The Riftwar Saga, Disappointing?

[Peter Vida]

An excellent approach!

An example of a book i did NOT like is the Hobbit. The first chapter read like Genesis from the bible. Too many names.

 

[Culhwch]

It seems like Feist was a formative fantasy reading experience for many of us - I came to fantasy via Bernard Cornwell's Arthur books, then Tolkien, then Feist. I think I've said it before in another thread, but Feist is truly a different type of fantasy to the kind we see today. which is not a bad thing at all. I only recently re-read the first three books (four in some parts of the world) and I had expected them to have dated badly, but I actually still found them enjoyable, and it was a pleasure reading something that wasn't nearly as grim and self-serious as some (most?) of the fantasy we see today. I'm sure the familiarity helped, too.

But I can totally see your problem, HB. I wonder if I came to them fresh today if I'd give them as much time as you did. I'm much pickier now then I ever was as a teenager.

 

[Boaz]

Last month, I read Magician: Apprentice, Magician: Master, and Silverthorn. I need to grab A Darkness at Sethanon to round out the original story.

I first read the story in 1988. I think I reread them in the summer of 89 as well.

Like Gemmell, Feist’s good guys are good; the bad guys are bad. Like talking, he has humans, elves, doors, goblins, and angels. Like Clancy, he has a spy, facing off against an evil empire. Like Martin, he’s got sweeping Geo political schemes. Like Burroughs, Feist’s heroes can all fight well. Like a D & D campaign, individual characters are faced with dilemmas… but never the whole group. Like KISS, all the ingredients are there, it looks good, and callow people like it.

It’s not bad. But there’s better stuff out there.

I don’t mean to completely rip this story. I need to probably put it into the context from which it originated. Fantasy literature was in its infancy. I think there were only two established paths… Howard/Moorcock and Tolkien. And Tolkien was viewed as much more viable after Brook’s and Eddings’ successes.

I think there was a third path i.e. the Lewis Path. But that was considered children’s literature. There wasn’t really a young adult or tween market. And I really feel that the Riftwar Saga is a YA story. Pug, Tomas, and Jimmy, are YA heroes.

I do like how Feist respects his female characters. But none of them are anything more than two dimensional. They have zero depth to them. They all put their man’s needs above their own. They give their men space when it’s needed, they give them comfort when it’s needed, they give them unconditional love at all times.

In a couple of respects, I feel that Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire, is the anti-riftwar saga. Both stories feature tweens and teens in leading roles. Feist’s characters all come through tough times with their futures, fortunes, and family intact, while Martin’s characters all become physically and emotionally handicapped. When faced with responsibility, Feist’s characters, all thrive. Yet Martin’s teenagers suffer… They get their friends and family, and even themselves killed.

I enjoyed the rift war saga when I was 21 years old. I am going to leave it there.

 

[Boaz]

You know, looking at my last post, it comes across as more negative than middle of the road. That’s not actually my intent. I do not mean to denigrate the Riftwar saga. I enjoyed it. It’s just that I would not enjoy reading it for the first time now.

 

[Judderman]

It is a good point on it being more of a Young Adult style than some of the other respected authors. Or at least something for a reader who hasn't yet tackled more complex fantasy epics. I highly recommend it for teens or young adults. I would say Daughter of the Empire from the Empire series (follow on from Riftwar) is even more in the YA category. Great setting but the lead seems to outwit her opponents far too easily and repeatedly. Maybe these series are a good route into high fantasy for someone like a young person who has read the Harry Potter series. Then again there is a lot of YA fantasy really. Many of the D&D based novels, or such as Sword of Shannara. Maybe liking them when you are older shows you are young at heart or just want an easy escape from whatever is stressful in life.
I suspect I would still enjoy the sieges in Darkness at Sethanon if I reread it.. but maybe not!

 

[The Big Peat]

I think it's a great shame some have come to see simple, idealistic stories using coming of age arcs as YA.

One, that misses the point of YA, which is to focus rather heavily on events and perspectives as the young will find them. Tamora Pierce's Alanna books do that (and they are from a similar period, so clearly fantasy books could be designated as YA back then). If the focus is the great events, not the character undergoing them, it probably shouldn't be considered YA.

Two, it creates a stigma about stories that don't seek to capture the world and its complexities entire, that seek to be optimistic and entertaining. We shouldn't be using categories to tell the world that one is better than the other. Our tastes are our own; the purpose of literature is about meeting everyone's tastes and needs. I am with Tolkien about fantasy's potential for Escape, Recovery, and Renewal; I am with Le Guin in excoriating artists for seeing only pain as interesting.

And indeed then often starts to stigmatise the readers. It's nice to know I'm a callow reader...

I reread the first trilogy recently enough. Last two or three years. The series has plenty of flaws, particularly with its basic prose, but I think it can hit the spot for people who appreciate a classic recipe done well. It's also got a few wrinkles and distinguishing points that I find intriguing. For one thing, it's rare to find a trilogy where book one and books two & three are so different in focus. The scope and ambition of Magician in terms of time period covered and terrain covered remains impressive to me near forty years later. There's plenty who'd make a five book series out of the events there alone.

Then of course there's the fit into fantasy as it was perceived. For me, Feist is the first author of that commercial boom who is basically writing pulp historical adventures, but who is writing them as fantasy rather than as historical sagas. He is also a prime example of how the epic fantasy boom of the 80s mingled the sword & sorcery and Tolkien-esque traditions together. People see epic fantasy as Tolkien-esque, but the early epic fantasy authors were a mixed bunch there in terms of their influences. Feist's fantasy influences were Leiber and D&D. He never got the Tolkien comparisons at all and has never described himself as a fan of the professor to the best of my knowledge.

In short, Feist's fantasy underpinnings came mostly the 60s/70s S&S revival... but because he borrowed D&D's Tolkien-borrowed aesthetic, and because he took Leiber-esque ideas of fantasy and put them on canvases the size of Dumas and Mary Renault, he is seen as different. In fact I'd argue no other popular author fits our idea of classical fantasy so well (save Brooks); he fits the stereotype in a way that's actually quite rare in literature. Also part of the appeal to me.

In any case, I rarely go around recommending this trilogy. There is indeed better, and I think the people suited to it find it. But judged on its own merits, on what it tried to do, I do find it's still an interesting piece of fantasy literature.



p.s. I would add that given the number of times Gemmell asked us if assassins, traitors, robber, rapists, childslayers, and the downright socially condemned could be heroes, and whether good kind men in service to bad causes were villains, I would suggest he had a far greater level of moral complexity going on than Feist.

 

[nixie]

@The Big Peat, well said. No secret I'm a big fan of Feist, think I'm the only one here reading his latest books. I'm intrigued to see where he's going with his next book A Darkness Returns. He introduced us to a different world with his last series bit the next series is back on Midkemia, bringing the two together.

 

[ANV]

I read it very young and I loved it, brought me closer to fantasy. I cannot read it now, not anymore But I plan to offer it to my kids, should they ever want to read something simply fantasy. It is grabbing, Pug (I mean the name killed me many times) is a good hero for beginners. It is not overcomplicated.
I couldn't bring myself to finish the whole series without Arutha in it.