote.
Who are those modern imitators, apart of dark water legacy?
Some of them isn’t self published?
@@adamnesico Ah fair. These are some recent self pub which are highly acclaimed:
Ryan Cahill
Phillip Quaintrell
Michael R Miller
I think it's more of a recent surge in the self pub area then it is in trad. But even so a lot of readers love the trad fantasy with a modern lens. I do not.
@@currangill430 Thanks.
He, i forgot, The broken sword, the first Tolkien clone, published just some months after the Fellowship of the Ring.
Good imitation, by the way.
You are going to have a hard time selling some of those as Tolkien clones.
And since the dark lord portion, the ring, Gandalf, and most of the monsters were taken from mythology or the bible some of those clones are probably more original.
My unpopular opinion is that we should stop reading fantasy written by writers from English speaking countries. There are many amazing authors out there as the onmagier books from the Netherlands or sapkowsky from Poland and other Spanish fantasy writers like Concepción Perea. We are missing out by only focusing on American/Canadian/UK writers.
Stop reading is too agressive, just read both.
@@calebrichard4545 what I wanted to say is that we need to get more foreign books translated into more languages as English. There are many fantasy novels that if you don't speak Dutch, Spanish or french you will never hear about because they aren't exposed to the mainstream media.
@@MrAelin i agree with that point, but we shouldn’t stop reading the other stuff
First those books would need good English translations.
@@derraldlosey1118 and nobody will translate them because everybody is focused only in English speaking fantasy writers.
The first take is objectively correct, 100%. But of course you can't have a successful fantasy channel if you say anything negative about LOTR or cliches being recycled over and over again. LOTR itself was a bunch of recycled old tropes at the time. It's become a bizarre sort of religious text where people take it as sacrilege to critique Tolkien on anything.
I think that the first take is such a snobbish take - the primary goal of stories is to entertain, if a book doesn't entertain you it is ok to dislike it. Reviews are subjective not objective; you should be able to review anything how you feel not how someone with a degree in literature says
“You don’t have to know the rules to break them, but if you know the rules you know how to break them.” -Picasso(paraphrased)
But if your only criteria is how much YOU are entertained, how is your review of any value whatsoever to anyone but you?
Also, your premise that the primary purpose of stories is to entertain is only true of some stories.
The primary goal now of stories is to entertain. That wasn’t true with a lot of classic literature. The entertainment was secondary. Which is at least partially his point.
@@derraldlosey1118 Humans have been telling stories for almost as long as we have been around, they have been to teach through entertainment. Entertainment has always been a part of them. Lots of classic literature now was looked down upon when it first came out with its age being the main reason it is so respected today
Jeez that diatribe at the beginning of the video was very pretentious and elitist asf lol. And ironically feels like he's just triggered that his "classics" don't stand up to the scrutiny of today's readership.
Maybe consider that people dont like classics not because they're too dumb to understand but one good reason is that as we go backwards in time, much of literature was written from a perspective of a certain view point or identity that many today feels is very exclusionary or dated.
People should absolutely read for enjoyment and don't need a PhD or expertise to critique a book. It's not an expert field of applied science like engineering with rules and standards for safety. Writing is a subject art.
That one good reason is like the worst reason you could have come up with. Kinda makes his case, weirdly enough