A Question for the 25 and under crowd - What have you read?

[Jhaelen]

The only "master of the genre" I'll concede is Tolkien, because he's so good at worldbuilding. Worldbuilding ruins far more books than it ever helps, so the fact that he managed to pull it off so incredibly well is a genuine accomplishment for the ages.

That's why I don't consider Tolkien to be part of the genre.

Tolkien didn't write 'Fantasy', he wrote pieces of fiction almost as an afterthought to illustrate the world and history he had created to put the languages he had invented into context.

If 'Fantasy' authors bother about world-building at all, they do it the other way around:
They first and foremost want to tell intruiging stories, so they'll only do as much world-building as required by the story they're trying to tell and no more. It's entirely different goals.

In general, I much prefer 'Fantasy' novels written by authors that also or primarily write SF novels since they tend to put a lot more thought into creating believable worlds. Most pure 'Fantasy' writers are lazy and just reuse existing tropes knowing that their audience will be acquainted with them.
Naturally, exceptions exist. But you really have to search for them (or ask around in forums like this to find threads like this one ).

 

[Nellisir]

I'm a little older than 25, and I've read all of the authors on the list. Brooks doesn't really tickle my fancy anymore, though I enjoyed the first Shannara trilogy years ago. I didn't really get into Jordan. I've read one book by Vance; not one of the Dying Earth ones; the fantasy one (something-ys). I can see links to D&D in it, and I'm looking for the sequels, but it's not earth-shattering. Mieville is quite good. I scorned Rowlings for years, and finally gave in and read Potter. I enjoyed it. Alot.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You should, on the other hand, read the acknowledged masters of the genre.

Why?

Maybe I don't feel like reading Richard Burton's translation of The Arabian Nights, Malory's Morte d'Arthur, Spenser's Faerie Queene, Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, The Aeneid, Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales, Pilgrim's Progress, The Mabinogion and Gulliver's Travels.

 

[Nellisir]

Why?

Maybe I don't feel like reading Richard Burton's translation of The Arabian Nights, Malory's Morte d'Arthur, Spenser's Faerie Queene, Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, The Aeneid, Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales, Pilgrim's Progress, The Mabinogion and Gulliver's Travels.

What, no Grimm's Brothers? I always thought HCA's fairy tales were kinda, well, depressing (I'm looking at you, Little Match Girl).

I need to read Paradise Lost and the Faerie Queene.

 

[Wayside]

I need to read Paradise Lost and the Faerie Queene.

You don't need to read The Faerie Queene.

 

[Ariosto]

Maybe I don't feel like reading Richard Burton's translation of The Arabian Nights

I am still working on that, having on my shelf volumes 2 through 17 of the Burton Ethnological Society (later Burton Club) subscription. It is a perennial font of adventure and wonder, one I heartily commend to lovers of fantasy!

 

[mmadsen]

Why?

Maybe I don't feel like reading Richard Burton's translation of The Arabian Nights, Malory's Morte d'Arthur, Spenser's Faerie Queene, Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, The Aeneid, Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales, Pilgrim's Progress, The Mabinogion and Gulliver's Travels.

First, how do you know you won't like those works? Or are you saying you've tried them and didn't like them? Because I have no problem with that.

Second, I wouldn't consider those masterpieces of the fantasy genre; I'd consider them important influences on the fantasy genre.

My advice is to start with the works that a lot of well-read people -- people who have read the "classics" of the genre and the more recent best-sellers -- consider really, really good.

The goal is not to read works by dead authors, or to read works that are really old. The goal is to read good writing. And there's obviously nothing stuffy about our definition of "good" if we're placing Robert E. Howard and Fritz Leiber at the top of the swords & sorcery canon.

 

[Doug McCrae]

My advice is to start with the works that a lot of well-read people -- people who have read the "classics" of the genre and the more recent best-sellers -- consider really, really good.

I have two problems with you saying "You don't have to read dead authors to be a fan. The issue is not whether they're dead or alive. You should, on the other hand, read the acknowledged masters of the genre."

1. People know their own tastes. They can decide for themselves what they want to read. Someone who reads nothing but Forgotten Realms novels is still a fantasy fan.

You say that a mystery fan must read Sherlock Holmes. Well my mother is a huge fan of detective stories, yet I don't think she's ever read Sherlock Holmes. Just not her cup of tea. There are lots and lots of mystery novels that aren't Sherlock Holmes, so it's entirely possible to be a mystery fan and never have read The Adventure of the Six Napoleons.

2. It's not clear cut who the masters of the fantasy genre are. Gary's Appendix N is about 50% worth reading and 50% crap, imo. A lot of people think Terry Brooks, Terry Pratchett and JK Rowling are good writers. I don't. Personally I don't much like REHoward, the only good things about him are his low-level techniques, his word choice and sentence structures, and yet he would probably be regarded by most aficionados as the second best fantasy writer, after Tolkien. Gene Wolfe doesn't get mentioned much round here, John Crowley never, but imo they're the two best writers of modern fantasy.

 

[Nellisir]

The goal is not to read works by dead authors, or to read works that are really old. The goal is to read good writing.

I still don't know if I understand Life of Pi.

Years after reading Deed of Paksenarrion and loving it, I'm finally reading some of E. Moon's sci-fi books. Not bad; quite a bit like popcorn.

 

[Ariosto]

Gary's Appendix N is about 50% worth reading and 50% crap, imo.

I rather suspect that, as a rule of thumb, works of lesser literary merit tend to make better inspiration for RPGs.

One can certainly borrow bits from fine literature, but the undertakings -- masterfully crafted novel, with an author in full control, versus game of group improvisation and chance -- are fundamentally different.

A good D&D game probably looks more like a Lin Carter affair than it really resembles a work by John Crowley or Gene Wolfe.