Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: guessingo on February 14, 2010, 04:22:59 AM
-
I would like to try out her books. Which one do you recommend ?
-
Assassin's Aprentice
-
Definitely Assassin's Apprentice.
All of her books (except the Soldier Son Trilogy) are tied together and it all starts with Assassin's Apprentice.
-
Apparently Robin Hobb is a pen name. She wrote some novels under a different pen name in the 1980s. Are her older novels any good?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_hobb
-
Never read them, so I don't know if they're any good, but they're not related to her later books.
-
Robin Hobb appears to be the kind of author who is hyped up for no particular reason. Assassin's Apprentice reads very much like someone's amateurish self published fantasy book. Very cliche and bad on dialogue, story, plot, characterization, world building and magic system.
-
Robin Hobb appears to be the kind of author who is hyped up for no particular reason. Assassin's Apprentice reads very much like someone's amateurish self published fantasy book. Very cliche and bad on dialogue, story, plot, characterization, world building and magic system.
0.o
Did you read the same Robin Hobb as the rest of us?
Robin probably does characterization better than anyone else in the fantasy genre.
-
0.o
Did you read the same Robin Hobb as the rest of us?
Robin probably does characterization better than anyone else in the fantasy genre.
Then you must have read a ton of god awful fantasy books with really shitty characters. Her characters in AA are some of the worst if not the worst I have ever come across.
-
Like/dislike is often taste. I tried reading The Left Hand of Darkness and got 100 pages in and didn't like it.
I'll give Hobb a try, when I get the chance. I have several books before that and I don't spend as much time reading as many of you.
-
Robin Hobb's Assasin's Apprentice stories take place across 6 books (the last 3 are the 'Tawny Man" series). Like any good series, the build up of characterization, setting, and the magic system is not instantaneous. The pacing and plot of this series moves a lot slower because Hobb is focused on the characterization of Fitz--whose issues of bastardy, a magic he's not really allowed to use, and how he fits into the world he was born into, all shape who he is. He's really a fascinating character.
-
AA is a good read. The characters are solid, but as Nessa said, they get better as you read along. You know, as they grow. Much of the slow development, in my opinion, is due to the "era" in which the novel was written. That was they way stuff was done in those days.
Moggle, try not to criticize and rip into everyone that just happens to have different taste than you. And please try to keep profanity out of your posts. I'm sure you like novels that other people think are terrible. That's kind of the point of having a variety in the fantasy genre--everyone can find something that appeals to them.
All that said, I don't agree with Erik that she does characterization better than "anyone else in the fantasy genre." I don't think she is even close to being the best. She does a good job in her earlier works (her recent works, in my opinion, fail and fall into the realms of cliché), but I personally feel that others are much better.
-
By the end of the AA trilogy, I was burnt out on Hobb. I won't read her again. The books have some high points and are relatively entertaining, but the second and third books especially have vast amounts of NOTHING HAPPENING other than the MC whining and the occasional intrigue that isn't intriguing. With a very limited amount of time to read, I have chosen to spend my precious hours on authors who entertain me more.
-
She tends to focus on character issues, like Nessa said, rather than other things. Much like Brandon's Warbreaker has a lot of people standing around talking (and doing little else), Hobb did the same thing. This isn't a bad thing, it just means that it isn't for everyone. Some people absolutely love that kind novel--as evidenced by Hobb's huge contingent of fans. As a writer, there are many things that Hobb does right with characters that would be well worth studying.
-
I agree about the characterization, but on the other hand I found Fitz ultimately to be a little annoying, not all the time, but enough to turn me off. Another main turn off was what I refer to as the Harry Potter syndrome (the MC's life is a living nightmare because he is picked on by everyone in the universe and thus the MC gains sympathy points). While the Harry Potter syndrome can be effective (see, e.g. The Name of the Wind), the difference with Hobb is that the misery never stops. Fitz's life is pretty much hell from page one with little in the way of happiness through the course of the books. For me, personally, there needs to be some variation or the story starts to drag.
-
Cynic, yes the first part of the series he does have a pretty crappy life. That's why I like to group the 2nd half of the series (the Tawny Man seies) in with it to look at it as a whole. Fitz really becomes an interesting character in the second series (in fact I read that series first). He's an adult in that series, and holds his own. It's not about misery, but about overcoming adversity. And it does ultimately have a happy ending.
-
That is interesting. I never made it to the Tawny Man series. I was so put out after finishing the AA series that I didn't want to plow on, especially after a friend advised me that the Live Ship books were even more whiny than the AA series. I didn't want to read them, and since it precedes the Tawny Man series, well, I was done. That being said, the Tawny Man books did pique my interest. By far the most interesting character in the AA books was the Fool, and I was interested in how he would develop.
-
The Tawny Man series was great. Probably better then the AA series. I'd recommend them, but like a lot of other people have said, after reading them I think kind of got burnt out on her work too. I never finished the Ships series.
If anything I think there's TOO MUCH characterization in her books, it makes them slow reads.
She's who comes to mind when I think of characterization in fantasy. She's probably not the person I like the best, but I'd never say she sucked at it.
So who in Fantasy would you guys say does characterization better than Hobb? Who does it best?
-
Joe Abercrombie. The Characters in The First Law Trilogy are some of the best I've ever seen. The series may not be for everyone (it is dark, almost too dark for me), but if you want to learn how to write solid, interesting characters who will stick with your reader, read Abercrombie.
-
I absolutely agree that Joe Abercrombie (http://www.timewastersguide.com/review/1669/The-First-Law-trilogy) has some of the most complex, involved characters I've read. But I was iffy on the story, because it is rather gruesome and dark.
Other authors who I think are great at characterization are Lois McMaster Bujold, Jim Butcher (Tavi from the Codex of Alera series is one of my favorite characters, but he doesn't even get really interesting until book 3), Niel Gaiman (not so much for depth as for how interesting/quirky they are), and Robin McKinley--can't think of any others off the top of my head. Of course, I'm more of a 'story reader', I read more for plot than characterization or even setting, so take that for what it's worth.
-
Hobb's latest stuff (Dragon Keeper) has crap characters. It feels like 2 totally different authors when you compare her early stuff to her newest.
Who does characterization better? Mind you, this is my opinion:
Martin, Abercrombie, Erikson (by FAR), Bakker (the early stuff), Miéville, Sanderson, Barclay, Lynch, Lloyd, Gaiman, Dan Wells, Chadbourn, Peters, Jones...you get my point, I could go on. They each have specific strengths, but I personally feel they all are better than Hobb. Also, most of these authors are of the Dark Fantasy group (which may not appeal to the masses), which for Dark Fantasy to really work, the characters have to be amazing--otherwise you get stuck with shock value crap.
-
Robin Hobb's Assasin's Apprentice stories take place across 6 books (the last 3 are the 'Tawny Man" series). Like any good series, the build up of characterization, setting, and the magic system is not instantaneous. The pacing and plot of this series moves a lot slower because Hobb is focused on the characterization of Fitz--whose issues of bastardy, a magic he's not really allowed to use, and how he fits into the world he was born into, all shape who he is. He's really a fascinating character.
How many books does Hobb need in order to finish her characterization of one character? Do you need to read all 6 books in order to "get" Fitz or even 3? I don't know about anyone else but I consider that bad writing. I don't think see how Fitz is any different than say a Harry Potter or Qvothe or Vin. Those were already great characters after their first books.
-
It depends on the author. And once again, just because you didn't like the characterization in the one book you read doen't mean that it is bad. It is, once again, a matter of opinion. I think authors, like Goodkind, Dan Brown, and Ruckley suck at pretty much everything. But that is my opinion. To each his own.
Some authors are good at making a character likable from page one (those once again, this is all subjective). Some authors need more time. It's a matter of how patient you are willing to be. It also matters when you read the novel. Reading AA now for the first time vs reading it when it first came out has huge impact on perception. The genre is completely different now. Once again, this is opinion, others will disagree.
Mainly, don't insult others for not agreeing with you. I would argue that Harry Potter has terrible characterization. Books 1-3, to me, were boring. Harry wasn't remotely interesting until book 4. And then he whined for books 5 and 6, followed by a completely inconsistent book 7 that destroyed what little good she had created. But other people love it, and that's cool. Just because I hated the series other than book 4, doesn't mean that I'm right. To each his own.
-
It seems to be in vogue to rip Dan Brown on here. Let me defend him. I read his first book and will not be reading the rest. It was "ok" to me. His books are designed to appeal to the following:
1. people who think puzzle solving is cool and fun.
2. people who really like art
3. people who think it is totally cool to mix the two together and get a really fast read.
it is not written for depth of character or even with interesting characters. it is about puzzle solving and then throwing in some mysticism and lots of art, statues, etc...
not my thing, but I can understand the people who like it. I generally take books for what they are. I don't think there is anything wrong with people who luck all the puzzle solving that Dan Brown presents.
-
Dan Brown's got a great formula that makes for a pretty enjoyable thriller. His main problem is that he only has that one formula, so you can only really enjoy one of his books before you start wanting your money back.
-
Joe Abercrombie. The Characters in The First Law Trilogy are some of the best I've ever seen.
I read a review just this last week that talked specifically about the characters in Best Served Cold (his most recent book). Thought I'd post a link to it because I thought it was quite good.
http://aidanmoher.com/blog/2010/02/reviews/review-best-served-cold-by-joe-abercrombie/
-
@ryos: That is not a problem. He is a multi-millionaire and one of the most successful authors out there. His fans read his books because that is what they want. If he writes something else, it probably won't sell as well and you will see 100s of 1 star reviews going "where is the old Dan Brown.
When you sell millions of copies of each book, you have an incentive to keep giving people what they want.
The Gathering Storm knocked the latest book from #1 on the bestseller list, but it is still in the top 10 and The Gathering Storm has dropped off of the New York Times best seller list. When you have sales like that... why change? Especially since changing will lead to angry fans.
-
guess--
actually, fans are asking Dan Brown to change because his books are so formulaic. he is the mystery equivalent of a monthly romance serial, but writing at a George RR Martin pace. everyone has recognized this now that his 5th book has been released. there is a reason his latest novel is barely averaging 3 stars: people have caught on to his poor writing, his predictable plotting, and his false sense of good pacing.
go read the review that Nick and I wrote over at our blog of The Lost Symbol. we break down exactly why Brown is a terrible author.
Robin Hobb's recent, poor series of novels are like the best novels ever written when compared to Brown.
-
His latest book has been a best seller for months... so people may be catching on they are still buying the books in massive numbers. If people are still buying them, he can keep punching out these formulaic books and make more money than most of the authors with creative concepts.
he has to have sold over a million copies by now just for this book which no one likes. he has sold so many books he probably doesn't even need to write another book.
I bet he can write another one and it gets the same bad reviews or even worse and still sell 250,000 copies easily.
I see where you are going, but when you still make the same kind of money he makes... suck it dry.
-
Joe Abercrombie. The Characters in The First Law Trilogy are some of the best I've ever seen.
I read a review just this last week that talked specifically about the characters in Best Served Cold (his most recent book). Thought I'd post a link to it because I thought it was quite good.
http://aidanmoher.com/blog/2010/02/reviews/review-best-served-cold-by-joe-abercrombie/
Yeah, that review pretty much sums up why I haven't read it yet. I love Abercrombie's work and his style, but it's kinda like reading Tess of the Durbervilles, there just isn't much in the way of sunshine. I appreciate gray characters, but you have to give them a moment or two in the sun.
Still think he's the best I've read at characterization. I liked the description of his style. In fact, I plan on incorporating it into my own writing where appropriate.
-
he can keep punching out these formulaic books
He doesn't punch out books. He takes his time writing poorly. Hey people can read his books, all they want. All it will do is make real novels seem that much better when those readers finally get there.
Cynic--Yeah, there isn't much sunshine in Abercrombie's novels. They have a moment in the sun...usually while being killed. I love Abercrombie, but I tend to read something "happy" after one of his books to balance the scales.
-
How many books does Hobb need in order to finish her characterization of one character? Do you need to read all 6 books in order to "get" Fitz or even 3? I don't know about anyone else but I consider that bad writing. I don't think see how Fitz is any different than say a Harry Potter or Qvothe or Vin. Those were already great characters after their first books.
It is not bad writing to have a character evolve over many books. This is true whether it's 2 books or 10. Vin is not the same person by book 3, just like Rand had changed over 12 books, and Fitz has changed and evolved over 6 books. This IS a sign of goood writing. Why? Because it's hard to do well. You can write the baseline of a character in book 1 (and even some evolving of characterization), but having them continue to evolve over several books takes skill.
For example, you can have book series such as mysteries where a main character pretty much stays static throughout. This isn't bad writing, because the purpose of the stories is the mystery (such as the Dan Brown books, in which Dr. Langdon doesn't change from book to book), but writing an evolving character across a series is difficult to do.
Having a character evolve over a series of books is representative of life. I've been married for over 13 years and I'm not the same person I was when we were first married. And there are things my husband does that still surprises me, that I'm still learning about him. When an author can successfully show that kind of change in a character, that does make it good writing.