The Demonata

[Rickety]

Anybody else read The Demonata series by Daren Shan?! I love it! I'm at the end of "Blood Beast" right now, I only have like 20 something maybe 30 pages to go! And I'm amped to open up Demon Apocalypse! I can't wait! Anyone else read it? And if so, what's your opinion on it? LIke the story, the plot, his writing style, etc. etc.

[Stormcrow]

I hated those books. I read the first one, just barely finished it. That man needs some serious help with synonyms (and a bunch of other things, but I'll leave it at synonyms because I can be kindest about this problem). I counted the word "gut/s" NINE TIMES on ONE PAGE. I get that they're for kids, but I'm sure kids that know how to read are fully aware of more than one word for "entrails".

[Rickety]

I hated those books. I read the first one, just barely finished it. That man needs some serious help with synonyms (and a bunch of other things, but I'll leave it at synonyms because I can be kindest about this problem). I counted the word "gut/s" NINE TIMES on ONE PAGE. I get that they're for kids, but I'm sure kids that know how to read are fully aware of more than one word for "entrails".

Obviously you only read the first book lol. If you read the other ones he uses way more synonyms (in "Blood Beast" he did say guts a couple of times but he also used entrails, bowels, etc.). You have to understand, a writer evolves WITH his series, the first isn't going to be as good as the second, the second won't be as good as the third and so on and so forth.

Also, these books are definitely NOT for children, they are WAY too gory for a child to read. I just finished the 5th book today ("Blood Beast") and while it wasn't as exciting as the rest, mainly because it's sort of an interlude, if you will, between "Bec" and "Demon Apocalypse". But of course every book series has an interlude between the introductions of all characters and the epic conclusion books. I mean look at Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, that movie was kind of boring and depressing, but it was an interlude. "Blood Beast" was still a good book though.

See the problem is that you read a book by it's cover (almost literally) because you ONLY read the first book and ultimately gave up on the series. I'm sure that if you read "Demon Thief" (the second book) then you would change your mind entirely about the series.

The books, of course, are not going to appeal to everyone but that doesn't mean that they're bad books. Me personally? I can't wait to start on "Demon Apocalypse" ultimately though, "Wolf Island" looks like it's going to be one of my favorites, mainly because the titles of his books are always in conjunction with the story, in my experience anyway.

[Stormcrow]

I don't think so... I just don't like Shan as a writer. I tried his Cirque Due Freak series when a friend of mine suggested it, and I made it to the fifth book and had to stop. There's no way I'm going to go on with the Demonata, it's just not my thing. I don't think that a writer should "evolve with the series", I think they should have it all figured out from the beginning. I've read too many series, and seen them all fail, because the writer(s) tried to evolve as the story progressed, instead of laying down the law before they began.

[Rickety]

I don't think so... I just don't like Shan as a writer. I tried his Cirque Due Freak series when a friend of mine suggested it, and I made it to the fifth book and had to stop. There's no way I'm going to go on with the Demonata, it's just not my thing. I don't think that a writer should "evolve with the series", I think they should have it all figured out from the beginning. I've read too many series, and seen them all fail, because the writer(s) tried to evolve as the story progressed, instead of laying down the law before they began.

But that's not how writing is done. I'm a writer and I know that you can't have it all figured out to start with. As your story goes you'll think "Oh!! That would be GREAT right there! I should do THAT!" and before you know it, you've got more depth and more meat to your story because it could just be a character and you think "They would be an excellent addition in this book!" but then as you start to write them into existence you're like "Well, maybe I can make him/her pop up in a later book again, I think that would be fun!" and then when you get to that point you're like "Hmm... I should put them in league with the bad guy! They need more depth to them! I can go places with this character!" so writing isn't about having it all laid out and KNOWING 100% what you're gonna write and when you're gonna write it. You evolve with your plot, most of the time it's accidental but it makes you a better writer for it!

[Stormcrow]

I'm a writer also, and I like to plan things out. Sorry. There's no one right way to write. I plot, I outline, and I brainstorm completely before I write, that's how I do it and I like to read other authors that write that way too. Again, there is no one right way to write. I don't like Shan, I don't like the way he writes, I don't like his stories. Sorrrrryyyyyy. I don't like him.

[Rickety]

I'm a writer also, and I like to plan things out. Sorry. There's no one right way to write. I plot, I outline, and I brainstorm completely before I write, that's how I do it and I like to read other authors that write that way too. Again, there is no one right way to write. I don't like Shan, I don't like the way he writes, I don't like his stories. Sorrrrryyyyyy. I don't like him.

I wasn't blowin' up at you, I was just sayin'. I mean yes there are pretty much two main types of writers, the ones like me, Darren Shan, J.K. Rowling etc. that pretty much just go with the flow of the writing and add what we want, when we want. Then there's writers like you, Stephanie Myers etc. that have a structured outline and don't deter from it at all. And there's nothing wrong with either way.

I guess if you were to look at it though, the writers like myself are kind of the rebels of the writing industry, we do what we want, when we want and use no structure lol. Down with Julliard and their structure!! Haha!

[Alchera]

I have actually read "Lord Loss". It was ok but a little too young/childish to me. They're okay but I won't be reading the rest.

[Rickety]

I have actually read "Lord Loss". It was ok but a little too young/childish to me. They're okay but I won't be reading the rest.

See I don't understand. Both of you ONLY read Lord Loss and refuse to read another one. Why do you think the others are going to be childish? I will admit that Lord Loss was a bit childish, but after Slawter, it's not really too childish (Bec is a little bit but only a little bit). I mean what's the deal with people today? They say "Oh! Twilight rocks!!! I love Twilight!" when in fact, I've heard from my mother, my sister and my aunt that those books are extremely juvenile and childish, but when they come across a good book series like The Demonata all they can say is "It's too childish to me!" I'm not saying you too read Twilight and thought it was awesome, I'm just asking what they deal is with that? I mean if Twilight is even more childish then why is The Demonata the only one that people refuse to read based on childish writting in three out of ten books?

[Stormcrow]

Generally, if I somehow manage to get through the first book in a series but deem the first book unworthy, it's not such a dreadful assumption to think that the rest are going to be that way. I mean, you yourself just said, "I will admit that Lord Loss was a bit childish, but after Slawter, it's not really too childish (Bec is a little bit but only a little bit)." A bit childish. Not really too childish. Only a little bit. We don't want any amount of that, we want zero childish. So we're not going to read anymore, even if it's "a little bit childish", because it's just not what we're looking for... Is it really so bad that we don't want to read the rest of Shan's books?

And I mean, I LOVE kid's books. So Shan being too childish for ME is really something very few others can and have achieved. Percy Jackson, for example, was dreadfully childish, for a person who thrives on children's literature. I won't be reading anymore of those either.

If it's any consolation to you, Twilight is, most probably, the worst book ever published in the history of mankind. And I say that kindly.

Edited March 5, 2010 by ebonycrow

[Rickety]

Generally, if I somehow manage to get through the first book in a series but deem the first book unworthy, it's not such a dreadful assumption to think that the rest are going to be that way. I mean, you yourself just said, "I will admit that Lord Loss was a bit childish, but after Slawter, it's not really too childish (Bec is a little bit but only a little bit)." A bit childish. Not really too childish. Only a little bit. We don't want any amount of that, we want zero childish. So we're not going to read anymore, even if it's "a little bit childish", because it's just not what we're looking for... Is it really so bad that we don't want to read the rest of Shan's books?

And I mean, I LOVE kid's books. So Shan being too childish for ME is really something very few others can and have achieved. Percy Jackson, for example, was dreadfully childish, for a person who thrives on children's literature. I won't be reading anymore of those either.

If it's any consolation to you, Twilight is, most probably, the worst book ever published in the history of mankind. And I say that kindly.

Okay, what I mean by "a bit childish" is that there are a few little saying every now and then mentioned in the book that are a bit childish, and by childish I mean corny. Just because there's a few little corny sayings in a book doesn't mean it's a bad book. The series is a wonderfully exciting and intriguing series. I don't understand what the big problem you have with the series is.

[Stormcrow]

I just don't like it. o_o I have already explained why I don't like it, and Shan as an author. Whether you understand my dislike or not, I'm not going to change my mind about it.

[Rickety]

I just don't like it. o_o I have already explained why I don't like it, and Shan as an author. Whether you understand my dislike or not, I'm not going to change my mind about it.

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just saying that you shouldn't judge a series based solely on the first book because you never know whether the rest are gonna be better or not. I'm saying that you shouldn't say that all the authors work is bad because you didn't like the first book in one of his series, to be honest it's pretty disrespectful to the author.

[Stormcrow]

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just saying that you shouldn't judge a series based solely on the first book because you never know whether the rest are gonna be better or not. I'm saying that you shouldn't say that all the authors work is bad because you didn't like the first book in one of his series, to be honest it's pretty disrespectful to the author.

I've read several of Shan's books, and I base my opinion on the rest of the series from what I've read of him. I think my basis for not reading the rest of the Demonata is justified.

[xYlvax]

it was entertaining how his family died in the first book xD

and the demon's creatures scared the **** out of me lol

[Alchera]

See I don't understand. Both of you ONLY read Lord Loss and refuse to read another one. Why do you think the others are going to be childish? I will admit that Lord Loss was a bit childish, but after Slawter, it's not really too childish (Bec is a little bit but only a little bit). I mean what's the deal with people today? They say "Oh! Twilight rocks!!! I love Twilight!" when in fact, I've heard from my mother, my sister and my aunt that those books are extremely juvenile and childish, but when they come across a good book series like The Demonata all they can say is "It's too childish to me!" I'm not saying you too read Twilight and thought it was awesome, I'm just asking what they deal is with that? I mean if Twilight is even more childish then why is The Demonata the only one that people refuse to read based on childish writting in three out of ten books?

Generally the first book in a series is the best one, and all the others are cash ins. This is the only real reason we see so many lengthy sagas over many books - to sell compies. We used to see stand alones but now if a tale if sucessful you can guarantee there will be 5 sequels and 3 prequels, with extras being added by others after the authors death. Also, I generally just have other stuff I would rather read first.

[Stormcrow]

Generally the first book in a series is the best one, and all the others are cash ins. This is the only real reason we see so many lengthy sagas over many books - to sell compies. We used to see stand alones but now if a tale if sucessful you can guarantee there will be 5 sequels and 3 prequels, with extras being added by others after the authors death. Also, I generally just have other stuff I would rather read first.

I personally don't mind long series, as long as the story is worth it. I would follow some series through to the end of time, as long as the author didn't sell out the story. Because you're right, too many authors are extending the series for the money instead of the actual story. :/ One good example, I think, is the Warriors series by Erin Hunter (which is a series about feral cats). The first four books were brilliance on paper, but after that the authors realized they were popular, were making money, and didn't want to stop. So they kept writing. Twenty books. Twenty-one... twenty-two... And then a new series called Seekers. Six books there, seven, eight... It wasn't about the story anymore for them, it was all about the money. I really feel like that's the only reason Shan wrote the Demonata, because of the success with Cirque Du Freak.

Kenneth Oppel wrote four books from the POV of bats (Darkwing (a prequel), Silverwing, Sunwing, and Firewing), and though there was a dreadful cliffhanger ending in Firewing, he declared he would not write anymore books for the series unless he had a particularly good idea. Despite the ending (which is a cliffhanger in every since of the word), he won't go on because he just doesn't have an idea for how he wants it to continue. That's respectable, imo (though immensely frustrating!). Despite there being fans who really want him to go on (myself included), he would rather have a solid story than selling out some ridiculous, half-arsed continuation that he doesn't care about. An author that cares about their characters and their story that way, I really respect that. An author that writes because they're popular...

[Alchera]

Well the best series are planned as a series, as opposed to a story that wraps itself up in the first one and then just happens to bring the bad guy back for the next 2. Unfortunately due to the nature of the publishing industry it is a very good idea to either develop a particular style and carry on churning this out, or continually write sequels to an already established work. I know I would.

[Stormcrow]

Well the best series are planned as a series, as opposed to a story that wraps itself up in the first one and then just happens to bring the bad guy back for the next 2. Unfortunately due to the nature of the publishing industry it is a very good idea to either develop a particular style and carry on churning this out, or continually write sequels to an already established work. I know I would.

I agree, a series should be planned. But, I couldn't do that to my characters, no matter what it meant. Even if the fans rioted in the streets, my stories mean too much to me to destroy them like that. That's why I greatly respect an author that stops their series once it's complete, no matter how bad the fans want it, that's the end of the story, and they won't disembowel it for the money or the popularity. That tells me an author really loves their story, it's a part of them, a big part, and it means more to them than monetary gain.

[TheResearcher]

I wasn't blowin' up at you, I was just sayin'. I mean yes there are pretty much two main types of writers, the ones like me, Darren Shan, J.K. Rowling etc. that pretty much just go with the flow of the writing and add what we want, when we want. Then there's writers like you, Stephanie Myers etc. that have a structured outline and don't deter from it at all. And there's nothing wrong with either way.

I guess if you were to look at it though, the writers like myself are kind of the rebels of the writing industry, we do what we want, when we want and use no structure lol. Down with Julliard and their structure!! Haha!

Gawd blimey, Stephanie Myers? That doesn't advocate planning to say the least. It's a bit harsh to compare any writer with the epic fail that is Stephanie Myers!

Anyway, I've read the first three or so of the Demonata series. I quite liked them at the time if I remember, but this was years ago. I'm not sure what I'd think of them right now. I might take a look at them as they're on my bookshelf, but too busy reading Abercrombie's The First Law right now.

[Frontier]

I'm in love with The Demonata. I finished it a couple of months ago. Best series I've ever read. I'm still constantly thinking about it. I hate Juni sooo much. But I think her and Lord Loss's relationship is kinda cute (although, I'd gladly rip her throat out for him <3)

I swear I'm in love with Lord Loss. x3