I’m currently reading books by L.E. Modesitt Jr. He’s an interesting author… he writes primarily fantasy, with a scattering of sci-fi novels. So far, I’ve covered around 15 of his books. He’s most well-known for his Saga of Recluce series, which details a world in which Order and Chaos are the primary forces that drive the conflict, not Good and Evil. Similarly, he has another series – the Soprano Sorceress series, in which Harmony and Dissonance are what govern magic, and it’s a very strong feminist 5-book series.
One acquaintance of mine describes reading L.E. Modesitt Jr. as an act of intellectual masturbation – every book of his is exactly the same, and they all end the same way, pleasant but boring. Some ill-fated person is cast into circumstances which force his or her to discover their own innate talent, often through being treated unjustly. They learn that life isn’t always fair, but they just have to get along, understand the rules, and work within them to achieve some measure of success… usually not without paying a price. Eventually, they find peace and balance within themselves.
Every single book.
Well, there are variations on the theme, but most of it is the same. And it’s so boring. I think I’m getting sick of reading L.E. Modesitt already. There’s nothing new. I’ll just finish the third book of the Corean Chronicles, and then I’ll stop.
But this brings me to an interesting topic. I’ve realised I tend to stick to authors. If I find an author I like to read, I’ll usually read through almost all of their books until they bore me, or I get put off by changes. And I realise that there are some weaknesses with this approach. First, the authors I like tend to be formulaic. Most of their books are very similar to each other. They have one major hit series, and then everything they write after that seems to be just copies of that series, cast in a different skin.
David Eddings always has a group of wisecracking heroes and manifest gods coming together to save the world. Piers Anthony’s Xanth chronicles track the progress of hero after hero on a quest to save Xanth, by first visiting the Good Magician, and then using their Talents to do whatever it takes to overcome the pun-filled obstacles. David Weber is all about reluctant heroes who care too much, thrust into unwilling battle, but then overcoming the odds and becoming stronger. Terry Brooks always has a mysterious Druid pulling a group of unlikely heroes together to face dangerous magic threats, using dangerous magic powers, and each saga ends with passing the Druid mantle onto the next generation… who will be the Druid of the next series. Anne McCaffrey is all about mysterious (and usually empathetic) life-forms, and how to co-exist in harmony with them.
So far, Eddings, Anthony and Brooks have already lost their magic and grown too boring after 15 books or so. Weber is still okay with me, because there’s some signs of progress and character growth between each book in a series. But already I’m starting to see signs of lack of development as an author. McCaffrey was smart in retiring and passing on her mantle to her son, just as she was starting to lose steam. (Of course, her son is nowhere near as interesting a writer as his mother, but oh well…)
On the other hands, weird and varied authors like Mercedes Lackey and Eric Flint also cause me trouble… I like some of their books, and hate other ones. Lackey’s saga about the One Hundred Kingdoms and the Tradition, for instance, is a highly-enjoyable mix of fairytales told anew. But her story of the Heralds of Valdemar are usually disturbing for me. Likewise, Eric Flint’s alternate history books are interesting, but his Joe’s world books have rather vulgar and crude humour.
So I guess there’s no easy answer for this. If I want authors that are familiar and comfortable, I’ll get bored by how similar each book is to the next one. If I want authors that are varied and interesting, then I could end up with stories that I dislike, simply because the spectrum is so wide. Ah well. Better to read widely, I guess.
