What is the single best fantasy novel of all time?

[Ruin Explorer]

The whole scene with Y'ghatan. Holy hell.

Like I said, love them or hate them.

Oh yeah re: Y'ghatan, that is um, quite a thing.

Re: love or hate, I think it's kind of both with Malazan, rather than either. I did give up on them after the next book I guess.

The Lord of the Rings.

Not even a question for me.

But also not allowed by the question, because it's three books!

#pedantic4lyfe

I was always told that Lies of Locke is more videogame esque than classic fantasy. Is that not true? I mean, I read in an interview that he named the main character after a Final Fantasy 6 thief.

Just to second @Zaukarie, it's not only completely untrue, it's an absolutely bizarre thing for someone to tell you to the point where you've got to wonder about their motives. Best case scenario they're confusing it with some other book.

The only even very arguably "videogame-like" fantasy novels I can really think of are some Brandon Sanderson ones, and it's not so much that they resemble videogames, but it's a testament to his construction of magic systems that many of them would be pretty easy to turn IN to videogames. The original Mistborn series, I could practically think of the button-mappings you'd want to do to put Vin's abilities on, and how you could implement most of them. This is part of Sanderson's charm - he will create a magic system you imagine uses for before the characters use them that way.

Thinking further, all the most "videogame-like" fantasy novels have the same thing going on - they have a very developed and "playable" magic system, which features as a major part of the books.

That's certainly not a thing with Locke Lamora.

 

[Cadence]

But also not allowed by the question, because it's three books!

#pedantic4lyfe

Is it?



"Although often called a trilogy, the work was intended by Tolkien to be one volume in a two-volume set along with The Silmarillion. For economic reasons, The Lord of the Rings was first published over the course of a year from 29 July 1954 to 20 October 1955 in three volumes rather than one under the titles The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King; The Silmarillion appeared only after the author's death. The work is divided internally into six books, two per volume, with several appendices of background material. These three volumes were later published as a boxed set, and even finally as a single volume, following the author's original intent."

(I mean, not that I'd be surprised by Wikipedia - source of that quote - being wrong. I have the version in the picture on my shelf, but it isn't the picture of mine).

I had no idea it was ever published as seven volumes until just checking now...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Is it?

I can say with some confidence: yes it is.

As Wikipedia says, it was originally published as three books, and it's usually still sold as such (or more!), at least in my experience.

We can find collected editions of a bunch of books, but if we're going to go around counting them as single books, then god help us, especially once Kindle gets involved. I mean, my first copy of LotR was indeed a single gigantic, unwieldy book, but it doesn't turn back time. I had this one as a kid:

And it was definitely from the '60s and well-loved. Apparently that's the first "collected" version - 14 years after original publication.

Which my aunt gave me, but it turns out it was my uncle actually acting through her! Soz for not realizing that Uncle Jim, you rocked. He also gave me Dune via her.

 

[Cadence]

I can say with some confidence: yes it is.

As Wikipedia says, it was originally published as three books, and it's usually sold as such (or more!), at least in my experience.

We can find collected editions of a bunch of books, but if we're going to go around counting them as single books, then god help us. I mean, my first copy of LotR was a single gigantic, unwieldy book, but it doesn't turn back time.

Unlike (I think) my single volume collected Narnia, Mary Poppins, Dying Earth, or Earthsea, or each volume of the omnibus versions of Fafhrd and Mouser, Elric, Conan, Black Company, etc... as the wikipedia article notes it was intended that LotR would be a single volume by the author though. It feels like that makes a difference?

If it's how it's published, how strong is the argument that the original publications were three omnibuses each containing two (or three) books as indicated by the later seven book set?

Or is it only how it's orignally published (which of course is the argument I'd use with Narnia reading order....)?

And it was definitely from the '60s and well-loved. Apparently that's the first "collected" version.

Nice!

 

[Divine2021]

Seems I was mislead about Lies of Locke. Guess I’ll check it out. I wonder if the audiobook is any good?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

However, if we're talking what speaks to us personally most, I'd go with Imajica by Clive Barker, which is a fantasy novel rather than his usual fantasy-horror, and is just an amazing journey and decades before its time, really.

Imajica blew my mind when I read it as a young teen. The scope, the imagination, the way everything weaves together! I've even got an Imajica-inspired tattoo.

I REALLY wanted to like the Malazan series. And I did at first, but then it just collapsed under it's own weight - with all the stuff you mentioned being most of the key factors.

I loved the Malazan Book of the Fallen series, but by the end, it was staggering under its own weight. The speed at which it was written and published shows, and I think it could've done with some firmer editing to make cuts.

 

[Dioltach]

Seems I was mislead about Lies of Locke. Guess I’ll check it out. I wonder if the audiobook is any good?

I really enjoyed it. Michael Page seems to really relish enunciating the dialogue.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It feels like that makes a difference?

I don't think so, personally, because that argument isn't being applied evenly with other books. It creates a weird double-standard.

If it's how it's published, how strong is the argument that the original publications were three omnibuses each containing two (or three) books as indicated by the later seven book set?

Weak I'd say. Because "books" (which is really more like "acts") as a way of internally sub-dividing a novel published as a single physical book has been around forever. Loads of other novels, genre and otherwise use it.

The "seven book" edition is obviously a gimmick to sell an overpriced collector's set.

 

[billd91]

Is it?

View attachment 293018

"Although often called a trilogy, the work was intended by Tolkien to be one volume in a two-volume set along with The Silmarillion. For economic reasons, The Lord of the Rings was first published over the course of a year from 29 July 1954 to 20 October 1955 in three volumes rather than one under the titles The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King; The Silmarillion appeared only after the author's death. The work is divided internally into six books, two per volume, with several appendices of background material. These three volumes were later published as a boxed set, and even finally as a single volume, following the author's original intent."

(I mean, not that I'd be surprised by Wikipedia - source of that quote - being wrong. I have the version in the picture on my shelf, but it isn't the picture of mine).

I had no idea it was ever published as seven volumes until just checking now...

View attachment 293020View attachment 293022

I'm going with it as a single novel. Since it was broken up for economic reasons rather than content, I'm not going to consider it a true trilogy any more than I'd consider a lot of unitary 19th century works as trilogies simply because they appeared in multiple volumes due to the printing and binding expenses. It's really a resurrection of that three-volume single novel model of printing rather than 3 novels.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

As an aside, I have a print of "Flying Over Bookland" by Charles Vess hanging by my computer as I type (mine is #11/120). It seems appropriate whenever something about great fantasy comes up.

The upper left, and right by the dragon's arms have both gotten mention in this thread. There are a few on it I really should get around to reading.

View attachment 292978

Ok, going roughly widdershins from top left...

• Earthsea - has been mentioned
• Hogwarts - I think we're all familiar
• Tanglewood Forest? I assume it's Charles De Lint's Newford book Cats of Tanglewood Forest - supposition supported since Vess did an illustrated version. I've got some Newford books around here - mayhap I need to read them!
• The Valley - I have no idea - help?
• The Forest Suavage - TH White's Sword in the Stone / Arthur chronicles. I guess I needed to look a bit closer at the image
• Narnia - also mentioned here
• The River Bank - I need to go back and read Wind in the Willows again
• Oz - mentioned here
• The Shire - this one's a complete mystery, I never heard of it, I'm not even sure what the word "shire" means /sarcasm
• The Hundred Acre Wood - I guess yes indeed Winnie the Pooh is fantasy. I was particularly enamored with "When we were very young" and the poem Disobedience
• Watership Down - re-read every 7-10 years or so.
• Duncton Wood - never read, but now added to list. Link
• Neverland - I guess I have never read it, only seen dramatic renditions of it
• Sherwood Forest - is Howard Pyle's The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood version the definitive? I like Pyle, a lot

I'd love another illustration with a preponderance of non-European/British non-male writers - sort of an inverse of this one... Perhaps another thread...