Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jester47" data-source="post: 1128967" data-attributes="member: 2238">Well Sam, I have a confession to make.&nbsp; I did not finish the book either.&nbsp; Part of the problem was that other things kept eating up my reading time and, also, I did not feel compelled to make the time to read it because the book, as many have said, was very hard to get into.&nbsp; This comes from someone who considers himself a McKiernan fan to boot.&nbsp; With that in mind, there is hope.&nbsp; One of the greatest reads I have ever had was Eye of the Hunter, and it was in my opinion good enough to spur me to read the rest of the Mithgar series except for &quot;Voyage of the Fox Rider,&quot; &quot;The Silver Call,&quot; and &quot;Dragondoom.&quot;&nbsp; So when it came time to pick a title, I saw it on my shelf and figured that it worked, so I suggested it.&nbsp; One thing I might try with this book is to read the events of the different time frames together.&nbsp; I do this with Catherine Kerr books because I hate her pseudo celtic flashbacks.&nbsp; I skip the flashbacks and the stories make great reads for me.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even early into the book I could tell this one was going to be very different from &quot;Eye of the Hunter.&quot;&nbsp; Hunter has a non-typical story, an interesting villan, characters that develop and some clever use of the setting.&nbsp; And the sheer number of unanswered questions about the world gives it a sense of reality that the other books don't seem to have.&nbsp; I think it is his best work.&nbsp; However, for the absolute best in McKiernan, I would highly suggest reading the book &quot;Tales of Mithgar&quot; first.&nbsp; These are great short stories that essentially set up everything that he wrote after, and most of it sets up &quot;Eye of the Hunter.&quot;So knowing that he will write &quot;Eye of the Hunter&quot; later, and he becomes a better story teller, my opinion of him has not changed.&nbsp;&nbsp; I still think that Eye of the Hunter is his best work.&nbsp; However, having read more, I now see his work previous to Tales and Hunter as sort of setting up the world, and the work after it as answering the questions that appear in &quot;Hunter.&quot;&nbsp; One of the interesting things is that I find McKiernan's influence from Tolkien sort of refreshing.&nbsp; Rather than saying, &quot;Hey!&nbsp; This guy is ripping off Tolkien!&quot;&nbsp; I find myself thinking of the very veiled references as tributes to the Don.&nbsp; In fact I am pleased that McKiernan does this because it seems to me that so many writers are afraid of using the &quot;tolkienesque&quot; ideas of fantasy in thier own works in an effort to avoid being called unoriginal.&nbsp; So, I kind of see him as sort of ballsy. So in conclusion, read the three stories from Tales of Mithgar and The Eye of the Hunter.&nbsp; If you do not find these satisfying, then I hate to say it but you just don't like McKiernan. Aaron.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jester47, post: 1128967, member: 2238"] Well Sam, I have a confession to make. I did not finish the book either. Part of the problem was that other things kept eating up my reading time and, also, I did not feel compelled to make the time to read it because the book, as many have said, was very hard to get into. This comes from someone who considers himself a McKiernan fan to boot. With that in mind, there is hope. One of the greatest reads I have ever had was Eye of the Hunter, and it was in my opinion good enough to spur me to read the rest of the Mithgar series except for "Voyage of the Fox Rider," "The Silver Call," and "Dragondoom." So when it came time to pick a title, I saw it on my shelf and figured that it worked, so I suggested it. One thing I might try with this book is to read the events of the different time frames together. I do this with Catherine Kerr books because I hate her pseudo celtic flashbacks. I skip the flashbacks and the stories make great reads for me. Even early into the book I could tell this one was going to be very different from "Eye of the Hunter." Hunter has a non-typical story, an interesting villan, characters that develop and some clever use of the setting. And the sheer number of unanswered questions about the world gives it a sense of reality that the other books don't seem to have. I think it is his best work. However, for the absolute best in McKiernan, I would highly suggest reading the book "Tales of Mithgar" first. These are great short stories that essentially set up everything that he wrote after, and most of it sets up "Eye of the Hunter." So knowing that he will write "Eye of the Hunter" later, and he becomes a better story teller, my opinion of him has not changed. I still think that Eye of the Hunter is his best work. However, having read more, I now see his work previous to Tales and Hunter as sort of setting up the world, and the work after it as answering the questions that appear in "Hunter." One of the interesting things is that I find McKiernan's influence from Tolkien sort of refreshing. Rather than saying, "Hey! This guy is ripping off Tolkien!" I find myself thinking of the very veiled references as tributes to the Don. In fact I am pleased that McKiernan does this because it seems to me that so many writers are afraid of using the "tolkienesque" ideas of fantasy in thier own works in an effort to avoid being called unoriginal. So, I kind of see him as sort of ballsy. So in conclusion, read the three stories from Tales of Mithgar and The Eye of the Hunter. If you do not find these satisfying, then I hate to say it but you just don't like McKiernan. Aaron. [/QUOTE]

Verification