Skip to comments.
The 12th Demon
Posted on 12/03/2012 7:18:53 PM PST by truthfinder9
I dont get the fantasy subgenre of paranormal/supernatural fictions obsession with vampires and werewolves. Its always been around, but has exploded in recent years and now commands whole sections of bookstores. Then, I guess, there are people who dont get people like me who like epic fantasy like Tolkien, Lewis or Terry Brooks. Nonetheless.
So here comes Bruce Hennigans The 12th Demon: Mark of the Wolf Dragon, which is a pleasant departure from high school age vampires who are all starting to look and act a lot alike.
(Excerpt) Read more at shadowsofhistory.wordpress.com ...
KEYWORDS: fantasy; fiction; supernatural
To: truthfinder9; Titan Magroyne
I'm glad the reviewer (Ancient Explorer) mentioned Terry Brooks in the same sentence with J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis out of the gate. It told me he's clueless and saved me from reading further. Brook's endless Shannara books (no less than 30) don't merit space on the same shelf with The Lord of The Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia imho, and is hardly "epic fiction". At best, it's hack fantasy "in the tradition of" (e.g. "knock offs of") Tolkien and the Brothers Grimm. It's akin to comparing Gene Roddenberry to Shakespeare. It's not that I don't occasionally enjoy pop culture mind candy as much as anyone, but, it doesn't rise to the level of literary masterworks and any reviewer unaware of that either hasn't read the material, is grandstanding or just doesn't get it. My 2¢ - YMMV.
My comments don't reflect on Bruce Hennigan's book at all, only the reviewer, aka Darrick Dean, author of epics such as Is The Truth Out There?: A Journey Through Critical Thinking that Spans Man's History, Origin and Place in the Universe and Indian History Of Lawrence County. To paraphrase T. S. Eliot, "Some reviewers are failed writers, but so are most writers."
posted on 12/04/2012 7:13:18 AM PST
("Democracy can withstand anything but democrats." - Jubal Harshaw [Robert A. Heinlein])
But I take it your review, or opinion, of Brooks is supposed to be held in high regard? Just wondering, because we’re supposed to accept your review but not someone else’s? Not sure including Brooks means the reviewer holds it in the same regard as the others anyway. You obviously hate Brooks, so you will put your own spin on anything (and words in other people’s mouth) to show it. Your 2 cents isn’t worth much. Talk about grandstanding.
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson