TIME's 100 Best Fantasy Books of All Time

[Deset Gled]

Why not? It's iconic, extremely popular (especially for the time), and was quite enjoyable.

When I first picked it up I was somewhere around 4th or 5th grade, and was a child who actually enjoyed learning (and science, etc). It completely failed to connect with me, and I gave it up after a few chapters. I remember feeling there were no likable characters; Milo starts off as an insufferable twat and everyone he meets is a jerk. Also, I found it altogether preachy and shallow, and even as a kid I remember finding errors in the logic and math that they were trying to teach as the "right" way.

I tried it out again somewhere around 20 and finished it. As a (barely) adult, I understood the purpose of Milo's growth and journey, and had a better grasp of the overarching message it was trying to teach. But it still felt just as shallow and preachy.

 

[TwoSix]

20% may be a bit low, especially when there's so much money involved. But the whole thing is a bit of a mystery. From browsing a few online threads, it seems that the consensus is roughly split between two camps: those that think it will never come out, and those that think it has become so long that it will be split into two or three books.

I would say a core problem is that the framing device (of Kvothe relating his story to Chronicler in the inn) sort of demands tight plotting, and Rothfuss likes doing a lot of tangential digression (and those tangents are what make the story so intriguing.) Ideally, he needs to break the framing device and then just write as much as he wants for both the backstory and the present story.

 

[Mercurius]

I would say a core problem is that the framing device (of Kvothe relating his story to Chronicler in the inn) sort of demands tight plotting, and Rothfuss likes doing a lot of tangential digression (and those tangents are what make the story so intriguing.) Ideally, he needs to break the framing device and then just write as much as he wants for both the backstory and the present story.

To be honest, I only made it about 150 pages into NotW (although should probably give it another go), so my knowledge of his writing is limited. But one thing that came to mind is that he could make DoS more focused, and then do a fourth book of "out-takes" for all of those digressions.

I also think his framing of each book being a day of storytelling is clever, but is a bit contrived in practice - especially when the audiobooks run 40ish hours. Long day, I guess.

 

[TwoSix]

To be honest, I only made it about 150 pages into NotW (although should probably give it another go), so my knowledge of his writing is limited. But one thing that came to mind is that he could make DoS more focused, and then do a fourth book of "out-takes" for all of those digressions.

I also think his framing of each book being a day of storytelling is clever, but is a bit contrived in practice - especially when the audiobooks run 40ish hours. Long day, I guess.

The framing device adds a lot to the story, but it's also causing the problem of trying to shove a 6 book series into a trilogy.

Personally, I'm fine either way; I love both Name of the Wind and Wise Man's Fear, and they were worth reading even if he never finishes. I'll be totally happy if book 3 comes out, but I'm still happy with the series if it doesn't.

 

[Zaukrie]

This is a good and thorough critique of the problems with the list:

Out of Time, or Why is the "100 Best Fantasy Books of All Time" list so incoherent?

A publication has unveiled a list called “ The 100 Best Fantasy Books of All Time .” Predictably, it has been published to howls of complain...

thewertzone.blogspot.com

Somehow I glossed over the Lord of the Rings books all being there, and not the Hobbit (which is a much better book).

 

[Mercurius]

Somehow I glossed over the Lord of the Rings books all being there, and not the Hobbit (which is a much better book).

While I agree that the Hobbit should be on any top 100 fantasy list, I much prefer LotR (and the Silmarillion, for that matter). But opinions differ, obviously ;-)

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

That, that paints a bleak picture indeed. I love Name of the Wind, but I think the gorgeous language covers for some of the first-time author narrative flaws.

Did you see this?

'Kingkiller Chronicle' Editor Believes Author Hasn't Written in Years

The editor of the "Kingkiller Chronicle" series recently shared her belief that author Patrick Rothfuss hasn't made much progress on Book 3, "The Doors of Stone," in recent years.

www.newsweek.com

One thing that I think is important to keep in mind with these lists is that there is a difference between a book that is a legitimate great in the genre, and a book a person likes. While there will always be a subjective aspect to these lists, I like to think that they at least attempt to get at the heart of a universal greatness. Robert Asprin's "Myth" series has been a favorite of mine for long years, but there is categorically a difference between the adventures of Skeeve and, say, The King of Elfland's Daughter or The Fifth Season.

I'm reminded of a many time years ago when a coworker wondered why Arnold Schwarzenegger had never gotten an Academy Award. He was not joking.

 

[ART!]

View attachment 127696

I am looking forward to the new translation by Maria Dahvana Headley, though Seamus Heaney's is currently my gold standard.

I'm reading it now, and having read Heaney's and others', this one is as good as any of them.

Thoughts on the list and comments in thread:

• Outlander is traaaaaaash

I think it's John Carter of Mars but sort of reversed, liberated, and with cool medical and historical details. So basically it's good pulp historical romance.

This list makes a mockery of the fantasy tradition, and should be considered a joke to anyone with a decent knowledge of its history.

For one, 45 of the 100 books were published within the last 12 years.

Secondly, if they care at all about influence, they excluded tons of authors and books that have had a significant lasting impact. No RE Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, ER Eddison, Lord Dunsany, Michael Moorcock, Patricia McKillip, Stephen Donaldson, CJ Cherryh, Steven Erikson, and many others.

I enjoy reading lists by famous authors of their influences, and I'd love to see lists of various demographics. But to mash it all together under the guise of the "best of all time" is absurd.

These kinds of lists are almost always weighted toward recent successes, which is annoying. It seems sort of lazy.

And there's so many ways to rate this: best written, most influential, most diverse, etc. Any list is going to have some bias.

I'm okay if some good, recent, more-diverse stuff squeezes out some historical landmarks whose influence could maybe be represented by something "just as good or better" that's still included.

I was wondering what the best-selling fantasy books/series of all time were, and found this. Even this, though, includes things which I think a lot of us would not put in the same genre as LOTR, for instance. Also, some of these are very long series, so it doesn't seem fair to rank them with works that have only one volume...but then of course The Hobbit is #2, so...

From best-selling to less-best-selling, by # of copies sold:
Harry Potter series
LOTR
The Hobbit
The Little Prince
Narnia
Twilight
Vampire Chronicles
Wheel of Time
Discworld
ASoI&F
Watership Down
Shadowhunter
Inheritance
The Dark Tower
The Wind in the Willows
Outlander
Sword of Truth
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Artemis Fowl
Shannara

Looking for some other best-of fantasy lists online, they all seem skewed in their own ways, and many of them include science fiction. None that I looked at included Conan or Elric stuff.

 

[TheSword]

Surprised David Eddings wasn’t on the list and didn’t see any Pratchett!!!!!

 

[Zardnaar]

Surprised David Eddings wasn’t on the list and didn’t see any Pratchett!!!!!

Yeah it's not that good a list.