The Sword of Shannara

Rating:
Summary: Ridiculous knock-off....
Review: I simply can't believe that this book is so popular. It is LORD OF THE RINGS "LIGHT" people! The world isn't half as interesting, the characters are stiff and poorly written, and the plot is a cookie-cutter copy of LOTR. It's for people that can't get enough of Tolkien but have run out of his work to read, which apparently seems to be a significant portion of the population. But honestly, I would rather read the classic than a classical rip-off. All of you desiring more LOTR, check out "Bored of the Rings". It's hilarious, and you'll enjoy yourself much more than you will after having read "Sword of Shannara".

Rating:
Summary: Got to page 276... Could not stomach another word!
Review: I give this two stars, only because I know there are others that find redeeming qualities in this book.

Similarities to Tolkien aside, page 284 is where the groaners finally got to me. One was where an old man used a "small metallic cylinder that emitted a strange light" to draw a Ringwratih-like critter away from the heroes. Flashlight? Isn't this supposed to be a midieval-ish story?

I struggled through rotten narrative, thousands of useless, needless, overused adjectives, countless run-on sentences and mixed perspectives until page 284, when the following took place: "Allanon placed a strange whistle to his lips and blew softly. A sound so high pitched as to be indistinguishable to the men was emitted and the snarling wolves scattered...."

WHAT? A DOG WHISTLE? It was bad enough that Brooks made out his world to be something that emerged post-nuclear holocaust, but a DOG WHISTLE? Also bad enough was the fact that the wolves reminded me of the Wargs from Lord of the Rings. Not to mention the fact that you can find a hundred parallels to that great epic long before page 284.

Let me again say how bad the prose is. I am a novelist myself, and well-practiced in narrative. I want to read something that inspires me to write better, but the man uses so many freaking adjectives, and sentences that go on for miles, that I can feel myself getting dumber!

And the perspective shifts? COUNTLESS. It is common for him to change perspective from paragraph to paragraph, talking about each character's feelings and perspectives on the matter, rather than carefully crafting concrete perspective shifts with balance. We don't need to get into the heads of EVERYONE.

Please, folks. If you want GOOD fantasy, I mean the excellent stuff, read George R.R. Martin, or Robert Jordan. Don't waste your time with this stuff. It's excruciating.

Rating:
Summary: Imitation, not original
Review: Here are some comparisons--Shea must flee for his life and for the safety of his home from the dark (and poorly described) Skull-Bearers. Frodo must flee for his life and for the safety of the Shire from the hooded Ringwraiths. Shea and his brother and friend must make a perilous journey to a city of dwarves, where they meet up with others who form a union to travel and recapture the sword. Frodo and his companions journey to Rivendell and form the fellowship to travel to Mordor and desyroy the ring. Balinor, a prince who prefers to travel is just like Aragorn. Allanon, the so-called mystic Druid is an unimpressive facsimile of Gandalf. The pathetic Orl Fane and his attachment to the sword is disturbingly similar to Gollum. (He even mutters to himself like Gollum.) The dwarf Hendel is just like Gimli. There is even a traitor who influences the ruler of a city. His name is Stenmin. Or, depending on what book you read, he's Wormtongue. Let me give you some advice--if you want to read an enchanting tale of the small and weak overcoming impossible odds to defeat the powerful, read this book when it was called the Lord of the Rings. It is infinitely better. Brooks' style of writing is convoluted and annoying. He attempts to explain the nature of his--or Tolkien's--characters through the narrative, but they never come through in the dialogue. Do not waste your time. It's a wonder that Terry Brooks was able to avoid a lawsuit from the Tolkien estate for plagiarism, much less land on a bestseller's list.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but not that good.
Review: This is an entertaining read, but as stated earlier, it is not very oiginal. I nearly mirrors the Lord of the Rings, but with minor surface changes. I also found the writing to be contrived, often to complex for easy reading. Brooks often strung two or three complex phrases together, creating unnecessary complexity and including too much detail. Otherwise it was a fantastic read.

Rating:
Summary: Outrageous - Just an imitation
Review: I can't understand how this book became a best-seller. This book is just an imitation of the lord of the rings, and Brooks is just an imitator of Tolkien. This book can not help the fans of heroic fiction litterature, and does not have a well-structured story. It's too simple; it would be good for children 10 years old.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best books ever
Review: This is one of the best books i have ever read. It is true that it has a strong resemblance to the lord of the rings, but it does have its own story. The resemblances include, Allanon to Gandalf, Shea to Frodo, Flick to Sam, Balinor to Boromir, Hendel to Gimli, the warlock lord to Sauron, the skull bearers to ringwraiths and minas tirith to tyrsis. Though these similarities take something away from the book it is still a great book. It's the basic story for a fantasy book. It's pretty much that Shea is the last heir of shannara so he is the only one who can use the sword of shannara, which is the only weapon that can kill the evil warlock lord. There are many twists throughout the book which make it so that it's not so predictable. In my opinion this book is better than Harry Potter, but is not quite as good as The Lord of the Rings.

Rating:
Summary: a good sword, but badly invented
Review: this is really standard stuff. very uninventive. but also well written. i think the uninventiveness is the only real flaw. otherwise B carries out well. you want originality, read someone else. if you simply want a good read, here's a book for you.

Rating:
Summary: Great fantasy in the tradition to LOTR
Review: "The Lord of the Rings" led me to look for more fantasy worthy of reading. Brook's Shannara is that. Brooks was inspired by Tolkien, and it shows in this first book. There are quite a few similarities. Brooks doesn't surpass Tolkien's detail and historical feel, but focuses more on the quest's participants and creates a faster pace. Hopefully I will find the next two in the series more original, but this was still an excellent read.

Rating:
Summary: A good read, despite weaknesses.
Review: The Sword of Shannara is Terry Brooks' first book and while it contains much to crib about, it has a lot to praise as well. Many readers have complained that Sword is a knock-off of Lord of the Rings (albeit on a much smaller time and space scale) and indeed the similarities are too numerous to be a coincidence. However, given the towering stature and influence of Tolkien on the genre of epic fantasy, I wonder if any author could possibly avoid some level of derivation. Look beyond the evident similarities and you will find this a worthwhile read. Besides, to be fair to Brooks, the similarities are in the main restricted to Sword, which is but a setting of the stage for the Shannara series. Even if Sword draws heavily on Tolkien, in the subsequent books, he has walked his own route.

In fact, Brooks' innovations in Sword are praiseworthy. While medieval in much of its appearance, the stage is actually that of a post-apocalyptic earth which has been largely laid waste by some huge conflagration (apparently some combination of nuclear and biological) in the not too distant past. The survivors have struggled to re-build a semblance of their former lives and the destruction along with an aversion to the technology (whose misuse brought them to this state) has resulted in a quasi medieval, pastoral life. In Brooks' world, the standard elves, dwarfs and trolls of fantasy are but convenient names for human survivors whose survival strategies led them to forests, caves or mountains. As society rebuilds, a group of learned men (druids) who are the repository of knowledge passed down verbally, attempt to reconstruct the knowledge of the race, an attempt which veers away from hard science to sorcery and magic. Sword begins at a point where the survivors have settled into a balance of power after a major war against a group of druids who sought absolute power. That war was not a complete defeat however and the evil is stirring again. In true fantasy style, a village naïf is destined to be the savior, accompanied by the usual crew of companions and this is the tale of Sword. Beyond the stereotypes, Sword is a good tale of power struggles and triumph (inevitably!) with some excellent battle descriptions.

Having said that, there are annoyances galore which probably flow from this being Brooks' first book. Characterizations are very weak for the most part and it is a struggle to get under the skin of any of the characters. Maps seem to be almost amateurish and do not convey much. Women play an even lesser role than in Tolkien's works! The only female character is largely ornamental and has little to do beyond comfort and care. Brooks' remedies this is subsequent works though.

All in all a good read, despite its weaknesses.

Rating:
Summary: Solid, but forgettable
Review: A solid, self-contained Lord of The Rings knock-off. While Sword of Shannara doesn't break any new ground, it does have a nice simple style and may be a good choice if you like fantasy but have never read (or been able to finish) Lord of the Rings.