Cavalary: In my case, the different worlds created and presented, the scale of powers and events that exceed anything possible in this one, and overall escapism. Know this world, it sucks, don't want to remain in it while experiencing creative stuff as well, thank you very much.
Thank you for the reply.
I must have been dropped on my imagination one time too many as a kid, because I'm unable to appreciate any book that isn't nonstop adventure or weird fact porn.
GR00T: Forget the antagonist. This was one of the very first (if not
the first) popular fantasy novels where the protagonist was completely unlikeable, while the surrounding cast was (for the most part) endearing. Okay, getting back to the antagonist, it was also one of the first - that I read, at least - where the unlikeable protagonist was mirrored by an antagonist that was equally unlikeable due to actually being pure evil. And not one of these generally contrived 'evil' antagonists that have some kind of sympathetic flaw where you can sympathize with them and understand (read:excuse) their motives; rather one that's just genuinely evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I started reading the first book with really great expectations. I specifically seek out stories dealing with virtual reality and the humanity of fictional characters and the importance of virtual goals, so the synopses on the internet made it sound like bestest book evar, written just for me. Asshole goes to fantasyland, does nasty stuff to the populace for the lulz, then has to deal with the consequences?
Awesome, shut up and take my money, clicky clicky mail tracker refresh.
Aaaaaand... ouch, the disappointment. I mean, that one big nasty thing that he does -- I'd be totally on board if he did it for the lulz (hell, I'd probably pick such an option in a playthrough if it came up in a serious RPG). I could also accept if the author was pushing some sort of Lord of the Flies idea, as in, every person is naturally evil and it's only familiar "civilized" surroundings that suppress the bestial tendencies and stop most of us from seriously considering and committing all sorts of pointless crimes. But in the book, the guy clearly has a psychotic episode and feels terrible all the way, really, nothing for me the reader to feel conflicted about. Then, yes, he's unlikeable, but so's everyone else, and in the end I just didn't care about anything that happened. Evil characters are written to be Evil-by-definition, like perfect spheres, and good characters are similarly defined to be Good, except some might have a Tragic Flaw (not more than one per person), represented by a hollow center -- instead of gloriously fractal manifolds that real people are. I was rooting for the bad guy to killmaimburn everyone (aren't Ultimate Evils a dime a dozen in fantasy?) but without any real feeling about the whole brownian motion thing, and stopped after the first volume.
(Contrast Kingkiller Chronicles, where Patrick Rothfuss (ineptly) tries to portray complexity by giving each character two random traits, which then react in surprising ways like codewords in a gamebook, and as a result there are at least three characters I would be happy to see triumph.)
(And as a positive example, one of my recent favorites: everyone is evil in fresh and exciting ways except two decent side characters, one of whom dies before the events of the trilogy and the other appears in seemingly random episodes trying to avenge him behind the scenes, then dies and destroys the setting literally on the last page. Whoa.)