Rating: 
Summary: Reminds me of another book...
Review: Well, Terry should be thankful that Tolkien published that famous trilogy. Ironically, I think when 'The Sword of Shannara' came out so did the animated movie of 'Lord of the Rings'. Basically, many people wished Tolkien had made his book a lot bigger and I think Terry capitalized on that.
I was just hoping that this book would be unique and not a copy.
Flick and Shea - Frodo and Sam...Skull Creature - Ringwraiths...
That's just the tip of the iceburg[...]. It seemed like it was written by some 20 year old who read 'Lord of the Rings' a dozen times. However, I did like his character Creed who was a thief. That made me read on.
Anyways, I hope the rest of his books are better. [...]. The book could have been 500 pages instead of 700 plus.
Rating: 
Summary: There is more to fantasy than Tolkien!!
Review: This is by far one of the best books in the area of fantasy i have ever read. The charecters are great. it was one of those books where i found myself under the covers with a flashlight reading it way after my bed time just like in t.v and movies. I have noticed that people constantly referance this book to tolkien. Get over it. the characters are much more imaginative than people give credit to. Allanon the druid was much more intresting than Gandalf. this was what gave me inspiration to start writting, tolkien made me hate fantasy, then when my dad FORCED me to read this i was hooked again. The people that complain about the refrences obvoisly dont venture far out into the reading world. plus sequals are still coming out, thats an obvious sign that it is cool.
Rating:
Summary: The original and best
Review: The Sword of Shannara, besides being the beginning of a fabulous series, is simply a wonderful read. I'm not a fan of fantasy or science fiction, but for some reason I became hooked on this book when I was a kid. In the years since then, I've read it several more times, and each time I like it more. Brooks has a fascinating way of creating three dimensional characters. He allows you to picture them as they enter the story, both their appearance and mannerisms - which is no small feat, given that he writes of elves, dwarfs, trolls and other creatures never seen on this earth. The story also contains such compelling characters, and Brooks has always maintained the undercurrent of the terrible wars that basically ended life as we know it, without ever really sharing the detail. It's an unusual and entertaining read.
Rating: 
Summary: O.K. if he wouldn't have kept (...)on and on.........
Review: O.K. by now the world of wonderful fantisey is starting to crumble. People are starting to rate O.K. books as if they were great! I mean really! I wasen't that good! It was a complete copy of Tolken's the lord of the rings, have some sense people! If you want real fantisey, read the lord of the rings, if you already have read it again. It was to long also, like over 700 pages!! And for what? so he can kill some evil master at the end and be done with it? It was like only a two page fight and they didn't even fight, he just touched the sword and poof! He's Dead! Books over, gee.
Rating:
Summary: An overrated fantasy
Review: Okay, this is a mildly interesting read, and there is just enough to merit reading one more book, but this is not a great novel. Back in the days when this book first came out, there wasn't a whole lot of post-Tolkien fantasy...primarily the Shannara books and Donaldson's far more imaginative Thomas Covenant books. Perhaps to a fantasy-hungry audience, this may have been what the doctor ordered, but this is not a classic by any means. The first problem with this book is it is an obvious Tolkien ripoff. Not only do many of the characters have direct Lord of the Rings parallels (Shea equals Frodo, Flick equals Sam, Allanon equals Gandalf, etc.), but there are many story events that mirror LOTR events as well. This indicates that either Brooks was incapable of originality or more likely was merely capitalizing on people who wanted more Tolkien and would settle for a cheap imitation. Even to a reader unfamiliar with Tolkien, however, there are numerous problems. Most obviously, Brooks is not a great wordsmith; neither his dialogue nor descriptions are particularly good. Plotwise, there are far too many last-minute rescues and coincidences. There is also far too much going on; no character appears in more than a third of a novel, not even the principal protagonist, Shea. This makes the story lose focus. And Shea himself is a weak character, rarely acting, almost always reacting. His triumphs are more accidental than anything else. This was Brooks's first novel, and given that he continues to be published, I assume that he matures over time. This book may be good for a talented beginner, but it is by no means one of the great works of fantasy.
Rating:
Summary: Wow
Review: The back of the book makes it sound like another pointless quest to kill the big fat evil guy like half the cRPGs and 99% of the StarCraft RPGs. It is not. The characters are all great, and the development of the characters is wonderful too. The battle scenes were great, the chase sequences were great, everything was spectacular. You shall regret it if you don't read this.
Rating: 
Summary: Amateur Hour at the Fantasy Club
Review: I'd heard many good things about this book, which probably made the actual reading even harder to stomach because it was such a letdown. Even a highly derivative book such as this can be a good read if it is engaging and written well, but there are several things that made this novel a chore to read:
1) Too much Deus ex Machina.
2) Unengaging characters that tend to have wild mood swings within conversations for no apparent reason. Angry then not angry, etc.
3) Lots of indirect dialogue. i.e. "Flick said he thought they should take the left path. Shea then replied that he thought the mountains would be too steep." Its as if it was too much trouble to come up with real words for the characters to say. In retrospect, this is probably what made it difficult for me to connect with the characters. Without actual dialogue to express the personalities of the characters, the tone of the text was very distancing. It was like reading a book-report on the conversations. The plot itself was mildly interesting, I forced myself to slog through just to see how the loose ends would wrap up, but there is better stuff out there.
Rating:
Summary: A blatant ... of LotR, but not bad.
Review: I read this book when it first came out in the 1970's in trade size, prior to reading Lord of the Rings. Other than Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, this was my introduction to fantasy. I must admit that I never read a book faster than this up to that time. It made me an instant fantasy fan. After i did read LotR, it became quite obvious that this book wasn't derivitive of Tolkein, it was an all out re-telling with the names changed. Frodo becomes Shea, Gandalf becomes Allanon, Sauron becomes the Warlock Lord, etc.... Still, if you go into this book knowing that, and it doesn't bother you, then this is a fun read. And afterall, what's the phrase? Immitation is the best form of flattery? We see it in TV shows, movies, music, so what the hell. Tolkien fans need not be so pompous...
Rating:
Summary: copy copy copy
Review: While the book was mildly entertaining Brooks in many parts shows a total lack of origanality. Many scenes and even a name (Durin) are copied from tolkien's Lord of the rings like the part were Allanon fights a skull creature (Who incedently is much like a wringraith) in the heating furnace over a bridge,they both fall and since I have read tolkien extensively I new That Allonon was alright and guess what? he even yells to the others to get away calling them "fools" his general personality is much like that of Gandalf from Lord of The Rings Also the City wich is the key to all freedom and protector of the border is besieged and only just saved by the arrival of guess what? reinfocements from neighboring nations. In one of the counsels Shea gets up during a dispute and says he will go though he does'nt know the way. If brooks had shown more origanallity he might have put together a decent book.
Rating: 
Summary: A Lord Of The Rings derivative, but charming nevertheless
Review: I first read "The Sword Of Shannara" in 1980. I was 14 years old and at the pinnacle of my fever for Tolkien and fantasy board and role-playing games and miniatures. Brooks' novel certainly fueled my imagination, as well as reminded me how grateful I was to Tolkien's ground-breaking Middle-earth stories and world, of which Terry Brooks certainly modelled his fantasy world and story after. What increased my enjoyability of this book was the cover and interior artwork by my favourite fantasy artists, The Brothers Hildebrandt. The Sword Of Shannara is really nothing short of, nor more original than the heroic quest given to us by Tolkien in The Lord Of The Rings: the small and physically-weak, but pure and stout of heart protagonist (Shea Ohmsford), who is the only real hope the land has; the faithful companion to the protagonist (Flick Ohmsford); the quest surrounding a powerful magical object (The Sword Of Shannara); the aid of the wise, powerful, and mysterious Druid (Allanon); an organised company of men, elves, and a dwarf to aid and protect the protagonist in his journey; the evil Warlock Lord (Brona); the Warlock Lord's powerful minions who are seeking out the protagonist (Skull Bearers); the Warlock Lord's evil and viscious armies (Gnomes and Trolls); armies of Elves, Men, and Dwarves unified for survival; etc. The characters in "The Sword Of Shannara" mirror in many ways the characters in "The Lord Of The Rings". But despite this, there is a great deal of originality and surprising twists in the story; and Brooks' descriptive writing skills and vivid imagination, aided with The Brothers Hildebrandt's amazing artwork, paint a fantastic journey well worth taking. My only complaint about Brooks' writing is in the dialogue: perhaps too modern? too simple? too American? I'm not exactly sure, but it certainly isn't written in an "archaic" or "other-worldly fashion" like other Mediaeval-fantasy writers normally write in. However, this is a very minor complaint. I'm 35 now and have recently bought an old 1980 PB copy of "The Sword Of Shannara" to read again. I enjoyed the book just as much the second time round many years later as I did when I first read it. However, I highly recommend buying a used copy of the first edition of the book, as the the first edition has the cover art and a wonderful fold-out painting by The Brothers Hildebrandt, whereas most future editions do not--especially the version out now. If you're a fan of mediaeval fantasy and/or of Tolkien's Middle-earth, I highly recommend this book.
| 
