AAAARRGGGHHH!!! (Or "Enough with the trilogies already!!!")

[Richards]

Jack of Shadows, by Roger Zelazny.

Coraline, by Neil Gaiman.

Neverwhere, by Neil Gaiman.

Eyes of the Dragon, by Stephen King.

Johnathan

 

[Maerdwyn]

I'll second Neverwhere, and add American Gods.

 

[WayneLigon]

A random selection of totally stand-alone books on my shelves

Nightfall by Mickey Zucker Reichert
Wheel of the Infinite by Martha Wells
The Gypsy by Steven Brust
The Last Coin by James Blaylock
War of the Flowers by Tad Williams
City of Bones by Martha Wells
Jumper, Wildland and Helm by Steven Gould
Wolf Moon by Charles de Lint

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The Hobbit.

You can ignore that one-book sequel that they divided in three.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I'll second Neverwhere, and add American Gods.

I'll third those.

Also, Tailchaser's Song, by Tad Williams. Anything by Tim Powers (Declare, Earthquake Weather, etc.).

David Gemmell has a few good standalones, like Echoes of the Great Song and Dark Moon.

Brad

 

[takyris]

Actually, I added American Gods right off the bat.

But again, Mouse, what are the criteria here? Did The Magic of Recluse go from being a good read to a bad one when Modessit decided to do sequels?

Where I'd second you valiantly is in the idea that a writer starts out saying "This is a trilogy", and then it hits nine or ten books without actually finishing the story. This is different even from the "This is a trilogy, and then it's done, and then people want me to write more, so I come up with a new enemy and write a new trilogy", like Eddings did with The Belgariad/Mallorean and with... the ones with Sparhawk, whatever they were.

I guess I differ in that I'm fine reading series, as long as the series is either a) built in a way that it's obviously supposed to be open-ended, like Pratchett, b) focused on a goal that it accomplishes in the number of books the author said it would take, or c) the kind of series that I can stop reading any time. I lump Pratchett into (a), Eddings into (b), and Modessit into (c). Martin is not on my happy list, since he can't seem to get his book finished, and he's expanding the number of books just like Jordan did. (I know, trying not to hijack topics here... it seems like every few months there's a flamewar when somebody suggests that cranking out a novel in five years should not be a problem.)

I enjoyed Lion's Blood, although it's alternate history, not fantasy, and it now has a sequel on the way. I still consider it stand-alone, though, since it was originally intended to be so, and works as such (uh, I think).

For fantasy in the not-fantasy section, try anything by Christopher Moore, but particularly Coyote Blue and Bloodsucking Fiends, both of which are stand-alone novels I enjoyed hugely.

And I'll reiterate Emma Bull's Finder, which I mentioned before sans author. You might be able to find it in a used bookstore -- a fantasy mystery pulp noir... thing. It worked for me a lot.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I guess I differ in that I'm fine reading series, as long as the series is either a) built in a way that it's obviously supposed to be open-ended, like Pratchett, b) focused on a goal that it accomplishes in the number of books the author said it would take, or c) the kind of series that I can stop reading any time. I lump Pratchett into (a), Eddings into (b), and Modessit into (c). Martin is not on my happy list, since he can't seem to get his book finished, and he's expanding the number of books just like Jordan did. (I know, trying not to hijack topics here... it seems like every few months there's a flamewar when somebody suggests that cranking out a novel in five years should not be a problem.)

I guess I should clarify, since I seem to have given the wrong impression...

I like series too. Most of my favorite fantasy comes in series form.

But I don't just want series. I also want standalone books, and that's particularly true today when you can't find anyone actually willing to finish the damn story!! (Robert Jordan should have been shot about 3 books back. )

I've actually reached the point where I simply won't even begin a series until the last book is on shelves. (Well, that's assuming an ongoing story. A series of standalone books, like Brust's Taltos novels or Discworld, doesn't count.)

But okay, let's loosen the criteria a bit. I'm okay with people recommending books that have since had sequels, so long as the original book stands alone without said sequel.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I'll throw in another recommendation for War of the Flowers. Just finished reading it about a month or so ago. At first I didn't think I was going to like it much at all based on the description on the jacket, but once I started reading it I just couldn't put it down.

 

[Starman]

'The Redemption Of Athelas', by David and Leigh Eddings. Not the fourteenth book about Belgarion, for a change. Quite definitely a stand-alone, and as I read Eddings for the characterisation, it entertained me valiantly.

Really? You're the first person I recall who read that and enjoyed it. I found Edding's other stuff fairly entertaining, but I rank this book as one of the worst fantasy books I have read.

As for good stand-alone fantasy books, try Tanith Lee's Night's Master. Sadly, that's the only good stand-alone fantasy novel I can think of off the top of my head that hasn't all ready been mentioned.

Starman

 

[Mouseferatu]

Really? You're the first person I recall who read that and enjoyed it. I found Edding's other stuff fairly entertaining, but I rank this book as one of the worst fantasy books I have read.

While I wouldn't say it's one of the worst fantasy books I've read, I agree that it wasn't nearly up to his work on his actual series. I'm interested in seeing what his new one's like--but I still won't pick it up until it's complete.