Fantasy Books

[seayakin]

Any one have any recommendations?

I have already read Tolkien's Books many times, Harry Potter, Tales of Narnia, etc. However, most others I have grabbed I have found less than stellar.

[TragicMonkey]

George RR Martin. Don't let the size of the books intimidate you-- they're a fast read, because you get caught up in it. A Game of Thrones is the first in the series. They kick ass.

Terry Pratchett's Discworld series is fantasy as well as humor, and very good.

I've also gotten into Juliet McKenna and JV Jones recently, both are okay, nothing great, but worth reading.

[Wudang]

Thoroughly recommend Robin Hobbs books

[TragicMonkey]

Oh, and I was forgetting the older guys. Lord Dunsany sort of invented the modern fantasy. Many fantasy writers credit Dunsany with influencing them.

His short stories are his best. Try to find a copy with the Syme illustrations.

[Piscivore]

A erstwhile forumite named Rebecca Bradley (not that rebecca, BTW) has published a trilogy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0441007090/qid=1118272194/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-5191376-9823903?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) that is quite good.

I found it a lot more intelligent than most of the pseudo-celtic dreck that's out there now.

[Phillybee]

Well, in an entirely different direction from your list: if you feel you might like some shorter books in the genre, maybe try one of:

Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser series or
Karl Edward Wagner's Kane series

I found both series to be fun fantasy, and mostly pretty entertaining without relying on vastness of story or vapid fictitious historical detail (like Tolkein) that made me skip pages and yawn more than I wanted to.

At least if you don't like them, the $1.50 and 2 hours reading time won't make you feel like you invested a lot of time or money on them.

[Bikewer]

Phillybee, you beat me to Fritz Lieber. Wonderful stuff.

I'm very fond of E.R.R. Eddison's The Worm Oroborous. It's a great fantasy adventure, though the opening and the setting is a little odd, you quickly get over it.
And the language....

The fantasy stories of Jack Vance are great fun as well. Mazirian the Magician, Cudgel, and others. Always a sly sense of humor, and clever commentary on modern society.

Poul Anderson has written some fine stuff as well, often with a nod to traditional myths Three Hearts and Three Lions was excellent. And The High Crusade....Hehe.

Aliens invade during one of the Crusades, expecting a quick victory. The doughty knights defeat the aliens, and proceed to borrow the spaceship for a counter-attack. Great stuff.

[seayakin]

Thanks all, this should help me add some things to my reading list.

[Phillybee]

I'm admittedly not the fantasy expert, so I asked my brother, who reads volumes of it. He likes:

George RR Martin: mentioned above, A Game of Thrones

Roger Zelazny: Amber series ( I read these a long time ago, can't remember anything about them now), and other Zelazny books.

Michael Moorcock: I reread the Elric stuff not too long ago and I liked it; he recommends Dancers at the Edge of Time and the Hawkmoon series

I think I'm gonna pick up the George RR Martin one.

[Cleon]

George RR Martin is great. Really--just absolutely fantastic stuff.

I'm also a big RA Salvatore fan--even if you don't like the D&D/Forgotten Realms thing, the guy is really a skilled writer.

I've recently gotten into Raymond E. Feist, particularly the Serpentwar books. His approach to characterization and plot is very atypical; hard to describe, and hard to put down.

One series I happened upon by accident is Elizabeth Moon's "Deed of Paksenarrion" trilogy. Short, but very inventive and worth reading. A lot of fun, there.

A couple I'm not so fond of:

Robert Jordan. The first few books of his famous "Wheel of Time" series are great, but they quickly get very repetitive and don't really seem to go anywhere.

Terry Goodkind. Bleccccch. Goodkind has a genuine knack for storytelling and character, and some of his concepts are incredibly original. The first 2-3 books in his "Sword of Truth" series are a lot of fun. But somewhere along the line Goodkind decided he was Ayn Rand Come Again. He interrupts the storyline with length monologues (and even question/answer sessions) about Great Political and Philosophical Truths, rambles incessantly, doesn't bother to portray opposing opinions even remotely accurately, and basically only bothers keeping enough plotline to thinly veil his manifesto with a fantasy story. It's not his politics that bug me--though, obviously, I'm not a fan in that department--I read Heinlein all the time. But at least Heinlein could put his politics into his story reasonably well. By his fourth book, Goodkind took all of his talent and chucked it out the window.

(Sorry, Goodkind's a bit of a sore point with me. I spent way too much time reading that crap.)

[crimresearch]

Second the Leiber and the Zelazny series...also Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai books if you don't mind a few space suits in the plot.

[Darat]

If you like quests try Tad Williams’ “The Dragonbone Chair� (but avoid “Otherland� like the plague the world's second most tedious book, the first of course being "The Wandering Jew") and Stephen Donaldson's “The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever�.


For quality I would recommend Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea series (the first three are juveniles but still very good) and of course any work by the best fantasy (and science fiction ) writer Gene Wolfe.


(Edited for words, pictures and few bits and bobs.)

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Cleon

Terry Goodkind. Bleccccch. Goodkind has a genuine knack for storytelling and character, and some of his concepts are incredibly original. The first 2-3 books in his "Sword of Truth" series are a lot of fun. But somewhere along the line Goodkind decided he was Ayn Rand Come Again. He interrupts the storyline with length monologues (and even question/answer sessions) about Great Political and Philosophical Truths, rambles incessantly, doesn't bother to portray opposing opinions even remotely accurately, and basically only bothers keeping enough plotline to thinly veil his manifesto with a fantasy story. It's not his politics that bug me--though, obviously, I'm not a fan in that department--I read Heinlein all the time. But at least Heinlein could put his politics into his story reasonably well. By his fourth book, Goodkind took all of his talent and chucked it out the window.

(Sorry, Goodkind's a bit of a sore point with me. I spent way too much time reading that crap.)
I never made it to the fourth book, or even the third. The first two were just too repetitive and nowhere near exciting, in my opinion. It seemed an endless stream of "Here's this thing no-one can possibly do. Well, our hero does it! Here's another thing no-one can do. Our hero does it, too!" on and on and on and...

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I never made it to the fourth book, or even the third. The first two were just too repetitive and nowhere near exciting, in my opinion. It seemed an endless stream of "Here's this thing no-one can possibly do. Well, our hero does it! Here's another thing no-one can do. Our hero does it, too!" on and on and on and...

Fair enough. I took that stuff in the context of an unfolding mystery (of Richard's full identity), so I cut him a bit of slack. After a while, it does seem to mold into the ubermensch thing. (Again, Ayn Rand Come Again.)

[rharbers]

I very seldom read fantasy material, but I did enjoy Frank Herbert's Dune novels. What intrigued me was the premise that humans were a unique form of life and they populated a Universe that was full of life, versus Aliens coming to earth to destroy, eat or kidnap the humans.

Also, while I was perusing a local library selling off their "Politically Incorrect Books", I discovered an original copy of Robert Heinlein's novel "Stranger in a Strange Land". I stole it for 50 cents. Very strange read indeed!

[headscratcher4]

One of the really neat fantasey series of late have been the reports of the Pentagon regarding the war in Iraq...

Sorry, cheap shot, couldn't help myself...:o

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Darat
If you like quests try Tad Williams’ “The Dragonbone Chair� (but avoid “Otherland� like the plague the world's second most tedious book, the first of course being "The Wandering Jew") and Stephen Donaldson's “The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever�.

*snip*

Everybody, please avoid "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" like the plague. It is easily the dullest trilogy I ever read. Covenant does nothing but whine, whine, whine all through three books (and probably through the next three, which I didn´t bother to read). And whoever translated it into German should be thrust head-first into an anthill.

"The Dragonbone Chair" is pretty good, if a bit long-winded at times.

I can´t believe I´m the first to recommend the works of David Eddings. The quality of his novels varies - the latest series is terribly lame, but his earlier works are really good. I´d rate the Belgariad series with a straight A, all the other novels involving Belgarion and those with Sparhawk with a B, and "Redemption of Althalus" is somewhere between B and C.

[DaveW]

I'm going to throw C.S. Friedman's name into the ring. She is really more on the sci-fi side, but her books also include elements of fantasy, and she writes deep, convincing characters.

[Morwen]

May I also recommend Andrzej Sapkowski's books, The Saga of Geralt of Rivia. They have a central-eastern European feel that makes them quite refreshing, some great characters, and a style both gripping and profound. Some very nice suprises along the way in these books. I can't find the second but I couldn't wait and read up to the fourth.

[Jorghnassen]

Originally posted by seayakin
Any one have any recommendations?

I have already read Tolkien's Books many times, Harry Potter, Tales of Narnia, etc. However, most others I have grabbed I have found less than stellar.

I think you've read all the good fantasy at this point. You might want to try stuff by Chretien de Troyes or Robert de Boron ;).

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Chaos
I can´t believe I´m the first to recommend the works of David Eddings. The quality of his novels varies - the latest series is terribly lame, but his earlier works are really good. I´d rate the Belgariad series with a straight A, all the other novels involving Belgarion and those with Sparhawk with a B, and "Redemption of Althalus" is somewhere between B and C.

I think with Eddings you just have to pick one of his first two series and ignore the other. They are all the same characters, repackaged under new names. I prefer the series with Sparhawk simply because that was the one I read first. The other one seemed a copy.

The last one was horrible. I rarely give up and don't finish a book, but it was so lame. All the characters did was stand around being agreeing with each other and being likeable. I'm afraid the man has lost it.

[TragicMonkey]

Nobody's mentioned Terry Brooks yet. He's not great, but he certainly evolved well over time. His first book was pretty much a blatant rip-off of Tolkien, but his second was actually original and interesting. He's the most up-and-down author I've ever read, in that one book will stink howlingly, but the next is quite good. I've found that with him, the second book of any trilogy is the best, while the other two disappoint.

Like Raymond E. Feist, his work is getting darker over time, which I enjoy, because it makes it more interesting, as well as making the characters more human (even when they're not human).

The other thing about Brooks is that he's really very good at making up names for people and places and things that just seem so right for them. Some fantasy writers seem to have trouble with that, and just throw out some odd syllables and hope they stick.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Nobody's mentioned Terry Brooks yet. He's not great, but he certainly evolved well over time. His first book was pretty much a blatant rip-off of Tolkien, but his second was actually original and interesting. He's the most up-and-down author I've ever read, in that one book will stink howlingly, but the next is quite good. I've found that with him, the second book of any trilogy is the best, while the other two disappoint.

Like Raymond E. Feist, his work is getting darker over time, which I enjoy, because it makes it more interesting, as well as making the characters more human (even when they're not human).

The other thing about Brooks is that he's really very good at making up names for people and places and things that just seem so right for them. Some fantasy writers seem to have trouble with that, and just throw out some odd syllables and hope they stick.

Yeah...I've read his stuff. I've even met the guy. To be honest, though, there's just nothing there I can get interested in. I stopped reading after the third book--mostly out of lack of interest.

[LW]

R. E. Howard.

The most consistently good fantasy author of the late 20s and early 30s. Even his worst stories are readable (excepting the Cormac Mac Art series, don't touch that one with a ten foot pole, and the Solomon Kane series should also be approached with care) and at his best he wrote some of the best fantasy of the Sword and Sorcrery genre (such as the Bran Mak Morn story Worms of the Earth).

[Odin]

All of these have been mentioned but anyway-

Terry Pratchett- Discworld is a great series. His other books are worth reading too.

Robert Jordan- Great in places but the series is spred through too many books so there are boring bits connecting the good, also nothing of interest happens in the latest book.

Earthsea- I've read as far as book three. I found the first book to be the best.

David Eddings- I've only read the latest series and Redemption of Althalus. Althalus was better, though the new series isn't that bad (probably because I haven't read the early ones yet.) I think its problem is in having characters that don't seem to fit well with the enemy. Also, so far each book has had a similar plot.

[LW]

Originally posted by Odin
Robert Jordan- Great in places but the series is spred through too many books so there are boring bits connecting the good, also nothing of interest happens in the latest book.

And here's an important public notice concerning Robert Jordan: Stay Away From His Conan Books. Thank you for your attention.

[Jorghnassen]

Originally posted by LW
And here's an important public notice concerning Robert Jordan: Stay Away From His Conan Books. Thank you for your attention.

How about stay away from his books altogether. I think he invented the concept of 'filler novel" in his Waste of Time series...

[Chanileslie]

I'm going to throw it in because nobody else has:

Anne McCaffery's Dragon Riders of Pern - excellent series. Although, I think the series has run its course and should be allowed to find its death as peacefully as Master Robinton and Aivas did. I am also particularly fond of her Crystal Singer series. The Ship Who Sang isn't bad, but Dinosaur Planet was awful and appears to have been re-released with a new name.

Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series was quite good, but alas, he has carried it on way to far with no resolutions and unfortunately, he has too many foreshadowings that I think he forgot about or are completely ignored in his plot line. And could he just kill of Faile and Perrin? His two most boring characters that really do nothing to drive the plot. He needs to bring down his character count and just end the damn series already.

I will second the Earthsea trilogy - excellent series. The second book, The Tombs of Atuan, was my favorite of the series.

I read The Thomas Covenent series as a kid, and hated it - found it to be quite dull.

Paolini's Eragon is highly recommended by my kids. I haven't read it yet. But the sequel to Eragon, Eldest, is coming out in August.

I really liked The Women of the Underworld series by Kelly Armstrong, but it may be geared more towards women. I think she had an interesting take on the supernatural in modern days, and it didn't read like Buffy.

Mercedes Lackey's Joust and Alta were very good, enjoyable reads. Unique setting of a fantasy within an ancient Egyptian setting as opposed to a mideviel European setting.

Piers Anthony's Xanth is always a fun read, but don't read any further than Ogre, Ogre - it becomes too pun filled after that to be interesting or fun. I really like his Splint Infinity also. Bio of a Space Tyrant was utter and complete crap.

Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's Good Omens - excellent read. Really enjoyed Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere also - I've heard very good things about Gaiman's American Gods. Pratchett's Discworld novels have already been mentioned.

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Second the Leiber and the Zelazny series...also Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai books if you don't mind a few space suits in the plot.

Zelazny's "Lord of Light" is very good.

[Bikewer]

Zelazney is one of the great ones; died way too young. We have read the Amber series many times.


I may be the only person who actually liked the Thomas Covenant books. (I only read the first three) May have been because of his decidedly anti-hero character, or the fact that the thing was just so different from most of the other fantasy I'd read.

Not true fantasy (there's a solid sci-fi underpinning), but a great read are Julian May's Saga of the Pliestocene Exile books.
Very inventive, with interesting, likeable characters (even the bad ones!). With each of the four books, she threw in new and surprising elements that kept you intensely interested.

I remember when the series was coming out for the first time, a local bookstore got a bunch of copies of the last book from England, months before the US release. We snapped them up pronto!

[hgc]

About the only "fantasy" I've read in the last 20 years is the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, by Philip Pullman. Quite excellent.

Oh yeah, I've re-read LOTR and some Harry Potter too.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by hgc
About the only "fantasy" I've read in the last 20 years is the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, by Philip Pullman. Quite excellent.

Oh yeah, I've re-read LOTR and some Harry Potter too.

I really can't over-recommend George RR Martin. Unlike most fantasies, his characters are not overshadowed by their world. And there aren't the very tired trifecta of elves, dwarves, and goblins. (Well, there's one dwarf, but he's the real kind that resulted from chromosomes, not some freaky race of axe-murdering miners.)

[balrog666]

Everybody's tastes are different and I would like nothing more than to tell you a hundred authors to avoid but ... I'll just name Terry Brooks and Anne McCaffery. So ...

My Fantasy picks for best of breed are J R R Tolkien, Jack Vance, Roger Zelazny, James H Schmitz, George R R Martin, Dave Duncan, Raymond E Feist, Steven Brust, L E Modesitt Jr, Patricia A McKillip, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, and, maybe, sometimes, Lawrence Watt-Evans. They vary wildly in style and technique, so I will leave it to you to determine what you might like.

And I will add in Terry Pratchett, Robert Rankin, and Douglas Adams for laugh-out-loud humor.

And before you buy blindly, you should take note that most of them write, or wrote, SF as well as Fantasy.

My specific suggestion would be to start with Vance's high fantasy Lyonesse trilogy or GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire (starting with A Game of Thrones).

And if you like anybody picks, come back for more.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Chaos
Everybody, please avoid "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" like the plague. It is easily the dullest trilogy I ever read. Sorry Chaos, gotta disagree.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first trilogy. At times you want to hit the protagonist with a brick, but you're supposed to feel that way.

I was sorely disappointed in the second trilogy, and haven't started on the third series, which I believe just started.

Someone already mentioned Tad Williams. I am a big fan of his Tailchaser's Song. A "quest" book with cats as the major characters. Others have tried to copy it, but unsuccessfully. It's a book that I read aloud to my kids (although it is not written for children), and they all remember it fondly to this day. The copy I read to them was re-read by each until the cover fell off.

[Vagabond]

I read The Thomas Covenent series as a kid, and hated it - found it to be quite dull<<<<<

Thomas Covenant is a very adult read. The series begins with a rape and the consequences of this echo throughout the entire series. Also you need to be able to grasp how having a serious illness like leprosy can effect a human's psyche and behavior. These aren't things that can be grasped by a child. Given you can grasp these however, the first 3 of the series are some of the finest fantasy ever. I think it is superior to lord of the rings and I am hopeful it might find it's way to the screen someday.

[Vagabond]

I can't believe nobody mentioned Harry Turtledove. His misplaced legion quadrology is awesome literature, as well as just being good fantasy.

Summer tree trilogy and Tigana by Guy Gavriel Kay. Both excellent.

Vlad Taltos books by Steven Brust. The main character is an assassin in a world in which resurrection is as commonplace as going to the dentist. Just that should be enough to interest you but the world itself is rich with house rivalries, codes of honor. The one where he says I met the woman I am going to marry today, she killed me is epic.

The dragonlance saga is great

Frank Frazzeta's death dealer if you can find them.

Edgar Rice Burrough's John carter of mars. The princess of mars is about to be a movie. If done right it could be awesome. Would bring this series the kind of attention lord of the rings got.

Jack Chalker's Well of souls books.

Hyperion is usually classified as Sci Fi, but I would consider it a fantasy. One of the best books ever written, all the sequels suck tho.

All of Heinlein's stuff is usually classified as Sci Fi as well but most of it is more fantasy. They are supposed to be making Moon is Harsh Mistress as a movie which could be awesome done properly. Besides Stranger in a strange land that was mentioned, I would add Time enough for love and I will fear no evil.

The swords books by Fred Saberhagen are pretty good.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by LW
And here's an important public notice concerning Robert Jordan: Stay Away From His Conan Books. Thank you for your attention.

The best of the post RE howard conan books is Conan the Fearless by Steve Perry. There are a few others worth reading, most of them are mediocre at best. But, Conan the Fearless is quite good.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Vagabond
I can't believe nobody mentioned Harry Turtledove. His misplaced legion quadrology is awesome literature, as well as just being good fantasy.


I've never read his fantasy stuff before, actually, though I keep meaning to. I love his alternate history/sci-fi books.

[Vagabond]

The misplaced legion is just great. But, his Krispos series is only mediocre. I just read Thessalonica which was worth reading but not great. I am the opposite been meaning to try his alternate histories and have never got around to it.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Vagabond
I read The Thomas Covenent series as a kid, and hated it - found it to be quite dull<<<<<

Thomas Covenant is a very adult read. The series begins with a rape and the consequences of this echo throughout the entire series. Also you need to be able to grasp how having a serious illness like leprosy can effect a human's psyche and behavior. These aren't things that can be grasped by a child. Given you can grasp these however, the first 3 of the series are some of the finest fantasy ever. I think it is superior to lord of the rings and I am hopeful it might find it's way to the screen someday.

While I agree that the Thomas Covenant books are an adult read, I was not your average child who read nothing more than comic books or Nancy Drew and Hardy Boy Mysteries. I found no merit in the books, and still find no merit in them - they were dull then and that estimation has not changed.

Please do not insult me. I can accept that people have different views and enjoyments, and I can accept that you enjoyed the books, but that was not my experience, but I would not insult your enjoyment of the books.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
While I agree that the Thomas Covenant books are an adult read, I was not your average child who read nothing more than comic books or Nancy Drew and Hardy Boy Mysteries. I found no merit in the books, and still find no merit in them - they were dull then and that estimation has not changed.

Please do not insult me. I can accept that people have different views and enjoyments, and I can accept that you enjoyed the books, but that was not my experience, but I would not insult your enjoyment of the books.


Hey, you are free to hate Shakespeare if you like too. But, don't expect me to hold you in the same regard if you do. Hating great literature is not an opinion it is a lapse. Not to mention feeling the need to share such an opinion. You obviously have some kind of axe to grind against it. I am sure you haven't tried reading it again since, but act like you have. If telling you the truth is insulting then perhaps you should re-evaluate.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Hey, you are free to hate Shakespeare if you like too. But, don't expect me to hold you in the same regard if you do. Hating great literature is not an opinion it is a lapse. Not to mention feeling the need to share such an opinion. You obviously have some kind of axe to grind against it. I am sure you haven't tried reading it again since, but act like you have. If telling you the truth is insulting then perhaps you should re-evaluate.

Well, I tried to respond to you politely, but I see that politeness to the rude is a worthless effort. Thank you for clarifying. Your brilliance shall, I am sure, be lauded the world over. Especially since you changed the discussion from a piece of work that is hardly on the calibre of Shakespeare to Shakespeare itself. That is disingenuous and rather pitiful, which equates your opinon as less than nothing.

Also, some kind of axe to grind because I did not like a series of books? Are you that absurd? Grow up and then perhaps we can have a discussion, but until such a time, I will ignore you.

edited to correct my atrocious spelling.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Hating great literature is not an opinion it is a lapse.

And who determines what is "great literature" or not?

Anyone is perfectly free to like or dislike anything, no matter what other people's opinions are. Personally, I find Dante's Inferno insipid and dull, and the other two even worse. And yeah, self-appointed arbiters of culture have told me how stupid I am because I dislike Dante. That's their opinion, and they are entitled to it every bit as much as I'm entitled to my opinion of Inferno. Tastes differ. Attempting to elevate one's own tastes to some sort of intellectual height by appealing to other people's opinions....well, what's the point of that?

[Vagabond]

but until such a time, I will ignore you.<<<<<

Things are looking up for me all the time.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
And who determines what is "great literature" or not?

Anyone is perfectly free to like or dislike anything, no matter what other people's opinions are. Personally, I find Dante's Inferno insipid and dull, and the other two even worse. And yeah, self-appointed arbiters of culture have told me how stupid I am because I dislike Dante. That's their opinion, and they are entitled to it every bit as much as I'm entitled to my opinion of Inferno. Tastes differ. Attempting to elevate one's own tastes to some sort of intellectual height by appealing to other people's opinions....well, what's the point of that?

Yeah, but you are being a hypocrite. You act like people who proclaim such things great or classic are elitist, however you hold your opinion of not liking them in the same regard. Same with our shallow friend above. I could care less whether you like Dante or not, but going out of your way to let me know just how "insipid and dull" it was is a failing on your part. There is no piece of literature that is wholly good and very few that are wholly bad
either. You act like whether something is great or sucks is just a matter of personal opinion. It's not. If we didn't have a common ground for what is good, what would be the purpose of asking others their opinions on the matter in the first place?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Yeah, but you are being a hypocrite. You act like people who proclaim such things great or classic are elitist, however you hold your opinion of not liking them in the same regard.


Uh, this is rather unclear.

eta: If you're mad because I expressed my opinion on the work, I should point out that the point of my post was that nobody's opinion is inherently better than anyone else's in matters of taste.

Same with our shallow friend above. I could care less whether you like Dante or not, but going out of your way to let me know just how "insipid and dull" it was is a failing on your part.

I was citing a specific example of a personal opinion of mine that varied from generally accepted "great literature", and received flak for.

There is no piece of literature that is wholly good and very few that are wholly bad
either.

True. But did anyone claim otherwise?

You act like whether something is great or sucks is just a matter of personal opinion. It's not.

Then what is the criteria for being great? List the universal rules that determine whether a given work is great or sucky.


If we didn't have a common ground for what is good, what would be the purpose of asking others their opinions on the matter in the first place?

To find out what other people think? It's sort of the same idea behind posting to internet message boards.

[Ryokan]

The best fantasy books, IMO, are the books by Raymod E. Feist. Great epic stuff.

Oh, and I rather liked the Thomas Covenant. Very dark fantasy.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think I might go start a "your favourite fantasy authors sucks" thread, to parallel the one about comedians, to avoid derailing the nice thread with arguments.

I will say that if you find Anne McCaffery's Pern books a grievous insult to your intelligence, then you might enjoy Rider at the Gate and Cloud's Rider by C.J. Cherryh. They are far, far more intelligent books about humans and their relationship with telepathic wildlife. Her Russian series (Rusalka, Chernevog, Yvgenie) is excellent fantasy as well.

Sheri S. Tepper's early fantasy work is quite good, and she hasn't been mentioned yet either. Michael Swanwick (The Iron Dragon's Daughter) and Mervyn Peake (Gormenghast, Titus Groan) are very good.

Barry Hughart is well worth seeking out too (Bridge of Birds, The Story of the Stone, Eight Skilled Gentlemen).

There are lots of good suggestions in the thread about good children's fantasy too - if it's good, adults can enjoy it equally well.

[athon]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Sheri S. Tepper's early fantasy work is quite good, and she hasn't been mentioned yet either. Michael Swanwick (The Iron Dragon's Daughter) and Mervyn Peake (Gormenghast, Titus Groan) are very good.


Hey, wow; maybe this is a winner for the million dollar prize. I whole-heartedly agree with Kevin about something!

:p

Iron Dragon's Daughter and Gormenghast are both fantastic reads and would be in my top twenty books of all time. The scene in IDD with the drowning horse; macabre and disturbing in a most creative way.

On of my favourite fantasy authors is a London chap by the name of China Mieville. If you like dark, weird fantasy (Swanwick, Moorcock, Gaiman, Barker etc.) then give him a try. King Rat is his first, and while it is an obvious first novel by it's style, the story itself is quite clever. Perdido Street Station, The Scar and Iron Council are all set in the same world, a fantasy universe which is very weird and very cool.

Athon

[Bikewer]

I agree; Iron Dragon's Daughter was very good. A very unique take on Elves and Faerie. (think...Decadent)

Also China Miehville. Sci-Fi? Fantasy? Strong elements of both. Very literate, very inventive, very dark. Great stuff.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by athon
Hey, wow; maybe this is a winner for the million dollar prize. I whole-heartedly agree with Kevin about something!

The million dollar prize is for demonstration of a paranormal ability, not for the rapid ejection of small aviatic primates from your rectal cavity.

Nor is it given simply because the temperature at the 8th circle of hades fell below 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

;)

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
...
Piers Anthony's Xanth is always a fun read, but don't read any further than Ogre, Ogre - it becomes too pun filled after that to be interesting or fun. I really like his Splint Infinity also. Bio of a Space Tyrant was utter and complete crap.
...

I've always preferred sci-fi to fantasy, but have found a few books to be entertaining. I liked the Piers Anthony Split Infinity series as a balance of sci-fi and fantasy, and after seven books it actually concludes. I stopped reading the Xanth series after about book 8 with no end in sight. Really liked the first three or four though. Bio of a Space Tyrant was like nothing I'd ever read before, and I recall the first two books very well, but the remaining ones are just blurs in my memory and it is unlikely I would revisit them.

I read one Dragonriders of Pern book and failed to see what the appeal was. There was another box set I got as a gift -- for the life of me I can't remember but it was about something like Amazon-type women warriors and crystals and utterly boring. I do recall it was very popular with women of a select body-type (and possible certain orientation) at sci-fi conventions.

If you like reading and are interested in fantasy at all, go now and get The NeverEnding Story by Michael Ende. Even if you've seen the first (good) movie, this is a magical book that includes much more. If you get the hardcover version with the two-color print (red and black), it lends much more to the story.

[Boo]

Anne Mc Caffrey: pretty much anything she has written.

Same goes for Mercedes Lackey, from SERRAted Edge to Valdemar and reworked "fairy tales" to Joust.

One I haven't seen mentioned here yet is Sharon Shinn. Her first book "The Shapeshifter's Wife" is nicely done. The 'Archangel' series got a tad odd but the first two were outstanding, especially if you enjoy vocal chamber music. What I like most about her is she plays with different formulas within the "fantasy" genre, always with an added twist.



Boo

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
...you might enjoy Rider at the Gate and Cloud's Rider by C.J. Cherryh. They are far, far more intelligent books about humans and their relationship with telepathic wildlife. Her Russian series (Rusalka, Chernevog, Yvgenie) is excellent fantasy as well.

I can't believe you left out her Morgaine books! In my opinion that is her best fantasy work. Of course the books you mentioned are very good too (I'm not too enthusiastic about her Fortress books though.)

For other fantasy authors it's worth looking into I'll recommend Steven Brust ("Reign in Hell" is a masterpiece), Neil Gaiman (start with "Stardust" or "Neverwhere"), Glen Cook (in particular the first Black Company books), Fritz Leiber ("The Father of Sword and Sorcery"), Michael Moorcock and, while it's really more science fiction (or at least sci-fi), Frank Herbert.

[supercorgi]

Hmmm... I don't think anyone has mentioned C.S Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy yet -- I really enjoyed those books. Another one I'm enjoying is David Farland Runelords series. Did anyone mention Robin Hobb yet? Love her stuff.

[IllegalArgument]

For military sci-fi, Davd Drake's Hammer-Slammers in small doses is good. Just don't read them back to back to back.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I can't believe you left out her Morgaine books! In my opinion that is her best fantasy work. Of course the books you mentioned are very good too (I'm not too enthusiastic about her Fortress books though.)

Agreed on all points, but the Morgaine books' status as fantasy is borderline whereas the Russian series is clearly fantasy so I gave it the nod. Then again, people are already talking about scifi anyway.

I believe I forgot to mention Tim Powers (Last Call, The Anubis Gates) earlier. He swings and misses sometimes, but the two mentioned books are excellent.

[Nova Land]

If you enjoy humorous fantasy, Robert Asprin has a couple of good series: Myth Adventures and Phule's Company. These are light reading and generally reliable entertainment (although the early ones are better than more recent ones).

I discovered Will Shetterley back in the 1980s from his work on Captain Confederacy (an excellent black-and-white comic about an alternate earth in which the South was successful in seceding.) If you like alternative history, a la Harry Turtledove, I highly recommend it (but good luck finding it -- the original series, at least. Shetterley did a color sequel for Marvel's Epic imprint which is relatively easy to find but not nearly as good). Shetterley doesn't have a lot of work available in paperback, but what he does have is well worth picking up: Cats Have No Lord and Witchblood are the two I have.

His wife, Emma Bull, is also a very good fantasy writer. Here is a list of her books and stories (http://www.qnet.com/~raven/emma.html#Works).

Another top-notch fantasy writer is PeterDavid. His very best work is collaborative illustrated fiction -- Fallen Angel, for example, and others too numerous to list -- but he has an extensive list of paperback and hardback books as well. Among his books are a number of Star Trek novels (including Imzadi, the New Frontier series, and many others), which are surprisingly enjoyable even to someone like me who is only marginally familiar with Trek. A couple of his early fantasy works are Knight Life and Howling Mad, which are enjoyable appetizers for his more recent books. I give very high recommends to Sir Appropos of Nothing and its sequel Woad to Wuin. (And I am greatly looking forward to picking up the 3rd Sir Appropos book, Tong Lashing, in the near future.) Here is a link to a slightly dated and thus unfortunately incomplete Peter David bibliography (http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/Bibliography.html)

And for classic fantasy, Fredric Brown (http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/fbrown.htm) is in a class by himself. (His mysteries are well worth reading, as well.)

[Nova Land]

Oops! Forgot to mention two other very enjoyable fantasy writers: Diana Wynne Jones (http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/authors/Diana_Wynne_Jones.htm) and Diane Duane (http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/authors/Diane_Duane.htm).

[sam catte12]

George RR Martin, the Game of Thrones series (recommended by lots of people before) is just great...you want to know what happens to every main character, and he does not hesitate to kill characters you thought were important.

And a good series from Australia ....(yes wombats I know) written by Tracy Canavan, the Magicians Guild series (Magicians Guild, Novice, High Master).. if you enjoyed the early David Eddings then you will enjoy these books. Not sure if published in the USA but worth ordering.

(PS the books contain no wombats or references to wombats... fruit bats may appear)

[hewhocaves]

I don't read much fantasy, soley because it seems so repetitive (like Mr. Incredible says.. how many times do you have to save the world and can't it just stay saved?").

Hving said that, I liked David Farland's Runelords trilogy although the last book was a bit of a let down. More than that, there was a short set of books (two) by a scandinavian author (thorannon gunnarson or something like that) that was really good. I can't remember the name of the author correctly or the title of either book (and i lost both of them)

John

edit:
ah apparantly his name was Thorarrin Gunnersson. Song of the Dwarves. Also wrote some very bad DnD novels. Oh well.

[Jas]

I'm going to be seconding a few books here, especially the Rebecca Bradley nomination...she was actually my archaeology prof for one class. Fascinating woman, and her books are extremely well written.

I also love Mercedes Lackey, some of my favourites being the earlier Valdemar books (the last few are pretty awful though), Joust & Alta, Bardic Voices: The Lark & the Wren , the Elemental Masters series, and her collaboration with Andre Norton, The Elvenbane. The problem though, is she seems to reuse phrases to exhaustion, and many of her series (with a few exceptions), seem to peter out after the first book.

Other good ones are:

A Door Into Ocean (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978031287652&Catalog=Books&Ntt=door+into+ocean&N=35&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1) : Definitely a must-read, and a favourite of lesbian lit profs (at least around here :b)

Kelley Armstrong (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/default.asp?Lang=en&Section=books&Ntt=kelley+armstrong) : Urban fantasy, the first book is about a woman turned werewolf attempting to blend into human society.



Summon the Keeper (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978088677784&Catalog=Books&Ntt=summon+the+keeper&N=35&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1) : Another Canadian, though this book is my favourite. Quite funny, especially if you're canuck.


Kushiel's Dart (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/default.asp?Lang=en&Section=books&Ntt=kushiel%27s+dart) : the first book in the series, and I'm halfway through it. Wonderful, however the protagonist is a female masochist, so it might not be for everyone.


The Mists of Avalon (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978034535049&Catalog=Books&Ntt=mists+of+avalon&N=35&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1) : How could we have gotten this far without anyone mentioning this? One of the best retellings of the Arthurian legend out there, however, I wasn't a big fan of the sequels/prequels.

[Vagabond]

To find out what other people think? It's sort of the same idea behind posting to internet message boards.<<<<

To what end? If nobodies opinion but your own has any bearing on matters of taste then getting other's opinion is a waste of time. Everybodies opinion doesn't matter. I don't care what an 11 year old might think, nor do I care what the opinion is of somebody who finds a book I think is excellent, insipid and dull or somebody who doesn't enjoy the fantasy genre in the first place. However, I do care what people of like mind and intellect think.

You might not like Dante as a whole. I don't either. However, often you will get something from a work that has value despite the fact the work isn't all that great. "the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in time of great crisis remain neutral." is one of my favorite quotes and I use it often. I would have missed out on this wisdom if I had avoided Dante because somebody like you said it was dull. For this reason it is lacking for you to give a blanket condemnation of a work, particularly when since you found it dull you probably didn't have sufficient intellect to understand it, nor did you probably give it a fair reading at the time either.

Shakespeare isn't considered great because everything he wrote is great. He is considered great because some of what he wrote is great. You might miss the great avoiding the not so great. Dante isn't perhaps a good example but Thomas Covenant would be considered highly by the vast majority of people who like fantasy. Thus why you would recommend it to somebody in the first place.

[TragicMonkey]

Tastes differ. You can care what someone says, or not. Up to you. Imposing your tastes on others isn't going to work. Get over it.

[Vagabond]

The problem though, is she seems to reuse phrases to exhaustion, and many of her series (with a few exceptions), seem to peter out after the first book.<<<<<

This is a common problem most authors have. Particularly when they put out a book such as Hyperion which was never intended to be anything other than a book, and when it sells a few copies because it's good, it's now suddenly a trilogy.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Tastes differ. You can care what someone says, or not. Up to you. Imposing your tastes on others isn't going to work. Get over it.

Particularly when like yourself you have no taste. Sorry I wasted my time trying to explain to you. It was obvious to me before the effort you don't have the intellect sufficient to understand. Keep reading and grow up some and perhaps you will someday.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Particularly when like yourself you have no taste. Sorry I wasted my time trying to explain to you. It was obvious to me before the effort you don't have the intellect sufficient to understand. Keep reading and grow up some and perhaps you will someday.

Ah, so anyone who doesn't enjoy the same books as you do is lacking in intellect. Got it.

[Bikewer]

Rancor and bitterness raises it's ugly head even on the most benign of threads.....

[UrsulaV]

I second the recomendations for China Mieville--I finished "Perdido Street Station," put it down, found my shoes, and bolted to the car to go buy the sequel.

Steven Brust's Taltos books are a great read, too.

Since nobody's mentioned him yet, Tim Powers--"The Anubis Gates" was wonderful, and I hate books with time travel with a passionate intensity bordering on the religious.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Rancor and bitterness raises it's ugly head even on the most benign of threads.....

Vagabond et. al., you are invited to take this to the "Your favourite fantasy author sucks" thread, which I created specifically as a forum for this kind of thing so it would not spoil this thread.

(And I did too mention Tim Powers and The Anubis Gates, but it does deserve a second mention because it is good. Or even a third, like this one).

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Dante isn't perhaps a good example but Thomas Covenant would be considered highly by the vast majority of people who like fantasy. Thus why you would recommend it to somebody in the first place.

Actually, from what I've seen on discussions on the subject, Thomas Covenant is one of those works that people either hate or love; seemingly in roughly equal numbers. As far as I've been able to judge, there is no consensus on whether the books are good or not, or on whether they are a central work in the fantasy genre or not.

(Personally I haven't read them; partly because the description of the books, both from people in the love camp and from people in the hate camp, suggests that it's not the kind of book I would enjoy, and partly because my one foray into Donaldson's authorship, the first Gap book, didn't strike any chords in me.)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Actually, from what I've seen on discussions on the subject, Thomas Covenant is one of those works that people either hate or love; seemingly in roughly equal numbers. As far as I've been able to judge, there is no consensus on whether the books are good or not, or on whether they are a central work in the fantasy genre or not.


I didn't like the first lot of Covenant books (not read any of new ones) but I would recommend them to someone who was looking for introductory works of fantasy. His writing is OKish, they are slightly different (although his bad guy Lord "Do you think my bum looks big in this? Isn't black concealing?" is a bit OTT and camp) then the run of the mill stories, I mean leprosy isn’t something that is integral to many books. :)


Originally posted by Leif Roar

(Personally I haven't read them; partly because the description of the books, both from people in the love camp and from people in the hate camp, suggests that it's not the kind of book I would enjoy, and partly because my one foray into Donaldson's authorship, the first Gap book, didn't strike any chords in me.)

When the first "Gap" novel came out I read it and thought it was terrible, a friend of mine persevered with the series and recommended I read the rest, which I did. I'd second his recommendation - don’t judge the "Gap" series by the first book, as a whole work the series is surprisingly quite good!

[Kiless]

Originally posted by Darat
IWhen the first "Gap" novel came out I read it and thought it was terrible, a friend of mine persevered with the series and recommended I read the rest, which I did. I'd second his recommendation - don’t judge the "Gap" series by the first book, as a whole work the series is surprisingly quite good!

Agreed. Really got into the 'Gap' series, post the first book. I'm finding little else to do but chime in and agree with a lot of the posts but I do like Harry Harrison's works and what fantasy Alan Dean Foster wrote... although some may class a lot of what they wrote Sci Fi.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Kiless
Agreed. Really got into the 'Gap' series, post the first book. I'm finding little else to do but chime in and agree with a lot of the posts but I do like Harry Harrison's works and what fantasy Alan Dean Foster wrote... although some may class a lot of what they wrote Sci Fi.

Alan Dean Foster is still with us and still writing! At one time I’m sure it was compulsory for him to provide the novel for every science-fiction or fantasy film released. His website can be found here: http://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm

(As an aside the friend I mentioned above was castigated in the local book shop for buying one of the "Spellsinger" series books - the reason being "it's about bestiality". Takes a special kind of mind to see things in a certain light doesn't it? :) )

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Ah, so anyone who doesn't enjoy the same books as you do is lacking in intellect. Got it.

Doesn't have anything to do with what they enjoy or don't enjoy. It has to do with not being able to understand concepts. Rather like you chiming in when you have no clue as to the points being made.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Rancor and bitterness raises it's ugly head even on the most benign of threads.....

There is no nice way to tell somebody they are too unsophisticated to discuss the topic at hand.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Actually, from what I've seen on discussions on the subject, Thomas Covenant is one of those works that people either hate or love; seemingly in roughly equal numbers. As far as I've been able to judge, there is no consensus on whether the books are good or not, or on whether they are a central work in the fantasy genre or not.

(Personally I haven't read them; partly because the description of the books, both from people in the love camp and from people in the hate camp, suggests that it's not the kind of book I would enjoy, and partly because my one foray into Donaldson's authorship, the first Gap book, didn't strike any chords in me.)

And people either love or hate Shakepeare depending on whether they have the ability to understand him or not. I would say a vast majority of people would say comic books are superior literature to Shakespeare. That is hardly a reason not to read him. Nor does this make comic books great literature either. If you like deep books and have the capacity to understand them, then read them. If not don't read them or wait until you have more comprehension later in life.

I gave a speech on Lord of the Rings a few years back in my college literature class and not one person in about 30 including the teacher had ever heard of Lord of the Rings at the time. Now I would be hard pressed to find people who have not. This doesn't change the quality of the Lord of the Rings one way or the other. It was what it was when it was obscure and it's the same now it's popularist. You should not base judgements on such things.

[Vagabond]

When the first "Gap" novel came out I read it and thought it was terrible, a friend of mine persevered with the series and recommended I read the rest, which I did. I'd second his recommendation - don’t judge the "Gap" series by the first book, as a whole work the series is surprisingly quite good!<<<<<

As first books often are because they are largely exposition which isn't the most interesting thing to read but gives you deep characters which you can care about and which give the story more meaning. Imagine just watching fellowship of the ring or reading just that book and judging the entire thing from just that.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Vagabond
And people either love or hate Shakepeare depending on whether they have the ability to understand him or not.


I like some of Shakespeare’s works (not many) and others I don't, that's based on personal taste not on an understanding (or not) of the particular piece. We shouldn’t; forget that the only difficulty in understanding Shakespeare is that it is a now ancient form of English with a lot of historical allusions after all he was a popular playwright writing for the masses, the illiterate and uneducated masses at that.


Originally posted by Vagabond
I would say a vast majority of people would say comic books are superior literature to Shakespeare.


Really? I'd say the opposite. I think you might get a lot of people who would say something like "I know Shakespeare is meant to be great literature but I prefer comic books".


Originally posted by Vagabond

That is hardly a reason not to read him. Nor does this make comic books great literature either. If you like deep books and have the capacity to understand them, then read them. If not don't read them or wait until you have more comprehension later in life.


But Shakespeare didn’t (as far as we know) write any great, deep novels, he did a bit of verse and a few plays and whilst of course a play can be read it still remains a play.

Originally posted by Vagabond

I gave a speech on Lord of the Rings a few years back in my college literature class and not one person in about 30 including the teacher had ever heard of Lord of the Rings at the time.


I'm very surprised to hear that, after all an Amazon.com reader’s poll voted it the "The Book of the Millennium" and it was voted the country’s favourite and "Most Important Book of the 20th Century" in several UK national polls.

Originally posted by Vagabond

Now I would be hard pressed to find people who have not. This doesn't change the quality of the Lord of the Rings one way or the other. It was what it was when it was obscure and it's the same now it's popularist. You should not base judgements on such things.

Tolkein has never been “obscure� by any measure, consistently over many decades he remains one of the best selling authors.

Finally I take it just because Shakespeare remains popular no one should draw any conclusions about the merit of Shakespeare’s work from that .... ;)

[Vagabond]

I'm very surprised to hear that, after all an Amazon.com reader’s poll voted it the "The Book of the Millennium" and it was voted the country’s favourite and "Most Important Book of the 20th Century" in several UK national polls.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vagabond

Now I would be hard pressed to find people who have not. This doesn't change the quality of the Lord of the Rings one way or the other. It was what it was when it was obscure and it's the same now it's popularist. You should not base judgements on such things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Tolkein has never been “obscure� by any measure, consistently over many decades he remains one of the best selling authors.

Finally I take it just because Shakespeare remains popular no one should draw any conclusions about the merit of Shakespeare’s work from that .... <<<<<

And when was this poll? Lord of the Rings didn't really sell any copies at all until the 70's at which time Tolkien himself had been dead for close to 15 years. LOTR has always had a classic quality among people who read fantasy, but fantasy is not a common genre to read. More than half of all books sold are some kind of romance novel. Another quarter are some kind of self help book. This leaves the remainder for all other types of literature. I wouldn't even consider the first two literature in the first place. ;)


Shakespeare is the same, he is hardly popular among average folks nor have most people read any of his work except perhaps when forced to in high school. He is popular amongst people able to understand his work. Which is a small number. Also he was writing for illiterate people but this doesn't effect their hearing any. Which is why they were plays and not massive book publications. We don't really know much about common folk of the time, so their vocabularies or lack thereof is largely speculation. But, Shakespeare wouldn't have written them that way if he didn't think they wouldn't be understood by the audience nor would he have written so many if they weren't being understood. Just the fact you have the capacity to understand what he writes doesn't mean you are going to like it all, but this is necessary in order to like any of it in the first place.

Try reading "How it is" by Samuel Beckett. The entire book has no punctuation whatsoever. You will read the first few pages and think this is complete and utter nonsense. However if you keep reading you might just find it's argueably the deepest book ever written and makes perfect and profound sense. It's not for the faint of heart however nor the casual reader.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Vagabond
...snip...

And when was this poll? Lord of the Rings didn't really sell any copies at all until the 70's at which time Tolkien himself had been dead for close to 15 years.


Late nineties - here is one from 1997 showing it number one: http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Bookmark/1997/March/top100.asp


Originally posted by Vagabond

LOTR has always had a classic quality among people who read fantasy, but fantasy is not a common genre to read.


Depends on the definition of "fantasy" you want to use, for instance fairy tales have always been popular.

Originally posted by Vagabond

More than half of all books sold are some kind of romance novel.
Another quarter are some kind of self help book.


Any evidence for that?

Originally posted by Vagabond

This leaves the remainder for all other types of literature. I wouldn't even consider the first two literature in the first place. ;)


You don’t consider books such as "Jane Eyre" literature? You must use a different definition of "literature" then I do.

Originally posted by Vagabond

Shakespeare is the same, he is hardly popular among average folks nor have most people read any of his work except perhaps when forced to in high school. He is popular amongst people able to understand his work. Which is a small number.


Can you support the assertion that he is "popular amongst people able to understand his work" and the number of people who can understand him is a “small number�?

Originally posted by Vagabond

Also he was writing for illiterate people but this doesn't effect their hearing any. Which is why they were plays and not massive book publications. We don't really know much about common folk of the time, so their vocabularies or lack thereof is largely speculation.


That is just totally untrue; there is a wealth of original 1st source material about the Elizabethans.


Originally posted by Vagabond

But, Shakespeare wouldn't have written them that way if he didn't think they wouldn't be understood by the audience nor would he have written so many if they weren't being understood. Just the fact you have the capacity to understand what he writes doesn't mean you are going to like it all, but this is necessary in order to like any of it in the first place.

Er? Don’t understand your point.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Vagabond
And people either love or hate Shakepeare depending on whether they have the ability to understand him or not.

This is where you commit one of the classical blunders -- the most famous of which is "Never engage in a major land war in Asia", but only slightly less famous is this: "Thinking that a disagreement of opinion must be caused by a lack of understanding."

With danger of committing a rethorical faux-pas, I'll make a line from a sit-com mine: "Oh, I get Shakespear all right; I just don't like him." Actually, I rather do like Shakespear; but the point is that it's quite possible to understand Shakespear and just plain not like it.

I would say a vast majority of people would say comic books are superior literature to Shakespeare.

I'll pet you pennies to dollars that if you were to do a survey on the question "Which is greater litterature -- Shakespear or comic books?" more than 80% of the answers would be "Shakespear." (Remember that comic books are a niche, and most people don't read comic books at all.)

That is hardly a reason not to read him. Nor does this make comic books great literature either. If you like deep books and have the capacity to understand them, then read them. If not don't read them or wait until you have more comprehension later in life.

We're discussing fantasy authors here. The above is a rather pretentious comment to make in a thread where we discuss the relative merits of David Eddings and Michael Moorcock. And you're still comming the same blunder, in that you imply that the only reason why someone wouldn't like, say, Donaldson, is because they just don't understand him.

I gave a speech on Lord of the Rings a few years back in my college literature class and not one person in about 30 including the teacher had ever heard of Lord of the Rings at the time. Now I would be hard pressed to find people who have not. This doesn't change the quality of the Lord of the Rings one way or the other. It was what it was when it was obscure and it's the same now it's popularist. You should not base judgements on such things.

I stated my reasons for avoiding the Covenant books. Nowhere in those reasons did I include the book's popularity or lack of such. (Although, it would be silly to dismiss popularity when deciding which books to read. Overall, good books are more likely to be popular than bad books.)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Vagabond
[BAnd when was this poll? Lord of the Rings didn't really sell any copies at all until the 70's at which time Tolkien himself had been dead for close to 15 years.[/B]

You're wrong on both counts here. The books sold well from the start, and Tolkien didn't die until 1973.

From Wikipedia:
In the early 1960s, Donald A. Wollheim, science fiction editor of the paperback publisher Ace Books, realized that The Lord of the Rings was not protected in the United States under American copyright law because the US hardcover edition had been bound from pages printed in the UK for the British edition. Ace Books proceeded to publish an edition, unauthorized by Tolkien and without compensation to him. Tolkien made this plain to US fans who wrote to him. Grass-roots pressure became so great that Ace books withdrew their edition and made a nominal payment to Tolkien, well below what he might have been due in an appropriate publication. However, this poor beginning was overshadowed when an authorized edition followed from Ballantine Books to tremendous commercial success. By the mid-1960s the books, due to their wide exposure on the American public stage, had become a true cultural phenomenon. The Second Edition of the Lord of the Rings dates from this time - Tolkien undertook various textual revisions to produce a version of the book that would have a valid U.S. copyright.

From Encyclopædia Britannica:
J.R.R. Tolkien, born January 3, 1892, Bloemfontein, South Africa, died September 2, 1973, Bournemouth, Hampshire, England

[The Lord of the Rings] was divided originally because of its bulk and to reduce the risk to its publisher should it fail to sell. In fact it proved immensely popular. On its publication in paperback in the United States in 1965, it attained cult status on college campuses

[Vagabond]

You don’t consider books such as "Jane Eyre" literature? You must use a different definition of "literature" then I do.<<<<

Of course I consider that literature. That is not the kind of book I meant by romance novel. I meant the pulp kind. You aren't really making any points nor countering my points so there is really no point in trying to talk further. I don't have the inclination to find sources for points that weren't countered. Doesn't mean anything anyway.

[Vagabond]

You're wrong on both counts here. The books sold well from the start, and Tolkien didn't die until 1973<<<<<

I meant after the books were written not after Tolkien died. I am not going to argue what selling "well" is or isn't. Compared to now they sold nothing. Making pointless corrections is crass as well. It doesn't mean anything at all, because it doesn't counter a point of mine nor make any point of your own. The fact I made an error doesn't mean my point was wrong either. That is a logical fallacy.

[Vagabond]

With danger of committing a rethorical faux-pas, I'll make a line from a sit-com mine: "Oh, I get Shakespear all right; I just don't like him." Actually, I rather do like Shakespear; but the point is that it's quite possible to understand Shakespear and just plain not like it.<<<<<

You can like a flower or not and you don't have to understand it to make such a decision. However, human thought requires understanding before you can give it a fair judgement. You can still have an uninformed opinion but that is what it is. This is a delusion. Rather like people who have read a few books but never went to college thinking they are just as smart as those who went. Or thinking "street smarts" is as valuable as education. These are the delusions stupid people live under so they can have faux self esteem based on nonsense. They only think they understand it. You cannot possibly know what you do not know or do not understand properly. Thus the need for education in the first place.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Vagabond
I meant after the books were written not after Tolkien died. I am not going to argue what selling "well" is or isn't. Compared to now they sold nothing.

A slight exaggeration here, but compared to how well the Lord of the Rings is selling now, the only books that could have been said to "sell well" in the 1960ties were the Bible and Mao's Little Red Book.

Making pointless corrections is crass as well. It doesn't mean anything at all, because it doesn't counter a point of mine nor make any point of your own. The fact I made an error doesn't mean my point was wrong either. That is a logical fallacy.

If I had claimed that your position was wrong because you'd made an error (which wasn't central to your position,) I would have commited a logical fallacy. Merely correcting a factual error is not a logical fallacy, as it is not a logical argument.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by Darat
http://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm

(As an aside the friend I mentioned above was castigated in the local book shop for buying one of the "Spellsinger" series books - the reason being "it's about bestiality". Takes a special kind of mind to see things in a certain light doesn't it? :) )

Thank you for the link! :) Glad to see he's still around. And as for the 'bestiality' garbage, peh. Took me ages to track down the whole series, pre-Amazon.com years. I thought I was one of the few who enjoyed his work; great to see there's others! :)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Vagabond
You can like a flower or not and you don't have to understand it to make such a decision. However, human thought requires understanding before you can give it a fair judgement. You can still have an uninformed opinion but that is what it is.

True, but that's not what we're discussing here. Rather, we're discussing a contrary, informed opinion.

You have effectively claimed that people who don't like the Covenant books are uninformed and unsophisticated, and "just don't understand them." A claim which is, in my sincere opinion, complete and utter hogwash.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Doesn't have anything to do with what they enjoy or don't enjoy. It has to do with not being able to understand concepts. Rather like you chiming in when you have no clue as to the points being made.

I know exactly the points being made. It is entirely possible to understand a books point and still find it to be stupid, boring, trite, poorly written, etc. That's the point YOU don't seem to understand.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Vagabond
You don’t consider books such as "Jane Eyre" literature? You must use a different definition of "literature" then I do.<<<<

Of course I consider that literature. That is not the kind of book I meant by romance novel. I meant the pulp kind. You aren't really making any points nor countering my points so there is really no point in trying to talk further. I don't have the inclination to find sources for points that weren't countered. Doesn't mean anything anyway.

What about books we consider "literature" now, but were considered "pulp" at the time they were written? Dickens springs to mind.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
(Personally I haven't read them; partly because the description of the books, both from people in the love camp and from people in the hate camp, suggests that it's not the kind of book I would enjoy, and partly because my one foray into Donaldson's authorship, the first Gap book, didn't strike any chords in me.)

I'm one of those who love them. IMO the writing is terrible. There's a drinking game called "Clench," which involves opening a random page and seeing if the word "clench" appears. The setting is largely derivative, although somewhat interesting. However, what is essentially a psychoanalysis of the main character makes up for it all.

I think people who have led reasonably happy lives probably wouldn't get much out of it. People who have experienced severe trauma or chronic unhappiness or who have worked or lived with those that have, however, have a fair chance of getting a lot out of it.

[Wudang]

I loved this from alt.humor.best-of-usenet years back
click here (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.humor.best-of-usenet/browse_thread/thread/3615c881a3ccfb60/24cadb4d543d93b2?q=roynish++coffee&rnum=2&hl=en#24cadb4d543d93b2)

"You know the main problem with Thomas Covenant? He pants too much.

Now, probably my memory is exaggerating; it's been a few years
(decades?). But mention Thomas Covenant and I instantly think of a character who rarely will "say" anything, but instead prefers to "pant" it.


The vocabulary use was a trip, too...


"Some coffee, Mr. Covenant?"


"No!" he panted, glaring. The gelid liquid was anthraciously black, atramentous, nigrescent as his carious and macerated soul. "No," he groaned. "Do you hear? I will not!" Shaking, he fumbled for his empty mug, clawing at it with numb hands like blocks of rotted wood. Finally, gasping, he closed his fingers on the malefic vessel, upending it, then ramming it downward to the table again... violently stopping the irrefragable, ineluctable maw with intransigent formica. The sudden whipcrack sound threw a refulgent oriflamme of pain across his sight, and he closed his eyes with a febrile shudder. "No," he whispered. No more. No more.


"All righty then, I'll be right back with your check!"


...or something like that. (I didn't manage to get "suppurating" and
"chancreous" in there, or, more's the pity, "roynish".) "


I have vague memories of, just occasionally, thinking "you keep using that word. I am note sure it means what you think it means". For example, and I could be wrong, I thought he mentioned "roynish grunts". Sure, the ur-viles could be roynish but not a sound.
I was glad I stuck with the books but I am not sure that I would recommend them to everyone, including some friends with very high-brow tastes. Nor do I think they serve as a good intro to fantasy. The genre is largely, if you will, cheeseburgers, satisfying, enjoyable, etc and suited for certain times and tastes. Work like Covenants are a full-blown sit-down dinner.

[JJEagan]

Sorry to butt in; would Philip Jose Farmer be considered Fantasy? I remember reading the "Riverworld" series when I was young.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Wudang
I have vague memories of, just occasionally, thinking "you keep using that word. I am note sure it means what you think it means". For example, and I could be wrong, I thought he mentioned "roynish grunts". Sure, the ur-viles could be roynish but not a sound.

I didn't notice the panting, but I did note that whenever he could have used the word "red", he used "incarnadine". It's a very good word, but once per trilogy is quite enough. Use it too often, and it begins to look crazy.

Also "condign".

[bigred]

Originally posted by seayakin
Any one have any recommendations?

I have already read Tolkien's Books many times, Harry Potter, Tales of Narnia, etc. However, most others I have grabbed I have found less than stellar. Don't have time to read the replies and would be shocked if he wasn't mentioned but the first 2 books of Piers Anythony's "Xanth" series were excellent IMO. After that (even by his own admission) they get pretty silly and are suited mostly for really young kids/etc.

[bjornart]

I agree with some of the previous posters, and I disagree with some. But I'm not going to tell you who. Instead I'm going to recommend Laurell K. Hamilton's Meredith Gentry series. :D

[Vagabond]

If I had claimed that your position was wrong because you'd made an error (which wasn't central to your position,) I would have commited a logical fallacy. Merely correcting a factual error is not a logical fallacy, as it is not a logical argument.<<<<<

Ah, but when you make a correction which has nothing to do with the topic at hand nor the point being made, then I am forced to answer, then somebody else jumps in and I am forced to assert crap like Jane Eyre isn't a pulp romance novel and the conversation goes down the hole because now we we are talking about that instead of what the actual topic was. Do not make a correction unless it's point based or has some bearing on the topic otherwise you are just throwing a wrench into the discussion. Particularly when something is most likely only a late night brain fart and not really a error in the first place. When you make such a correction for no logical reason, I can only assume you are pursuing a logical fallacy by attacking my arguement by pointing out an error.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
True, but that's not what we're discussing here. Rather, we're discussing a contrary, informed opinion.

You have effectively claimed that people who don't like the Covenant books are uninformed and unsophisticated, and "just don't understand them." A claim which is, in my sincere opinion, complete and utter hogwash.

A book on how to play the guitar is going to be boring as hell if you don't have any interest in learning to play the guitar and it is going to be profound if you do. The person's understanding, frame of reference and even life experiences do play a huge role in whether they will find something useful and or enjoyable or not. I wouldn't say it's impossible to understand it and still not like it. But, I would say it's highly improbable. You might understand it on a purely english language basis, but not understand it on an emotional basis. If it strikes a cord with you, because of who you are, you WILL like it.

Many don't like Thomas Covenant because he is a hero you will get angry at. They don't like the anti-hero, they don't like the reluctant hero, they don't like hero's who are flawed. If you are like that you will hate them, but if you can get past such things you will like them. I would personally consider anybody who was unable to embrace an imperfect hero, unsophisticated and probably immature. They aren't going to like Hamlet either.

[Vagabond]

I think people who have led reasonably happy lives probably wouldn't get much out of it. People who have experienced severe trauma or chronic unhappiness or who have worked or lived with those that have, however, have a fair chance of getting a lot out of it.<<<<<

I don't think trauma or unhappiness are necessary, as I never really had either and I got them. But, I am willing to entertain the possibility that those experiences might open up a level of the books I might have missed.

[Vagabond]

I was glad I stuck with the books but I am not sure that I would recommend them to everyone, including some friends with very high-brow tastes. Nor do I think they serve as a good intro to fantasy. The genre is largely, if you will, cheeseburgers, satisfying, enjoyable, etc and suited for certain times and tastes. Work like Covenants are a full-blown sit-down dinner.<<<<

I couldn't agree more.

[Fungrim]

Enjoyed this thread. Since no one have mentioned them (as far as I could see):

Stephen Erikson - "Gardens of the Moon" must be among the best fantasy books I've read... Well, ever. And that includes RR Martin, Donaldson, etc., etc.

Susan Clarke - "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrel". Brilliant stuff.

And then I'll second China Mieville ("Perdido Street Station"), Gene Wolfe ("Boook of the New Sun") and Gaiman ("American Gods"). All good.

Fiests "Magician" is a classic and I loved it when I read it the first time, but stay away from the rest. Oh, but you can read "Daughter of the Empire" which he wrote with Janny Wurst, that one was enjoyable (and yes, it is set in Kelewan).

McCaffrey, Goodkind, Brooks? No thank you, I want meat with my fantasy. And Eddings is the closest I've ever been throwing away books.

[Floyt]

The next installment of George R R Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" ("A Feast for Crows") has been out a couple weeks now. Go thou hence and get it NOW!
I can't remember the last time an author had me in raptures like this. The handling of characters is just brilliant. Gritty, realistic, remorseless. Taking one of the main villains after a thousand pages and making you care for him and cheer him on... wow.

Regarding Donaldson - I recommend this essay (http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html) for an extremely funny read and the origin of "clench hunting" as mentioned by epepke.

And while I'm about it I'll propose a new definition of magic, account for the existence of Lionel Fanthorpe, and show you a way to derive pleasure from Stephen Donaldson books. (Needless to say, it doesn't involve reading them. But neither does it involve burying them under six foot of badger manure and napalming the lot, which you might think the obvious answer.)

:D

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Floyt
The next installment of George R R Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" ("A Feast for Crows") has been out a couple weeks now. Go thou hence and get it NOW!

I don't what cool time machine you have, but it's not out yet. He finished writing it, yeah. But it won't be published til November, sez the publisher.

[Floyt]

Rats. Just had a look this morning and failed to notice the proviso.

*sigh* There goes my plan for summer poolside reading in August...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Floyt
Rats. Just had a look this morning and failed to notice the proviso.

*sigh* There goes my plan for summer poolside reading in August...

But the good news is that if you preorder from Amazon, it'll only cost $18, whereas buying it fresh and in person in November will be $30-ish.