Will I like Dragonlance books?

[Storm Raven]

Patricia McKillip NO

Read The Riddle Master of Hed, Heir of Sea and Fire and Harpist in the Wind. You can also try The Forgotten Beasts of Eld, which is a standalone.

Lloyd Alexander NO

The Chronicles of Prydain is a must. The Westmark series is good too.

H. Warner Munn NO

Merlin's Godson and Merlin's Ring are the books of his to read.

Larry Niven Yes - but only sci-fi

The Magic Goes Away and the follow-ons to that are the ones to look at.

Orson Scott Card Yes - but only sci-fi

The entire Alvin Maker series is a must. Enchantment and Hart's Hope are good too.

Lois McMaster Bujold NO

The Curse of Chalion, Paladin of Souls and The Hallowed Hunt are a must.

[/i]Fred Saberhagen NO[/i]

The Swords series is where to go for him. His Berserker books (which are science fiction) are also quite good.

Robert Silverberg Yes - but only sci-fi

The Majipoor Chronicles is the place to start. Gilgamesh the King is good too. I'd suggest The Book of Skulls but that is a more contemporary fantasy.

So I guess I'm nothing like a well read fantasy fan.

Close, but not quite.

Its a shame Terry Brooks, Weis & Hickman, R.A. Salvatore, David Gemmell, Janny Wurts, Raymond E Feist, Mercedes Lackey, Bernard Cornwell, Stephen Donaldson, Stephen Lawhead, Lord Dunsany, Mervin Peake, Ray Bradbury, Rudyard Kipling, E.R. Eddison, M John Harrison, Sheri S. Tepper and a host of others I have read don't count.

Brooks is really derivative, which is why I left him off the list. Weiss, Hickman, and Salvatore really haven't done much worth reading, at least none of their stuff I have read is worth recommending. Gemmell is good, but not a must. Wurts, Lackey, and Feist are, in my opinion, clearly second tier authors. Cornwell doesn't write fantasy, he writes historical fiction. I like Donaldson, but some events in his most famous series squicks a lot of people out, so I never recommend him to people I don't know. Lawhead is okay, but the Arthur ground has been covered better by other authors. Dunsany is hard to recommend, as it is difficult for a lot of people to read; Eddison is in the same category. Leaving Peake off was an oversight. I haven't read any Bradbury that would be properly classified as fantasy, except maybe Something Wicked This Way Comes, and that was not really on par with his best works. Kipling's fantastical works aren't really fantasy per se, more like contemporary horror, although I may have missed something of his. I left M. John Harrison off for the same reason I left Samuel R. Delany off - his work is too weird in some ways to be considered a must. As for Tepper, the only stuff of hers I have read are the Mavin Manyshaped books, and I wasn't overly impressed.

I could have listed numerous authors that neither of us mentioned, but they aren't "musts" in my opinion like the guys I did list.

 

[Storm Raven]

Because it makes you appear someone arrogant enough to presume that the things you dislike couldn't possible appear worthwhile to anyone else.

The OP asked if he would like Dragonlance books. In my opinion, every Dragonlance book I read was time I could have spent reading something else that would have been better. In my opinion, almost all licensed fiction is crap (no matter the license or the writer - Star Wars, Star Trek, D&D, and so on).

People like different things and you can't cordon their likes and dislikes into clear categories, especially not the same ones you are placing your own into.

Except when your tastes are clearly flawed, such as when you enjoy reading really bad books.

Just as it baffles me why anyone would be so vehemently hostile towards a piece of literature.

Because the Dragonlance books are, for the most part, really, really bad, and the OP would be much better off reading the phone book than wasting his time on them.

 

[amethal]

I've read The Book of Skulls. Its sci-fi.

http://www.sfsite.com/04b/bs79.htm

I've also read the Majipoor series. Classified them as sci-fi personally, but anyway since I've read a couple of dozen of Robert Silverberg's books I think we could probably give me a Yes on Silverberg.

Ray Bradbury
http://www.sfsite.com/03a/sw219.htm

Rudyard Kipling
http://www.sfsite.com/grx/orion/mklg.jpg

Sheri S Tepper
http://www.sfsite.com/07b/be108.htm

Thanks for a useful reply to my fairly snarky post. I'll check out the books you recommend.

Have you read Weis and Hickman's Death Gate Cycle? I liked it.

Have you read Lion of Macedon? It made my 5 all time favourites list on another thread, so there's certainly no "but" after "Gemmell is good".

Magician also made it to my all time list. If you've read it and don't rate Raymond E. Feist as tier one, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Have you read Bernard Cornwell's Arthurian novels, starting with The Winter King? They ain't historical.

I mentioned Brooks and Salvatore for a reason. How do you know they are derivative? Have you read them?

I suppose one of the joys of the English language is that I can interpret "well read" as "having read a lot", but you might have meant "read a lot of good stuff". Surely every fantasy has tried out Terry Brooks, even if those if us with taste give up very quickly.

 

[Storm Raven]

I've read The Book of Skulls. Its sci-fi.

I'd call it more contemprary horror/fantasy myself.

http://www.sfsite.com/04b/bs79.htm

I've also read the Majipoor series. Classified them as sci-fi personally, but anyway since I've read a couple of dozen of Robert Silverberg's books I think we could probably give me a Yes on Silverberg.

The Majipoor books are a blend of science fiction and fantasy - that is one of the things that makes them good.

Ray Bradbury
http://www.sfsite.com/03a/sw219.htm

I've read a bunch of Bradbury, just not any that I would consider really in the "fantasy" category.

Rudyard Kipling
http://www.sfsite.com/grx/orion/mklg.jpg

Sheri S Tepper
http://www.sfsite.com/07b/be108.htm

I'll take a look at these some time once I get through my current (very large) pile.

Thanks for a useful reply to my fairly snarky post. I'll check out the books you recommend.

Glad to be of service.

Have you read Weis and Hickman's Death Gate Cycle? I liked it.

No, their Dragonlance books were enough to put me off them.

Have you read Lion of Macedon? It made my 5 all time favourites list on another thread, so there's certainly no "but" after "Gemmell is good".

I haven't gotten to that, I'll check it out.

Magician also made it to my all time list. If you've read it and don't rate Raymond E. Feist as tier one, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

I read Faerie Tale and Shadow of a Dark Queen. I might be able to squeeze Magician in sometime later this year.

Have you read Bernard Cornwell's Arthurian novels, starting with The Winter King? They ain't historical.

Yes I have, and to tell the truth, they are. There isn't any magic, at least none that cannot be explained as coincidence. There aren't any fantasy elements other than the fact that they use swords and wear armor, and that isn't really a fantasy element in a book set in the 6th-7th century. The thing that made the Winter King series so good was that they were a possible "actual" version of Arthur.

I mentioned Brooks and Salvatore for a reason. How do you know they are derivative? Have you read them?

The Shanarra books are the second most derivative of Tolkien series I have read (Dennis McKiernan's Iron Crown trilogy is first). Salvatore's books (at least the one's I have read) are entirely derivative of Forgotten Realms stuff (which makes sense, since they are based there, but that still makes them derivative).

 

[mmu1]

I read Faerie Tale and Shadow of a Dark Queen. I might be able to squeeze Magician in sometime later this year.

Feist's one attempt at modern fantasy wasn't his best, and unfortunately for you, Shadow of the Dark Queen came after he turned into a total hack and started to re-write the same story he already wrote once for easy money...

Magician, on the other hand, is a good book - so are Silverthorn and A Darkness at Sethanon. Much, much better than either of the two you've read. Don't know if sufficiently so to elevate them to "tier one", but really, the difference in overall quality is huge.

 

[jonesy]

...I have had people tell me "oh, but this series is really good", so I went through a phase where I would take them up on their recommendations and try them. I was pretty much universally disappointed.

Oh hey maybe you should try [this really great book series] or [I think you might like this book by that author you hate a lot more than the others].

Seriously though, I always enjoy talking to people with different opinions. If we all liked the same things life would terribly boring.

"Have you read that book?"
"Yeah."
"Great, huh?"
"Yup."
"Did you like so and so?"
"Sure."
"Nothing to complain about?"
"Nope."
"...so, see any good movies lately?"
"They're all good."
"..."

 

[Einan]

The Dragonlance original chronicles are more fun, in my opinion, if one reads them as less a novel and more a storyhour. It's kind of fun to pick out the places where the players rolled really badly.

And they're worth the read, if only to see if you do like them or not. I've never read anything so terrible (fantasy-wise) that not reading it would have made me a better person.

And after all, most fantasy is candy anyway: a pleasant way to pass some time, if not quite to everyone's taste.

Einan

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And after all, most fantasy is candy anyway: a pleasant way to pass some time, if not quite to everyone's taste.

Well, that's aiming pretty low. Accepting crap because crap is most of what's out there is a good way to keep crap coming, because that's what everyone is buying.

Genre fiction/TV/movies only got better when people say "you know, I'd like to see a sci-fi TV show that doesn't have sets that wobble and stories written for submoronic children." Compare the new BSG series to the old for an example of what happens when the audience says "OK, we're not kids any more, give us something more substantial."

There's a TON of great fantasy literature out there that's vastly more than candy. Some of it has even been mentioned on this thread. There's also a thread on the first page here where people are recommending five (and only five) fantasy books. Very little of those recommendations are candy, much of it is steak.

 

[Mallus]

Compare the new BSG series to the old for an example of what happens when the audience says "OK, we're not kids any more, give us something more substantial."

That's not a helpful comparison, though. The original BSG is a children's show, the new one isn't. Apples and oranges. It's not just a difference in quality, the two incarnations of BSG have completely different goals (and target audiences).

There's a TON of great fantasy literature out there that's vastly more than candy.

Yes, but sometimes people want candy. Most of the time, really. When they don't there's always Angela Carter.

Very little of those recommendations are candy, much of it is steak.

I'd say much of it is better candy. Which is fine.

 

[Mallus]

...for the same reason I left Samuel R. Delany off - his work is too weird in some ways to be considered a must.

Delany's too weird to be considered essential fantasy? That's a bold, and kind of daft, statement. Do you mean that his writing is too inaccessible? I won't argue that, except to say that I don't find Delany's writing any less accessible than, say, Gene Wolfe's.

Samuel R. Delany is one of my favorite authors, but, trying to bring this back around to Dragonlance, he's like the anti-Weiss and Hickman. Delany can craft some lovely sentences. Lots of them, in fact. So many that his novels can sound like novel-length prose poems. So if you love language, give him a try. But if you're looking for a rip-roaring yarn and characters that'll charm/make you shed a tear, stay the hell away from his books.