Books!

[marurun]

I will say that when I was younger I used to read REALLY fast, but as soon as the prose became even the least bit dull to me I would start scanning ahead. I really enjoyed reading the books in the moment but often found myself struggling afterwards to recount what I just read a few hours ago. Basically, I was reading akin to living in the moment. As I learned to slow down and read more closely I discovered some stuff I used to enjoy, like Tolkien, I enjoyed quite a bit less, due to the prose feeling slow or stagnant and the exciting bits being insufficient to support the weight of the work (IMO, YMMV).

So, Tolkien-wise, I could not successfully reread The Fellowship of the Ring, but I was fine with the Hobbit (which was YA for the time). I think YA tends to have more straight-forward prose and less navel-gazing, particularly in world-building, which is something adult fantasy often struggles with. And it’s often very focused on coming of age stories and simpler and more innocent constructions of human relationships and good and evil (simpler in presentation does not mean lacking in depth or drama, however).

The Dragonriders of Pern books, for example, feel to me like a good example of slow adult fantasy world building that can get in the way of the story, whereas the Chronicles of Amber integrated world building and action better (IMO, as usual) despite some perhaps-unnecessary shadow-walking prose.

[Limewater]

Well that's encouraging, thanks. How you would describe the world building of the novels?

Rowling is definitely no Tolkien, but I thought the world-building in Harry Potter was pretty fun.

You mentioned the vastness of Middle Earth. In comparison, the "Wizarding World" in Harry Potter is really very small. But it is also very detailed, with a lot of personality. As you read through the books, you learn more about wizarding society and how certain things work. Rowling clearly didn't have everything worked out when she wrote the first book, but I don't think she claims to have. And there are interesting non-human characters who don't act like humans or want the same things that humans do.

There has been plenty written about how the Wizarding World economy is a disaster and the monetary system makes no sense. These criticisms are fair. If you won't be able to enjoy the books for this reason then I would suggest you avoid them.

[Limewater]

So, Tolkien-wise, I could not successfully reread The Fellowship of the Ring, but I was fine with the Hobbit (which was YA for the time). I think YA tends to have more straight-forward prose and less navel-gazing, particularly in world-building, which is something adult fantasy often struggles with.

These are some good points.

I am also in the camp that enjoys The Hobbit far more than the Lord of the Rings.

But I'm also an engineer, and not a great lover of language. Poetry is like word salad to me unless I exert effort, and I have no natural appreciation for it. I like wordplay, but that's a completely different thing.

As long as the prose is not so bad that it is distracting, I don't care much about it. I'd cite Michael Crichton as a high-profile author whose prose is pretty bad*, but whose stories are very interesting, and the prose is not poor enough to distract from that.

* I mean this evaluation in comparison to other authors of similar success. I absolutely don't mean to imply that I or the average person on the street could do better.

[marurun]

As long as the prose is not so bad that it is distracting, I don't care much about it. I'd cite Michael Crichton as a high-profile author whose prose is pretty bad*, but whose stories are very interesting, and the prose is not poor enough to distract from that.

I guess that's part of the whole storyteller vs writer issue of authorship. There are some very good storytellers (Crichton was one) who are not particularly adept writers. His prose must not have been bad enough to detract from the stories, which is fortunate. Some early criticism of Rowling was that she was not a particularly good prose writer, but that was often countered by the argument that as long as the prose isn't so bad as to be harmful it was more important for young readers simply to read rather than obsess over whether what they are reading is of good enough quality. This argument doesn't amount to a hill of beans either way re: adult readers.

[Markies]

The Dragonriders of Pern books, for example, feel to me like a good example of slow adult fantasy world building that can get in the way of the story...

I just read through the first three books of that series and I really hope those weren't considered YA novels because I was so confused by the end of them.

The Glossary in the third book filled with terms, names and information was so dang long.

My favorite Adult Fantasy novels are the Sword of Shannara books, which are blatant Lord of the Rings rip offs, but I also felt they did a quicker pace and were more action oriented.

[REPO Man]

Personally I prefer the Royal Institute of Magic series. To me, it's a lot of what I like about another YA fantasy series from the UK but past the superficial similarities (the chosen one trope, magic is real, a world of magic and mystical creatures existing literally right next to our own) it does enough differently to separate it from many of the other YA fantasy franchises out there.

For one, the capacity for magic isn't necessarily a genetic trait, magic isn't cast via incantations and the world of magic seems to be literally so much like our own but with all the technology of ours being replicated by magic or whose purposed is served via an ersatz magic-based solution. And yes, I know that in some YA fantasy settings, non-magical technology goes haywire in highly magical settings.

Personally I'm surprised it hasn't been adapted into a TV series yet. And given how the series is paced, it'd also make an excellent video game series.

But if you're more sci-fi than fantasy, I'd recommend Interstellar Pig by William Sleator. Its sequel, Parasite Pig, not so much.

[marurun]

The Dragonriders of Pern books, for example, feel to me like a good example of slow adult fantasy world building that can get in the way of the story...

I just read through the first three books of that series and I really hope those weren't considered YA novels because I was so confused by the end of them.

The Glossary in the third book filled with terms, names and information was so dang long.

My favorite Adult Fantasy novels are the Sword of Shannara books, which are blatant Lord of the Rings rip offs, but I also felt they did a quicker pace and were more action oriented.

No, sorry, the Pern books are adult fantasy. I was worried I might present that confusingly. Sorry about that. They're a great example of where world building can overpower the story, at least for me, in adult fantasy novels.

I enjoyed Shannara as well. I think Brooks is perhaps not the best writer, but he's good enough, and I really like his take on the Tolkien-derivation.

For "classic" YA, I think Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising sequence and Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain are fantastic. They aren't just entertaining but also very well-written, and tap into the various mythologies of the British Isles to help craft their tales. A lot of modern YA seems to lack historical or mythological connections.

[o.pwuaioc]

Some early criticism of Rowling was that she was not a particularly good prose writer, but that was often countered by the argument that as long as the prose isn't so bad as to be harmful it was more important for young readers simply to read rather than obsess over whether what they are reading is of good enough quality.

Unlike renowned author Dan Brown.

[Ziggy]

I will say that when I was younger I used to read REALLY fast, but as soon as the prose became even the least bit dull to me I would start scanning ahead. I really enjoyed reading the books in the moment but often found myself struggling afterwards to recount what I just read a few hours ago. Basically, I was reading akin to living in the moment. As I learned to slow down and read more closely I discovered some stuff I used to enjoy, like Tolkien, I enjoyed quite a bit less, due to the prose feeling slow or stagnant and the exciting bits being insufficient to support the weight of the work (IMO, YMMV).

To digress a little, because I find this interesting...

So I use to read more slowly and methodically. In a way that I made sure to digest everything. Mostly because I'm often obsessed with not missing anything, even the smallest details. But in more recent years, I've learned to let go of that and I can enjoy books more because of it. When the prose becomes dull, as you said, I start reading faster and faster until I get to a good part. If there's a long passage or chapter that's relatively boring, I'll go a step further to where I'm just scanning for the return of the plot. When I'm scanning, if I notice something interesting, then I'll backtrack until I find the start of it and then continue reading at normal speed from there. In short, I'm fine with getting the gist of a boring part. But that's something that would have driven me nuts in the past.

It also depends what mood I'm in. I've been enjoying The Fellowship of the Ring, but it does have some parts that are a little dull. I mean, I get it, most of the book is gonna be them traveling. When the group isn't meeting new people, or in any kind of action, sometimes the description of the world is enough to keep me entertained and sometimes it isn't. I think it has more to do with the mood I'm in than anything else. I've mostly enjoyed reading about The Shire. But if I'm in a blah kind of mood, if I'm tired or something, then those parts might bore me. Maybe I don't have enough imagination at those times to really picture the world they're in. For example, when Frodo and company enter an really eerie and foggy forest, I was kinda bored. I sped up my reading until a tree started eating them (lol). But thinking back to that start of that chapter, when they're just walking in a forest and the only thing carrying the book at that point is the description of the forest and the mist, that actually sounds like an awesome setting to picture in my head. I guess I just wasn't in the mood at the time.

[Ack]

I love many of Michael Crichton's books, but yeah, he was what I consider to be a "functional" writer. It wasn't highly detailed in such a way that I could picture something beautiful, but it captured enough to convey the story and keep things moving.

Conversely, another of my favorite authors is Robert E. Howard. He did incredible work with description that I loved to read just for the sake of picturing in my head the world he was writing about.

I'm now reading Count Zero, William Gibson's second book of his Sprawl Trilogy, and the truth is, while it started off quite interesting, it's getting almost goofy feeling now with his descriptions of criminal gangs and the like. I'm not enjoying it nearly as much as I did Necromancer.