[OT] Which do you think are the best fantasy novels/authors?

[GreyShadow]

Favourites

My favourites are pretty much all here:

The Internet Top 100 SF/Fantasy List

If they're not there, then on the extended list.

I find the list handy in that there is always something there that I haven't read before that someone out there likes.

Cheers

 

[The_lone_gunman]

Most of my favorites have been mentioned: Jordan, Weis/hickman, leiber, moorcock, etc. I love Jordan for his epicness, Weis/hickman for their fun reads, Leiber for his style, and moorcock for his crazy stories. I have many more authors at the house but can't think of all the names.

Also, Steven King's fantasy story was pretty damn good, you know the one that he wrote for his daughter as a bedtime story.

However, has anyone here read "The Death of the Necromancer" by Martha Wells? It is one hell of an awesome book. "The city of bones" is another really good one. I just wish she would write some more fantasy.

If you havent read these, you should really think about picking them up, they are truly gems.

TLG

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'll echo many others here.

The great: Tolkien, Lieber, Moorcock, Vance, Howard, Le Guin

The good: Saberhagen, Drake, Brooks, Eddings, Jordan, Goodkind, Zelazny, Niven

Adequate: Salvatore, Weis & Hickman, Asprin, Anthony

Pulp fiction: Greenwod; all the FR/D&D/Greyhawk etc novels

Of course, there's a lot of science fantasy out there (McCaffrey, Saberhagen could fit here, anything Star Wars ...).

For the names some may not recognize:

Fred Saberhagen writes a lot of science fiction, but his epic Changeling Earth, which includes Empire of the East and the Book of Swords series is really a science/fantasy classic.

David Drake is well known as a military science fiction writer, but he has a four-volume series out now that begins with Lord of the Isles that is based in classical literature and would make a great D&D setting.

Larry Niven is primarily a science fiction writer, but The Magic Goes Away and its related stories are an interesting take on assumptions about magic.

Even if you don't like Eddings, if you're a DM with a homebrew world you should read The Rivan Codex, which explains in detail how Eddings created his fantasy world, the societies, and the literary conventions behind the setting and characters. I don't know of many authors who (while they are alive) publish the background notes for their work and explain why and how they did what they did.

 

[Dinkeldog]

What makes the Harry Potter books literature is their use of symbolism and fore-shadowing. The whole thing is written in such a way that I almost want to take notes as I go, because otherwise in the middle of book 3, I'm going back to book 1 trying to find a two-paragraph passage that gives insight into exactly what is going on. Sure, the language used is simple and accessible, but the ideas behind them aren't.

 

[mmu1]

What makes the Harry Potter books literature is their use of symbolism and fore-shadowing. The whole thing is written in such a way that I almost want to take notes as I go, because otherwise in the middle of book 3, I'm going back to book 1 trying to find a two-paragraph passage that gives insight into exactly what is going on. Sure, the language used is simple and accessible, but the ideas behind them aren't.

That's not the problem I have with them - nothing wrong with Rowling's writing style... The issue is that they're a little too formulaic to be treated seriously. Every year there's a new teacher of Defense Against the Dark Arts, every year Harry and Co. solve a new mystery that Voldemort is behind in some way, every year (ok, I'm not 100% sure about that one, but it feels that way) they win the house competition because at the last minute, Dumbledore gives Gryffindor an extra bunch of points because Harry managed to bungle through another "adventure" through a pure combination of luck and fate... For four books' worth, that's not a lot of story and character development.

 

[CCamfield]

Re: Re

I haven't read much else besides these two books. I will immediately discard any book that uses a language style equivalent to modern day English. As soon as it seems like I am reading two modern day people speaking, I feel like I am watching an episode of Hercules: The Legendary Journies. The book immediately is cast aside.

I wonder then if you'd like The Worm Ouroboros by Eddison. The language is... baroque.

Chris

 

[CCamfield]

However, has anyone here read "The Death of the Necromancer" by Martha Wells? It is one hell of an awesome book. "The city of bones" is another really good one. I just wish she would write some more fantasy.

If you havent read these, you should really think about picking them up, they are truly gems.

Absolutely. (I like City of Bones enough that even though I had a pb copy, I bought a hardcover directly from Martha.) Unfortunately I didn't enjoy Wheel of the Infinite as much.

She's working on a new book called The Wizard Hunters, and from reading her website just now, it's due out on May and there are three chapters up on her website.

 

[Dinkeldog]

That's not the problem I have with them - nothing wrong with Rowling's writing style... The issue is that they're a little too formulaic to be treated seriously. Every year there's a new teacher of Defense Against the Dark Arts, every year Harry and Co. solve a new mystery that Voldemort is behind in some way, every year (ok, I'm not 100% sure about that one, but it feels that way) they win the house competition because at the last minute, Dumbledore gives Gryffindor an extra bunch of points because Harry managed to bungle through another "adventure" through a pure combination of luck and fate... For four books' worth, that's not a lot of story and character development.

So I take it you didn't read book 4.

 

[Umbran]

When considering Rowling or Salvatore as literature, there's something that must be considered - every single written work, without exception, has a "target audience". Even if the author doesn't consider it consciously, every work is written with a reader in mind, though it may be in the background of the mind.

Analysis, then, must take that context into account. There is no such thing as "great literature", in an absolute sense. There is "literature that is great at doing what it tries to do". Perhaps, "Great because it manages to do more than it really tries to do."

A large number of modern fantasy readers cannot stand Tolkien. The people who find it great to read today are not in the majority. By today's standards he's slow, wordy, dry and impersonal. It's even worse for older works. Ever read the original Gulliver's Travels? Or anything by HG Wells? By modern standards, these things are sawdusty works, at best. But since they were great in their own time, they are still remembered and used.

Rowling isn't writing for a highbrow, literary crowd. She's writing for kids roughly the same age as her main characters. For that purpose, her work is nothing less than fantastic. The fact that she also catches the attention and praise of adults says something about her talents. How many other books written for 10 year olds are even barely tolerable for adults, much less enjoyed by millions? Similarly, Salvatore is pretty good. He reaches his audience, and they keep coming back for more. The opinions of critics and the literary-educated elite are nice, but in the end, how good can you really be if nobody reads you?

 

[Claude Raines]

Honestly, am I the only person who has read and liked the Deryni books? I mention them here and on RPG.net when the topic comes up, and no one has ever seconded the suggestion...

I read the first series but didn't really like them. I can't really say why, but they just didn't engage me.