Rating: 
Summary: Classic fantasy story told well
Review: I read this book in my late teens and now ten years later still remember how much I enjoyed it. Sure if I read today it wouldn't be as good, because I no longer have the imagination and excitement of a teenager. So on that note, I would mostly recommend it to young people (say from ages 14 to 23), adults my get turned off by the somewhat childishness of the story. I don't fault anyone who reviews this book negatively, but then to go ahead and say "read Tolkien instead it's much better". Wow, great advice. As if aynone needs a Tolkien recommendation. It goes without saying. And then they'll recommend Wheel Of Time series by Robert Jordan. I read the first book Eye Of The World and found it to be the most boring book I've ever read. The plot: people walking, on a trail. Sometimes they talked. All this proves one thing, take these reviews with grain of salt, get a general idea, then go for it because it's all a matter of opinion. I've read the first six books of this series up to Elfqueen of Shannara, and enjoyed them with exception of The Druid of Shannara. the overall plot didn't advance too much in that book and the story began to resemble Jordans work: People on a trail. Walking. Sometimes they talked. The forth book Scions was great, almost as good as this one, and maybe more action packed. So, if you've never read fantasy and are looking to jump in but are overwhelmed by all the choices out there, I would definitely recommend this series because it contains all the classic fantasy elements, and it's told well. That's if of course you fall into the age group I mentioned above, if not you might still like it. If you still don't, then hey get off my case do I look like a New York Times book reviewer to you? :)
Rating: 
Summary: Copy
Review: Terry Brooks complitly copyed The Lord of the Rings series and this book is just a copy of another book. I don't think Terry Brooks is a good writer at all and he shouldnot have been alowed to publish such an obvious copy
Rating:
Summary: It KILLS (by means of boredom)
Review: This is one book I didn't finish. I struggled through about half of it before giving up. I have just no idea of how anyone could have the talent to make such a long book so absolutely devoid of any hint of fun. The characters aren't vivid, there aren't many confrontations, and when there are, the precious "elfstones" always save the day, Shea doing next to nothing. I don't see how such a third-class book got so popular. Please, readers, do NOT waste time on this poor excuse of a use for paper and ink! For something worthwhile, try Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series or some REAL Tolkien.
Rating: 
Summary: Stunning, multi-front fantasy tale
Review: This is one of the best fantasies I've ever read. Terry Brooks did an excellent job of making his characters very, uh, "human" with all of their thoughts, feelings and dialogue. I have a rather short attention span and if I try to read a boring book I simply fall asleep after about 10 pages. This was not the case with this book. I found myself unable to put it down at three, sometimes four o'clock in the morning.
Rating:
Summary: An an excellent work of Early High Fantasy
Review: This book was one of the early blockbusters of the field. In the late 70s it and the Thomas Covenant books paved the way for the increasing popularity of Fantasy through the 80s (further carried along by the Eddings books, and others). For this alone the book deserves a place in the Fantasy hall of fame.The story itself is one that has been told before, and the plot is not original, and while the twist at the end seemed original to me upon first reading, I can no longer say if truly was original, only that to me it was quite a surprise. I liked the book and its successors in my early teens, and read them several times. Unfortunately, one of the main claims about this book is that it plagiarizes another, specifically, The Lord of the Rings. Hmmm. Some of the claims insist there is point for point plot consistency with tLotR. Hmmm. Plagiarism is when one person takes the words of another and exactly copies them for their own use without attribution and/or permission. There are no passages in the tSoS that exactly copy anything in tLotR. Copying of a plot is not plagiarism, it is copying a plot. It is not a good thing, but it is not plagiarism. However, there are many plot dissimilarities between tLotR and tSoS. For one, there is no Saruman character falling in with the enemy on stage in this book (oh, yes, there is Brona, but he's not actually in tSoS, but existed in the milieu's early history, and that is not the same). I would say the nature and character of the "Evil Force" in the two novels are entirely different (although this is not a plot point). The device behind the destruction of the "Evil Force" survives in tSoS, but not tLotR. One of the major plot elements of tLotR is "lost king returns to rightfully claim the throne," story line with Aragorn. This does not exist in tSoS. Then there is the whole Shire issue at the end of tLotR where the hobbits must free their lands. This does not exist in tSoS. The transformation of Gandalf and his status in Middle Earth due to the battle with the balrog in Moria does not have an analog with Allanon in tSoS (not to mention that Gandalf is the spirit of a god in the body of a mortal and that Allanon really is a mortal, with mortal problems and mortal concerns, despite his sorcerous longevity and skills). As for the presence of elves, dwarves and their various symbologies and mannerisms, that is not copying Tolkien; it's more like copying the same mythological histories that Tolkien himself copied from (and indeed many other Fantasy authors copy from). If they did not copy from these myths, modern Fantasy would look and feel considerably different than it does today. I personally cheer on such copying, as long as it is done well. There are also many points that seem, on the face of it, to be copying, but on deeper analysis, are not. Take both Frodo and Shea's injuries and difficulties at differing points in their respective books. This may seem to be an exact plot copy. In the considerable amount I've read, though, main characters are injured and put out of action and/or placed themselves and their friends in serious jeopardy so many times I can't count them. It's as standard a feature of stories today in all fields that I can't count them. From all this, the originality of tSoS may be called into question. But then again, so can the original of tLotR. I say both novels are original and sterling works of Fantasy that have helped the entire field become what it is today. Without them, nothing would have been the same. I liked this book, and felt my money was well spent.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful read!
Review: I have not read a fantasy book since high school,and that was 17 yrs ago. I found a copy of this book at a used bookstore and decided what the hell,I was looking for something different. I am very happy to report that this book has gotten me into the fantasy reading fold once again. I loved everything about this book. The characters have real depth and you find yourself missing them when they don't appear for a couple of chapters. The story moves at a very fast pace and you can't believe that only after a couple of days you've finished a 700+ pages book. Highly recommended! I look forward to reading the rest of the Shanarah books. Can anyone recommend any other fantasy writers or series out there? Pick up a copy of Sword Of Shanarah and you won't be disappointed!
Rating:
Summary: MY FAVORITE BOOK!
Review: This is overall my very most allaround FAVORITE book. It is quite long, 700+ pages, but it is worth reading all those pages, and I just love the book so much. This book is worth about 1000 gold stars, and I think this guy can EASILY over write Tolkien, I just love this book, and it even comes with a popout picture.
Rating:
Summary: Brooks vs Tolkien
Review: If you've read Tolkien then of course you're going to think Brooks Pulled from him. It's so blatantly obvious that you'd have to be blind not to notice. However, this does not detract from Brooks' story. He still weaves a wonderful plot with excellent characters. His writing is much more modern than Tolkien's. The Lord of the Rings tends to get just a bit verbose. The english used is hard for some people to follow. I, however, was not one of those people. Tolkien's story is absolutely amazing. Brooks' revamp with all the added twists is still phenomenal, however. Don't disregard "Sword of Shannara" simply because of it's similarities to The LoTR. You would be missing out on a wonderful story if you did.
Rating:
Summary: Who cares about originality? This book is the best book ever
Review: Ok, so you can whine about how Terry Brooks isn't original, but who cares about originality? When I read a book that is the last thing I am thinking about. I am looking for a good book. Dragonlance is very original, but Shannara kicks all over it.
Rating:
Summary: Terry Brooks = Tolkien + Star Wars - a sense of humor
Review: After reading one of the later Shannara books several years ago, and after recently reading Brooks's stale rendering of the new Star Wars movie, I was not expecting to warm up to his first novel. Boy, was I surprised. I couldn't put it down, for all 726 pages. The book is just one adventure after another, all involving the search for a special sword needed to defeat the evil Warlock Lord who seeks to rule the world. The only man capable of using the sword must embark on a quest to find it, with only a few magic stones as protection against the dreaded Skull Bearers who are after him. If you think this doesn't very original, you're right. But there's one interesting twist: this story takes place in the future. At least that's what I understood. My friend, who read the book years ago, disagrees. Sure, it appears to be the standard quasi-medieval setting with its kings, its dungeons, and its primitive technology. But one character describes a time in the distant past when humans mastered "a science of machines and power" but ended up unleashing technology in a series of wars that altered the planet and destroyed most of the life on it. Doesn't this sound an awful lot like nuclear holocaust? Society was in ruins, but humans eventually reeemerged along with other "races" they dubbed as gnomes, trolls, dwarves, elves, and the like, all adapted to different lifestyles. They also discovered magic by harnessing the power of the dead. Other than this curious rationale for a world populated by mythical kinds of creatures, the book rarely strays from the conventions of the genre. Usually when I'm reading fantasy, I expect a story either to have some connection with history, like the King Arthur tales, or to invent something entirely new, like Tolkien's hobbits. Brooks does neither, but I did enjoy the vividness of the world he created. When we first encounter a troll, the creature is described as having bark-like skin like that of a tree. It's that keen attention to detail that brings this world to life. Even though it's not original in a broad sense, Brooks is a resourceful storyteller. About midway through the book, I found one plot twist so surprising, I laughed out loud. What this novel lacks, besides the slightest trace of humor, is strong characterization. The book has a lot of characters, and I would have liked to see their personalities distinguished more. My favorite characters are a pair of thieves who reminded me a bit of Han Solo and Chewbacca. But Brooks has an unfortunate habit of stating things instead of showing them, which makes it far less interesting. For example, he describes the character of Menion as having strong morality, but I didn't find this trait as noticeable through his actions. There don't seem to be any women in the story until about two-thirds into it, when one of the characters stumbles upon what else? A beautiful princess. And that's all we ever learn about her. Brooks's portrayal of women is one of the things which made me dislike some of his other books. By now, I'm starting to forgive him for these flaws. What's more, I'm slowly becoming a convert to his verbose, cliché-ridden, dead-serious, and highly enjoyable fantasy epics.
|
