Once upon a time, a boy read Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. By sheer coincidence, he later ran across Steven Brust's The Book of Jhereg solely by the virtue of its proximity to Card's books. So the boy took home that book, and eventually wound up loving Brust's fun works (Brust's Taltos series is fun as hell to read, if not that deep; but it's To Reign In Hell that comes in a close second to Agyar as Brust's true masterpiece.) Brust had collaborated with an author named Megan Lindholm, author of Wizard of the Pigeons, on an obscure book titled The Gypsy (an decent book, even if Brust got carried away with his own fantasies of romanticized gypsy life) which the boy also enjoyed.
By then the boy was a man. So one day, that man found out Megan Lindholm, presumably because her true name sold few books, now wrote under a pseudonym of Robin Hobb. The man read Hobb's Assassin series, and is currently tearing himself away from the third book in the trilogy to write this plea for help.
That man had once written off all non-Tolkien fantasy (except Brust) as the usual troll-and-unicorn crap, on par with the crap known as the romance novel. Now that man is entranced with Hobb, and has sworn to read the rest of her works. He's also ordered George R. R. Martin's Storm of Swords series, or what currently exists of it. What else is that man missing? What books out there has the man foolishly written off as bullshit?
It took a lot for the man to get past the corny title of the first book (Assassin's Apprentice), largely because of his own ignorance. (As a side note, it's not that Hobb's writing is flawless -- Regal's too obvious a villain, almost Disney-esque, and the inter-kingdom politics of the Six Duchies are rather cliched; what redeems her is the sheer humanity in FitzChivalry, coupled with her brilliant characterization among the "good guys." But the book, overall, is easily on [and, in some ways, above] par with Tolkien's works.) Help that man learn the foolishness of his ways. Tom, I'm especially looking at you -- I know you've read half the books available to the English world. But all Hatrackers, I beg you, show me the error of my ways before I leave on Sunday.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Just as a side point, I thought that the third book in the Assassin's Apprentice series totally sold out the promise of the first two books. I hated it with a passion, after having loved the first two so much.
If you want to know why, ask me when you are done reading.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
The man absolutely must read China Mieville's Perdido Street Station. Following that, the man should read The Scar by the same writer. He would also be unlikely to regret trying out Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun tetralogy (plus one).
An important piece of information would be whether or not the man is interested in short story collections or just novels.
[ July 11, 2003, 05:18 AM: Message edited by: ae ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I, too, am recently discovering extra-Tolkien fantasy. My favorites of all time are Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea Series (A Wizard of Earthsea, The Tombs of Atuan, The Farthest Shore are the original trilogy). All other fantasy has for a long time seemed too lightweight to me. Even Robin Hobb's Liveship Traders series, which I did read, I felt was good but just not a match to JRRT or UKL. The Hyperion series may have come close.
But recently I've read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen Donaldson, and it's truly great. I'm still looking for someone with whom to talk about these six books. They have made such an impression on me. They've meant more to me than any books I've read in a long long time. I feel sure I'll read them more than once.
On a different note, I've just finished the first Artemis Fowl book, and I was going to start a thread about it but it will go nicely here (thanks, Daed). I found it funny and completely charming. Has anyone else read it? I don't recall seeing it discussed here, but it's very inventive and quite hilarious. I really like all the characters, too, though they aren't meant to be real in other than a playful sense. Something about it really tickles my fancy, but it almost has more of a science fiction feel than fantasy. I guess there's a blurry line between the two.
[ July 11, 2003, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Hyperion is, I think, quite clearly science fiction rather than fantasy. It still is damn good, though.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Extra-Tolkien fantasy!
May the Valas smite you all.
Man I wish I knew the Elvish word for "heresy".
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Beren, I do, but Patrick copyrighted it. Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
**digs into couch cushions**
I'll chip in for the quarter! Damn that literary monopolizer! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
IMO, fantasy novels worth reading include:
LeGuin's Earthsea trilogy (not counting the later, soggier books) Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire China Mieville's Perdido Street Station and The Scar Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant Card's Tales of Alvin Maker Jasper Fforde's The Eyre Affair Dave Duncan's A Man of His Word and King's Blades Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast Joel Rosenberg's D'Shai books Stephen King's Dark Tower series Steve Brust's Taltos Cycle, and his hysterical Dumas parodies (The Phoenix Guard and others) Terry Pratchett's Discworld series Greg Keyes' The Briar King (although this feels a bit like a Martin rip-off, so the jury's out until he releases the follow-up)
And for children's fiction: Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia
(And as a side note, AKA, Christy just picked up the first Artemis Fowl book the other day, and we both enjoyed it a great deal. It's a fun read -- kind of like Harry Potter crossed with Tom Clancy novels. *grin*)
[ July 11, 2003, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Guy Gavriel Kay wrote the Fionvar Tapestry, which is interesting, but where he really shines is The Lions of Al-Rassan. Now that is an epic. He's definitely one of Canada's best current authors.
"The deeds of men are as footprints in the sand."
Edit: And I love Steven Brust, but I haven't been able to get my hands on any of the later books or on any of his non-Taltos books.
[ July 11, 2003, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I loved Artemis Fowl but hated the Thomas Covenant series. AE, I would love to discuss it with you, though, because I am still not sure why I hated it. Mainly, I hated Thomas himself, and when you dislike the main character, it makes for a long series.
There are lots of great recommendations on the "good books" thread.(It's on page 6. I don't know how to do that link thing)
You should try Sean Russell's fantasy series, "The Swan Wars," but wait until book 3 comes out or you will be angry with me. He leaves you right in the middle of the story.
I enjoyed David Eddings' "Belgariad." I also enjoyed a two-book series called "The God Wars," but I forget the name of the author, and I thought he may have borrowed a bit from Eddings.
Good luck, Liz
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
I agree with twinky about Guy Gavriel Kay's brilliance, but I would argue that Tiagara is his true masterpiece.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Edit: And I love Steven Brust, but I haven't been able to get my hands on any of the later books or on any of his non-Taltos books.
Twinky, Amazon's amazing when it comes to finding used material. While they'll charge you $2-5 in shipping per item (if you buy it used), it's worth it when you can buy books for $1.50 apiece (and in damn good condition). It's a better idea to shop your local used bookstore first, but for rarities like Lindholm's Wizard of the Pigeons, you can't beat Amazon.
Here's the hardcover version of Agyar, and here's the paperback version. While I'll defend Agyar to the death as Brust's masterpiece (if only for its amazing use of minimalist writing), you may also be interested in To Reign In Hell; incredible re-telling of the struggle between Yahweh and Satan.
quote:The man absolutely must read China Mieville's Perdido Street Station. Following that, the man should read The Scar by the same writer. He would also be unlikely to regret trying out Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun tetralogy (plus one).
An important piece of information would be whether or not the man is interested in short story collections or just novels.
The man's going to pick up both those books today. Thanks for the recommendation.
I tends to be interested more often in novels than in short stories. When I read fantasy, that often includes some fairly major world-building -- and if I'm going to put the time into understanding the intricacies of a society, I'd prefer the plot to last longer than a few pages. As, I believe, do most people. It's probably a major reason why Card's reverting to the Shadow series; the world he's created already rests comfortably with many people, so he's less bound to world-building and more to character development. [snob]No matter how stiff that character building happens to be.[/snob]
Thanks for the recommendations, Tom and Anne Kate. I'll put them to good use.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hm, Amazon, you say? I'll have to check out Amazon.ca and see what the story is.
I haven't read Kay's Tiagara, but I'll put it on my list of books to read. Posted by Hi (Member # 5289) on :
For fantastic characterization alone, the Assassin's Apprentice/Farseer trilogy are on the top of my list of favorites. I’ve been trying to get friends to read it a number of times, but unlike with Enders Game, none of them ever got past a hundred pages. For me, it even beats Ender's Game, Harry Potter and Game of Thrones by a long shot- and that‘s saying a lot.
Man, I can’t get enough of The Fool, Fitz, Burrich, Patience- they’re all great and memorable characters.
The book got me crying a lot which is a large feat considering that well, I don’t cry much with fantasy books. Many people didn’t like the third book but well I thought it was good. I was a bit disappointed with what happened with Fitz and wincing at all Hobbs had put him through but well that’s not the end of it- there’s always the Tawny Man Trilogy- set fifteen years after the Farseer Trilogy, to wrap up all the loose ends. I still found the ending to the third book satisfying enough and would have been just as content if the Tawny Man had not been released.
I don’t think it compares to the first three books but they’re (Tawny Many Trilogy) still very good. In fact, just last week I reread the second book to that trilogy- The Golden Fool- and I can’t wait for the next installment (which is out in January of 2004).
I had the Ship of Magic on my bookshelf for two years now but haven’t been able to get myself to read it. From what I see though and from the reviews, I guess it should be good. ---
On a side note, I'm absolutely baffeled as to why books like The Wizard’s First Rule and the Eye of the Beholder (Wheel o’ Time) has such a large fan base. I’m a big fantasy buff myself but I could never see what people ever saw in these books.
[ July 11, 2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Hi ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I read Dave Duncan a few years ago and really loved it; but I've never seenhis name on a good fantasy author list. Anyone else have any opinions?
For Brust, you might try checking you're library. Mine as the first books in the Taltos cycle, and the last ones, but is missing the middle two. I'm currently reading them in Barnes and Nobles and hoping I finish before someone catches me.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Elizabeth: I think you're addressing the wrong person re: Donaldson.
Lalo:
quote:The man's going to pick up both those books today. Thanks for the recommendation.
Always a pleasure to spread the word.
quote:I tends to be interested more often in novels than in short stories. When I read fantasy, that often includes some fairly major world-building -- and if I'm going to put the time into understanding the intricacies of a society, I'd prefer the plot to last longer than a few pages.
Thing is, not all fantasy requires the sort of worldbuilding you're talking about. Case in point would be Gene Wolfe's absolutely classic collection The Island of Doctor Death and Other Stories and Other Stories (not a typo) or Harlan Ellison's Angry Candy.
quote:It's probably a major reason why Card's reverting to the Shadow series; the world he's created already rests comfortably with many people, so he's less bound to world-building and more to character development. [snob]No matter how stiff that character building happens to be.[/snob]
I hear you.
Oh, another fantasy novel you might try is Matthew Woodring Stover's Heroes Die. It's down-and-dirty fantasy that's as subtle as a tonne of something very dense--and that applies to both the chop-socky action and the symbolism--but it works. I'd put it rather lower down on the list than the other books I mentioned, but only because the others are that good, IMHO.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
I would be remiss if I didn't point out my love for Robin Hobb's books. I was not disappointed with the third book of the Assassin Trilogy . I thought it played out well, and provided a good segway into the Tawny Man Trilogy . Part three of said trilogy will probably come out December of 2003, or January of 2004. I can't wait.
If anyone else mentioned it, I will second Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn trilogy. Almost any books by Gene Wolfe as well.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Other good Non-tolkien authors?
Raymond Feists series looks and was marketed like fantasy fluff, but the series he wrote with his daughter, traveling into the Easter world (Daughter of the Empire) are well worth it.
His "Fairie Tale" is also a good read.
Charles De Lint has some good urban fantasy. They will have you looking at your down town streets a bit differently.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
quote: I had the Ship of Magic on my bookshelf for two years now but haven’t been able to get myself to read it. From what I see though and from the reviews, I guess it should be good.
You oughta read it. It ties in with the Assassin and Tawny Man trilogies, and there might even be a character you recognize from those books. I believe they will be especially important, as I've heard that some of the main characters from the liveship books will be in the last part of the tawny man. Besides, they're great books!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Tom, you mentioned The Dark is Rising by Susan Cooper, I just wanted to point out my 10 year old has been reading the series and *loves* it, at her urging I just began the first book last night.
I was impressed - Cooper is a good writer. I'm looking forward to reading the whole thing.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Well, most of my recommendations have been mentioned already.
But I will state that Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising set is mandatory reading. Go. Now. Read. Books. Absolutely stunning to me each time I read them.
Wizard of Earthsea is also one of these essentials.
Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels are very good. Lots of dragons and elfs and wizards and such, but so wonderfully written. Oook.
Eddings is great. Lots of archetypes but just plain fun to read. I like him.
For some reason, I also enjoyed Thomas Covenant. I'm still not sure why, but I did. And I always enjoy a good Book discussion, ak.
Avoid Terry Goodind or Robert Jordan. They really aren't that great books. DEFINITELY not even close to par with Tolkien, despite what the dust-jackets say.
I was sadly disappointed with Memory, Sorrow and Thorn. It felt very un-creative when I read them. I read the first two and had no desire to read the third.
Posted by DanielW (Member # 5395) on :
*drumroll* *dancers cancan across the stage*
It is my pleasure to welcome you to . . Daniel's first post !
That man should most definitely read David Gemmell. Grim fantasy, and written in such a way that you get the feeling with a little change of circumstance the baddies could have been good, and the goodies bad.
*curtain call* *dancers bow*
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
The Guy Gavriel Kay book is called Tigana, and it IS fascinating. I think it is his best work to date.
The Curse of Chalion by Lois McMaster Bujold is also wonderful. It is a stand alone novel but a sequel of sorts is coming out in October called Paladin of Souls.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Everything I would have mentioned has been said, except for Roger Zelazny's Amber series. The first five are better than the second five, but all ten are quite good. It makes more sense, and makes me think more, every time I reread it.
From what I have read of his other stuff, it is very good as well.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Good first post Daniel, from one dan to another.
Posted by DanielW (Member # 5395) on :
Thank you Posted by Canuckboy (Member # 5193) on :
If your looking for something different in fantasy I would recommend Roger Zelazny's Amber series. You can find The Great Book of Amber on Amazon. That's a collection of the ten books in the series.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
AE: Sorry! It was AK, and I was SURE I had typed in the right person.
One of my favorite all time fantasy trilogies was CJ Cherryh's "Fortress"series. I read book one of the Morgaine series, and it was OK, but I haven't had the impetus to keep reading the other two.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Random question: Why are fully half of modern fantasy authors' named Terry?
Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
My highest recommendations go to Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels.
But then, you knew that, didn't you?
Peace policy
Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
*just remembered this forum doesn't support signatures*
Every forum I post at, I use this nick and the following signature:
"Give a man fire, he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." --Terry Pratchett
Posted by Hi (Member # 5289) on :
Fitz,
I could of sworn that I had once registered under your screen name! I recall attempting (I can only assume that I was not sucessful) to register earlier this year or late last year. I guess I either decided to register as some form of "The Fool" instead or had got some error message through the process of registration.
Ah well, my mind grows forgetful with old age. I must concede, the name is infinitely better with you than with me. I would have made a terrible Fitz. Not only because of gender complications but because I would probably have lost the password as I had thought I did.
[ July 11, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Hi ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Guy Gavriel Kay wrote the Fionvar Tapestry
I've never read any of GGK's books but he has Really Nice Covers, which is a great asset and oddity among the fantasy genre.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Random question: Why are fully half of modern fantasy authors' named Terry?
For the same reason that fully half of the characters in the American literature that you read in eleventh grade English are named "Tom."
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
quote: I must concede, the name is infinitely better with you than with me.
I must confess that I wholeheartedly agree. Posted by Taygeta (Member # 5337) on :
quote:Tom, you mentioned The Dark is Rising by Susan Cooper, I just wanted to point out my 10 year old has been reading the series and *loves* it, at her urging I just began the first book last night.
I was impressed - Cooper is a good writer. I'm looking forward to reading the whole thing.
:::temporarily emerging out of lurker status::: I read that series when I was 10 or 11, and I loved it... until I got to the end. I thought the ending was exceedingly lame, and it seemed to negate the need for most of the rest of the plot. I don't think I've heard anyone else have my reaction, so I've always wondered whether the end was really as lame as it seemed or if I just didn't get it. I'm afraid to reread it because that's a lot of time to spend rereading something with a bad ending, but it would be worth it if I "got" it the second time around.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I also read the series when I was ten or eleven, and I reread it three or four times. I loved it, and I don't remember thinking the ending was lame. I'm pretty sure that you just didn't get it, Taygeta. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:May the Valas smite you all.
I believe the correct plural form of Vala is Valar.
<---Has only read The Lord of the Rings once, and didn't think it was that great until halfway through the trilogy
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
For SHAME, Lindholm.
Slash, you were right. Hobb went and ****ed her entire trilogy up. The bit about the dragons was inventive, but it hardly fits the setting of Hobb's world. And with the intricate plot Hobb had weaved, I was looking forward to so much more than a "God's Wrath" ending.
Jesus. See, people, this is why I write off most modern fantasy as troll-and-unicorn crap.
Posted by Hi (Member # 5289) on :
Lalo,
I'm curious, are you going to continue with the Tawny Man Trilogy then? I can't really comment with the ending, mostly because I can't remember it that well and would rather not talk about it, without completely having it fresh in my mind (I might make a mistake). I remember thinking that it was wrapped up well enough for me though.
Still, I recommend you continue on with reading the next trilogy. That third book is still not in a sense, the "end". Give it a try, you might, eh- have a change of heart...?
--- {edited to add) Oh, and on the Dragon thing, I had felt the same way. I didn't think it fit into the world well at first but I think if you continue reading more and Hobbs world gets more developed- it works.
Or at least it did for me.
[ July 11, 2003, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Hi ]
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
Some interesting, somewhat applicable words from China Meiville:
quote: "Two untrue things are commonly claimed about fantasy. The first is that fantasy and science fiction are fundamentally different genres. The second is that fantasy is crap.
It's usually those who claim the first who also claim the second. The idea is that where SF is radical, exploratory and intellectually adventurous, fantasy is badly written, clich餠and obsessed with backwards-looking dreams of the past - feudal daydreams of Good Kings and Fair Maidens.
It's easy enough to distinguish the writers at the far edges of the spectrum - Asimov versus Eddings, for example. But the problem with the 'sharp divide' argument is the number of writers - often very brilliant ones - who fall in the middle, who blur the lines. David Lindsay, William Hope Hodgson, Jane Gaskell, H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Gene Wolfe: the list could go on. These are writers for whom the 'fantastic' is not ethereal and wispy but tough and real, where 'magic' operates like science or science magic, and where the sense of subversion, of alienation, of sheer strangeness that saturates their work defies easy categorisation as SF or fantasy.
That's the tradition that I'm interested in - I see myself as writing Weird Fiction. And as soon as you see that as your foundations, then the idea that fantasy is crap disappears.
When people dis fantasy - mainstream readers and SF readers alike - they are almost always talking about one sub-genre of fantastic literature. They are talking about Tolkien, and Tolkien's innumerable heirs. Call it 'epic', or 'high', or 'genre' fantasy, this is what fantasy has come to mean. Which is misleading as well as unfortunate.
Tolkien is the wen on the arse of fantasy literature. His oeuvre is massive and contagious - you can't ignore it, so don't even try. The best you can do is consciously try to lance the boil. And there's a lot to dislike - his cod-Wagnerian pomposity, his boys-own-adventure glorying in war, his small-minded and reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos, his belief in absolute morality that blurs moral and political complexity. Tolkien's clich鳠- elves 'n' dwarfs 'n' magic rings - have spread like viruses. He wrote that the function of fantasy was 'consolation', thereby making it an article of policy that a fantasy writer should mollycoddle the reader.
That is a revolting idea, and one, thankfully, that plenty of fantasists have ignored. From the Surrealists through the pulps - via Mervyn Peake and Mikhael Bulgakov and Stefan Grabinski and Bruno Schulz and Michael Moorcock and M. John Harrison and I could go on - the best writers have used the fantastic aesthetic precisely to challenge, to alienate, to subvert and undermine expectations.
Of course I'm not saying that any fan of Tolkien is no friend of mine - that would cut my social circle considerably. Nor would I claim that it's impossible to write a good fantasy book with elves and dwarfs in it - Michael Swanwick's superb Iron Dragon's Daughter gives the lie to that. But given that the pleasure of fantasy is supposed to be in its limitless creativity, why not try to come up with some different themes, as well as unconventional monsters? Why not use fantasy to challenge social and aesthetic lies?
Thankfully, the alternative tradition of fantasy has never died. And it's getting stronger. Chris Wooding, Michael Swanwick, Mary Gentle, Paul di Filippo, Jeff VanderMeer, and many others, are all producing works based on fantasy's radicalism. Where traditional fantasy has been rural and bucolic, this is often urban, and frequently brutal. Characters are more than cardboard cutouts, and they're not defined by race or sex. Things are gritty and tricky, just as in real life. This is fantasy not as comfort-food, but as challenge.
The critic Gabe Chouinard has said that we're entering a new period, a renaissance in the creative radicalism of fantasy that hasn't been seen since the New Wave of the sixties and seventies, and in echo of which he has christened the Next Wave. I don't know if he's right, but I'm excited. This is a radical literature. It's the literature we most deserve"
Posted by Hi (Member # 5289) on :
After reading Meiville' article I like to add, that I don't like Tolkien fantasy either. I never liked elves, unicorns and gnomes and stuff like that, particularly if they're cliché. I can tolerate it but I'm not the biggest fan.
I just have to say it- I'm no big fan of Tolkien either, but mainly because I stopped right when I got to the part with the elves- I wasn't that attached to the characters much at that point too so I had not felt any need to continue at that time. I do plan on continuing on eventually. If it has a good plot then I‘ll like it regardless of the elves, gnomes and trolls.
I’m not a large fan of that type of fantasy but I enjoy fantasy as somewhat realistic with fantasy not simply being “magic” but something different from the norm, not reality as Meiville had stated, “Weird Fiction.”
Fantasy as in fantasy
I never liked hardcore science fiction but I always like science fiction that were similiar to fantasy fiction. Examples are Snow Crash, Ender's Game and Hyperoin.
I consider these books more fantasy rather than science fiction. Notice they don't have magic or fall into fantasy in a traditional sense, but they still kind of fall into the category of fantasy nonetheless.
I like books along the lines of Game of Thrones and Tigana (Which *are* traditional fantasy novels but still somewhat a realistic element to them) as well as Weaveworld, Vampire Chronicles, Meivilles stuff, Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, Golden Compass and probably the best example is Ray Bradbury type stories.
I liked the Game of Thrones not only because of it's brilliant plot, but also because it seemed very realistic. There was little magic thrown around in fact, I don't think I saw any outright magic until the third book (although my mind could be playing tricks on me).
That's the reason I liked the Farseer trilogy as well. Sure they had a clichéd plot, but she twisted it into something original and something that seemed “real“. Aside from the Wit and the Skill, there was not any magical elements or creatures, were there? At least, not until that third book to the trilogy, when dragons popped up. I was a bit miffed with that at first, but then as I read on, I believed it only expanded and enriched the world she created.
[ July 11, 2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Hi ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
The Keltiad Series by Patricia Kenneally Morrison - hard to find unless found in the used book store or ordered -
Posted by Gwynaria (Member # 5365) on :
The Dark Tower series by Stephen King is absolutely excellent. It also gives life to the idea that there are dimensions just doorways from each other: "there are other worlds than these", to quote Jake Chambers. The idea of the last solitary knight, or gunslinger - wielding sandalwood guns, rather than a broadsword - has made my opinion of Stephen King reach a plateau. He is one of the best storytellers in the world, and The Dark Tower is his epic.
Posted by tabithecat (Member # 5228) on :
now it has been a while but I remember having a fondness for The Far Kingdoms by Allen Cole and Chris Bunch. there is 3 or 4 books in the series and sparked in me a love of collaborative works. also I don't rember the name but Morgan Llywelyn and Michael Scott started a series, umm not sure if it got past 2 books though. Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
I'd also recommend M. John Harrison's Viriconium sequence, but I'm not sure if it's available in the US.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Steven Brust co-wrote a book with Emma Bull which is just wonderful – Freedom and Necessity. After reading it I picked up Finder, Falcon, and War for the Oaks all by Emma Bull. I recommend all of them, but War for the Oaks is the best.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Okay, I want to ask (If you don't mind me borrowing your thread, Daed) what people do think of the Thomas Covenant books.
I had a very hard time getting through the first one. It was quite hard to like Thomas, as he seemed determined to be bitter and miserable no matter what, and when he raped Lena I almost put it down right then, but because I'd already bought the whole series, and because I'd heard such good things about it, I persevered. But how could he ever redeem himself from that?
But I loved Foamfollower and also Lena herself, and I loved Andelain and the Ranhyn<sp?> and the stonedowners and the woodhelvennin. Particularly Foamfollower, and from the second series Pitchwife. I loved those Giants so much! They were just absolutely wonderful! I want to be like them. I loved the ritual of the caamora, which gives me a way to explain something that otherwise seems crazy... i.e. why it is that when your grief is so intense that it threatens to tear you loose from your body, that submitting yourself to some intense physical pain can be a great relief.
So I loved all the other people in the book. It seemed like Thomas himself was the only one who refused to be like he should.
Does anyone know if the stuff about leprosy is true? I had thought that it was curable now, and therefore nonexistent outside the third world and not a problem to those who were cured. Is it true that it can be contained but not ever cured? That once you have it you have to live your life as Thomas did, with slowly dying extremeties and being careful of every bump and cut? I found that part very interesting, especially since as a diabetic I have something of the same thing in my future, with the slowly deadening hands and feet and possible amputations if I'm not careful, and I have to examine my feet every day for any blisters or cuts or damage.
Though before the end, Thomas's blend of determination and refusal to hope seemed to be just what was needed. I do think the series goes deeper than Tolkien into examining despair. It's so very hard to get through the series, almost like six whole books filled with Frodo-and-Sam-in-Mordor (which is the hardest part of LotR for me each time I read it), yet it has something very important to say about the struggle against despair, I think.
Frodo and Sam fought despair, yet they were so pure themselves... and there's no question that purifying yourself, finding and maintaining a sense of purity... is of great efficacy in fighting despair. But Thomas, like the rest of us human beings, is hopelessly compromised from the start. He's guilty and up to his neck in it. All his possible choices only mire him deeper in responsibility for everything that happens. He despairs yet still is determined, still fights on. It's like he holds the contradiction of despair and hope simultaneously inside himself.
I found it very inspiring in what it had to say about despair. To anyone who hasn't struggled against despair for large portions of their life, I don't think I would recommend it. It is just too dark to be enjoyable to someone like that. Yet for those of us who have, there is a light there to shine through the deepest darkness. I can't even say what it is. But it mattered a lot to me. I will certainly read it again and again.
I'm very curious to see how other people liked this series, and to hear their thoughts about it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I am saddened to see that no one has mentioned T.H. White's 'The Once and Future King'. I recommend it highly to any humanists on the board.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Also, I have fond memories of 'Shardik' by Richard Adams. I hear 'Watership Down' is pretty good as well.
I also have to put in my obligatory plug for Mr. Wilde's fairy tales.
quote:I'm curious, are you going to continue with the Tawny Man Trilogy then? I can't really comment with the ending, mostly because I can't remember it that well and would rather not talk about it, without completely having it fresh in my mind (I might make a mistake). I remember thinking that it was wrapped up well enough for me though.
Still, I recommend you continue on with reading the next trilogy. That third book is still not in a sense, the "end". Give it a try, you might, eh- have a change of heart...?
I ordered them off Amazon when I fell in love with the first two books (and the first half of the third). I'll give them a chance, but I'm really not looking forward to Hobb wrecking her plot again.
quote:--- {edited to add) Oh, and on the Dragon thing, I had felt the same way. I didn't think it fit into the world well at first but I think if you continue reading more and Hobbs world gets more developed- it works.
Or at least it did for me.
***Spoilers***
If you say so. It seems an awful cop-out to me -- all this time, all these intricate plot twists, and suddenly Regal's coterie are absolutely useless and Fitz is able to control Regal through them? Not to mention the dragons -- gah, what a miserable ending. Hobb may as well have put a magic sword or nuclear bomb. There was no reason to not continue the series and document Verity's slow struggle to regain his kingdom and fight off the Red Ship Raiders. None at all. And it would been far more appropriate and interesting than the resurrection of Puff.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Oh, another fantasy novel you might try is Matthew Woodring Stover's Heroes Die. It's down-and-dirty fantasy that's as subtle as a tonne of something very dense--and that applies to both the chop-socky action and the symbolism--but it works. I'd put it rather lower down on the list than the other books I mentioned, but only because the others are that good, IMHO.
I've ordered it, and it'll be waiting for me when I return. Thanks for the help, dude.
quote:I'd also recommend M. John Harrison's Viriconium sequence, but I'm not sure if it's available in the US.
I've been able to find only one used copy of the first book -- and if it's that hard to find on Amazon, I'm fairly certain the series won't be in my local bookstores.
Once I finish the list I've set (which goes back far enough that the last couple chapters of Guns, Germs, And Steel remain unread), I'll check it out along with those short stories you mentioned.
quote:But recently I've read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen Donaldson, and it's truly great. I'm still looking for someone with whom to talk about these six books. They have made such an impression on me. They've meant more to me than any books I've read in a long long time. I feel sure I'll read them more than once.
Anne Kate, I think I've heard of these. I don't have the time to pick them up before I leave, but I'll make sure to get the first book when I return.
quote:Steve Brust's Taltos Cycle, and his hysterical Dumas parodies (The Phoenix Guard and others)
Heh. Good taste, Tom. I love the historian Brust creates to tell Khaavren's story. Especially the bits where he includes a foreword by the supposed publisher about the historian's mad pimpin' skillz.
quote:Everything I would have mentioned has been said, except for Roger Zelazny's Amber series. The first five are better than the second five, but all ten are quite good. It makes more sense, and makes me think more, every time I reread it.
Amazingly enough, I actually have the giant Amber book -- a friend gave it to me as a gift, but I've yet to read it. I'll pack it with me and give it a shot.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Lalo, I may be repeating but here goes. Anything by Gene Wolfe is incredible to me, especially his Book of the New Sun + 1 series, his Book of the Long Sun series, and his Book of the Short Sun series (recently completed (I hope!) by Return to the Whorl.) Enough praise cannot be heaped upon him in my eyes. 'Nuff said. Almost as good is Zelazney. Lesser writers wish they could write just one "weak" Zelazney story. I've read much of his work for 25 years and have rarely (never?) been disapointed.
George Alec Effinger (a sadly much overlooked writer) came up with a weird little fantasy called "What entropy means to me" which I've always found hysterical.
Fred Saberhagen's Empire of the East trilogy is very cool, easy to read yet with many hidden depths, as are the follow up Sword books ( but there's a lot--10 Sword books?).
Patricia McKillip wrote a great fantasy trilogy in The Riddlemaster of Hed and two others.
Also, read Brokedown Palace by Brust. It has some (not too much) backstory for the Vlad series and stands on it's own merits as well. Well, enough. Of all the above, pick Wolfe or Saberhagen first. Morbo Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
All I can say is that I hope this doesn't lessen your appreciation of Tolkien...
Hobbes Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, another fantasy novel you might try is Matthew Woodring Stover's Heroes Die. It's down-and-dirty fantasy that's as subtle as a tonne of something very dense--and that applies to both the chop-socky action and the symbolism--but it works. I'd put it rather lower down on the list than the other books I mentioned, but only because the others are that good, IMHO.
I've ordered it, and it'll be waiting for me when I return. Thanks for the help, dude.
The sequel, Blade of Tyshalle is every bit as good.
--------------------------
Okay, for the record, I like the LOTR movies well enough, and loathe the actual books. I tried to read them after the 1st movie came out and it's drek, pure and simple. Couldn't get past the 1st 100 pages or so.
That said, here's my list (with repeat recommendations, of course):
Dennis L. McKiernan -- all his Mithgar books. All 14 of them. . . . The beauty of it is that they really don't have to be read in order, other than within their respective trilogy or duology. I'd actually suggest starting with Dragondoom and then moving into The Iron Tower Trilogy then The Silver Call Duology. And while they're not listed as a duology, Eye of the Hunter comes before Silver Wolf, Black Falcon. He actually gets a lot of criticism as a "Tolkien rip-off." He makes no bones about writing in homage to Tolkien. I find his writing style much more to my taste. His 2 non-Mithgar books are quite enjoyable too.
Michael Stackpole -- everything by him (well, except his Battletech books. Even the few in that universe that I've read are/were a cut above), but especially Talion: Revenant and his Dragoncrown Cycle.
Matther Woodring Stover -- Heroes Die and Blade of Tyshalle
Geroge RR Martin -- already mentioned many times
David Drake -- Lord of the Isles series
Eric Flint -- 1632 and 1633
Eric Flint & David Drake -- the Belisarius series. 5 books, beginning with An Oblique Approach
Harry Turtledove -- the Darkness series. It's WWII written in a fantasy world. Way cool. Leviathins = subs, Behemoths = tanks, sticks = rifles, etc. It sounds cheesy, but it works.
David Feintuch -- The Still followed by The King. His Hope SF series about character Nicholas Seafort is quite good too.
Deborah Chester -- The Sword, The Ring, and The Chalice followed up by The Queen's Gambit.
There are more, but I think that's good for now.
Edit that darn ubb.
[ July 12, 2003, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Magson ]
Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
You guys ripping on Tolkien crack me up. Why do you think elves and dwarves are considered cliche? Because Tolkien set the bar so high with them that everyone thought that was the only way to do things. He simultaneously defined and redefined the fantasy genre, much as Jimi Hendrix did with guitar. Just like Hendrix, once everyone saw what Tolkien was doing, they knew that he was WAY ahead of his time, and operating on a level other people wouldn't reach for decades, if at all.
The reason that everything is so black and white, good and evil, is because it's a fairy tale. Read the Silmarillion, and espeically read the newer edition with the Tolkien essay at the beginning. He was trying to create a fairy tale--one that felt English--that was a truly epic and timeless story. It's ABOUT the battle between Good and Evil. If what you're looking for three-dimensional characters, you've got them--all of the Nine have their own vices, follies, and weaknessess. If you're looking for turncoats, you've got them. But if you're looking for sort of moral middle ground, where evil isn't all that evil, and good isn't all that good, you're missing the point completely. Sauron is, quite literally, the Devil's right-hand man. There's no good in him, nor in his minions. If he wins, everyone becomes a slave to evil . . . why do you crave ambiguousness here?
I dunno. Tolkien's the bomb. The Trilogy's the bomb. LoTR started everything, and it's still incredible today. If you dismiss those books because it's been "done before" . . . it was done before by them. Don't dismiss the original because you don't care for the copycats.
Peace policy
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Tolkien's the bomb."
I think that's spelled "da bomb."I agree either way.
For those of you who like high fantasy in the Tolkien style, there is a book which is fantasy(I am not quite sure which genre it is to be honest) based on the story of "The Ring of the Niebelung." It gives excellent background on the Germanic myths.
The author is Stephan Grundy. The novel is "Rhinegold."
He also wrote a novel based on the "Epic of Gilgamesh,"and a sequel to "Rhinegold" called "Atilla"(I think-it is about Atilla)(Attila?)(Attilla?)(Atila?)
Liz
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
There was no genre of fantasy before Tolkien was published. I have one that was printed long enough ago that they still were being marketed as sort of kids' books. There's a funny dancey font that the title is in, as though it's not a serious book at all. Lord of the Rings! <laughs> There was no way to market them as fantasy because there WAS NO SUCH GENRE before these became wildly popular.
It's hard for me to imagine anyone not liking Tolkien. I've read the Hobbit and LoTR at least 10 times, probably more like 15. But I've heard some people say the writing sounds stilted to them or overly formal. Remember that this is a chronicle handed down from another time. It's supposed to read like scriptures, sort of. Like Beowulf or Homer or greek mythology or something. It's right for it to be in rather lofty language like some ancient high legend, because it's a book like that.
Also remember that almost everyone that reads loves these books, so open your mind and try to see what it is that we all love. But if it doesn't work then give it up. Not all people are meant to appreciate all things. I can't bear Dickens, or Mozart, and I just don't think I ever will. So I know how you feel. I hate it that you have to miss something that's so good, though!
[ July 12, 2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:LoTR started everything
True.
quote:and it's still incredible today.
I disagree.
quote:If you dismiss those books because it's been "done before" . . . it was done before by them. Don't dismiss the original because you don't care for the copycats.
Huh? I reviewed previous posts and find none of them "ripping" Tolkien for being cliche. I ripped him because I can't stand his writing style. No mention of dwarves, elves, or hobbits. McKiernan's work (that I recommend instead of Tolkien) has elves, dwarf, giants, mages, black mages, dragons, demons, fairies, pixies, and warrows (hobbits), etc. I love it. It WRITING STYLE not the "building blocks."
In your opinion, Tolkien's "da bomb." In mine, he can't write worth sh. . . . I recognize that he's considered to have pioneered the genre (even though he merely popularized it), and say "props to Tolkien for that." That doesn't mean that I think he actually wrote anything worth reading in its original form. That's why I like the movies better -- they got rid of most of the boring drek and just distilled it down to the "good bits."
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Hey, not everyone likes everything. Even stuff that's really great. My older brother thinks Dostoyevsky is a terrible writer. He thinks Tom Clancy beats Dostoyevsky any day of the week. That if Dostoyevsky just wrote more like old Tom he'd've had something going, maybe.
Not everyone can appreciate all things. We each are limited to those things we are able to understand how to appreciate. When other people all seem to like something a lot and I don't, then I try it a few times, talk to people about what's so good about it, and check it out again after some time has gone by, and then if I still don't like it I give up.
[ July 12, 2003, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I don't like the LotR movies, I don't think. Visually they're stunning. I'm completely happy with the way everything and everybody looks. But the storytelling just misses the whole thing that's good about Tolkien, I think. He's taken my favorite story ever and made it into an action flick.
This won't stop me from going to see RotK, or from buying all the dvds, or from buying every book about making the movies that comes out. But I am disappointed. He's made some interesting movies, but they're just action flicks. The qualities I love about the LotR story are missing from the movies.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Magson and AK, I wonder how much of liking LotR depends on WHEN you read it? I read it when I was thirteen(I am 39)(I will be 38 in Nov) It changed my reading world. Now, there is so much good fantasy out there, perhaps LotR does not have the same appeal.
If I read it for the first time as an adult, I honestly don't know how I would feel. One of the saddest things in the world, to me, is that I can only read a book for the first time, once. Rereading is never, ever the same. I may find new things(esp. in Shakespeare), but I can never regain that "first read" experience.
Just a thought, Liz
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I read it for the first time when I was around 16 or 17, I think. My sister got me the hobbit cause it was something the kids at UNC liked that it seemed not many people had heard of. She thought I would like it and she was right. My younger brother got it from me and then our dad got it from us, because it became so important to us that he wanted to know what was going on too. <laughs> He loved it as well.
I don't think it matters what age you are when you first read it. It's like Shakespeare or Homer. It's just good no matter what.
But it's funny that hardly anyone at my college had heard of it back then. It was published in the 50s but it took several decades to pick up and take off, since it was so different than anything up to then, nobody knew how to take it. It just was quietly spread by word of mouth among intellectuals and college circles.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
AK, In 1976, our English teacher taught it in the 8th grade. I left the school after 7th grade, and I was so bummed. It was considered "the thing." Liz
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Cool! Where in the country were you? It was in about 1974 that I first read it, I think. I started college in 1976 and nobody at my school (a small quite provencial school), seemed to have heard of it then.
[ July 12, 2003, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Hmm . . . so many posts to respond to . . .
quote: That man had once written off all non-Tolkien fantasy (except Brust) as the usual troll-and-unicorn crap
The only fantasy I've ever read that fits that description is by Piers Anthony . . .
Everybody seems to go immediately for Amazon when looking for out of print books, but BN.com is much better. Unlike Amazon, you don't wait to hear back from them, and then give them approval to charge you whatever they want, and send you a copy of the book that may be in great shape or terrible shape. Instead, on BN, you browse the selections of their used book suppliers yourself. In this case, competition is a good thing. You can see what each will charge you and a description of what kind of shape the book is in. Then you can decide if you want to pay $3 for a paperback with some minor coffee stains, $4 for a paperback in mint condition, $12 for a hardback first edition in mint condition, $45 for an autographed hardback, or $37 for a mauled ex-library book. Seriously, go to BN.com when looking for used books!
quote: On a side note, I'm absolutely baffeled as to why books like The Wizard’s First Rule and the Eye of the Beholder (Wheel o’ Time) has such a large fan base. I’m a big fantasy buff myself but I could never see what people ever saw in these books.
I assume you mean Eye of the World. I don't equate these two (Jordan and Goodkind), although I won't work too hard to defend either here. I read all of the Jordan books. I loved the world-building and the characters. If Jordan wasn't so cynically manipulating his readership through a neverending series, I'd say he could well out-Tolkein Tolkein. Since that's not the case, though, I'll just leave it at he's a talented writer with a great imitation of Tolkein's world. Not great stuff by any stretch, but still fun reading.
As for Goodkind . . . I just finished Faith of the Fallen and have just begun The Pillars of Creation. I agree completely on Wizard's First Rule. I could find very little of merit in this book, and generally speaking, in the series. That fact that Goodkind could get this published does not speak well of the fantasy industry. I have seen slight improvements in his writing, and Faith of the Fallen was the best of the lot so far. I would describe that book as the sort of fantasy novel that could be written by a love child of Robert Asprin and Ayn Rand. Yeah, it's like that. Still, not great. Not even as good as Jordan at his worst. But an improvement over the Piers-Anthony-with-diarrhea that was Wizard's First Rule. Simplistic politics, but at least he finally had something to say. And now I've started the last book and seen that it's still crappy writing (I had almost come to believe that Goodkind was in the process of discovering his talent). What this man needs is an editor, in the worst possible way. I don't think any writer anywhere has ever needed someone to cut down his excess so desperately. Stephen King says in revising you should cut 10%; Goodkind would be well-advised to cut 60%.
I am intrigued with Meiville's critique of imitative fantasy. I haven't yet gotten around to reading her (?) work, but I suspect, from what I've heard from those of you that like her, that I would too. But I think she's more than a little out of line in her bashing of Tolkein.
ak, I never liked the Thomas Covenant books, because, like you, I despised Covenant. I just couldn't get over the Very Bad Thing. I understand what people keep saying about a flawed hero having more to teach us, but there's flawed heroes and there's FLAWED heroes, know what I mean?
Still, it may be that I was too young when I read these books. I was in my adolescence, and perhaps had not matured enough to appreciate them. Maybe some day in the very distant future I will bring myself to read them again.
As far as Tolkein, I feel very strongly both ways.
When I read LOTR, at the age of 12, it changed my life. But I was in many ways more patient then with bad writing. I think this is a case of a great story overcoming lackluster writing skills, and I think his tendency to write unbearably thick and stilted prose would put me off a great deal more today.
The Silmarillion is just garbage. If you don't see that, you've let your Tolkein-worship get the better of you.
^ smiley to get leniency from the people I will offend with the above pronouncement
As far as the movies, I did not like FOTR very much at all. It was boring, too long, visually repetitive (though beautiful and stunning), and aurally unpleasant.
In TTT, though, the scope of this amazing story began to take shape. I was very pleased with the execution of the middle chapter.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
quote: I haven't yet gotten around to reading her (?) work, but I suspect, from what I've heard from those of you that like her, that I would too.
Just for your info., Meiville is a guy. I think ae and Tom_D also recommended Perdido Street Station by him. I just read it, and Scar, about a month ago, and they're very good, very inventive books.
Posted by Hi (Member # 5289) on :
quote:On a side note, I'm absolutely baffeled as to why books like The Wizard’s First Rule and the Eye of the Beholder (Wheel o’ Time) has such a large fan base. I’m a big fantasy buff myself but I could never see what people ever saw in these books.
quote:I assume you mean Eye of the World.
It's people like you, who make me feel stupid.
*Hits Icarus with a thick volume of WFR*
Punk. Posted by bone (Member # 5277) on :
I recomend Wheel of Time that starts with Eye of the World by Robert Jordan (9 more books out after that so far) and the Dragon Lance Trilogy that consists of Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Dragons of Winter Night and Dragons of Spring Dawning By Margret Wiess and Tracy Hickman. The Dragonlance books furher go on in another trilogy the Legends Trilogy then 2nd Generation and finally Dragons of Summer Flame.
All 8 are pretty good the first two trilogies (6 books) of this series are the main story however the other 2 are added on and later in the timeline.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
I believe there are more than 20 dragonlance books which involve the cast of Caramon, Raistlin, Tanis, Tas etc.
-There are 6 which are a history of the characters. -6 which take place during a 5-year period in which the group separated. -The dragon trilogy. -The twins trilogy. -The second generation books. -There's a new trilogy now, of which I believe two books have been released. -And there's also a new trilogy which delves further into the tale of the twins. -Plus many short stories.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, look. In a thread about good fantasy novels, all mention of Dragonlance should be kept well away.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
I'll admit, Dragonlance has kind of degenerated into a choose your own adventure-type series, but Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman are pretty good writers, and some of those books are more than decent.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Okay, look. In a thread about good fantasy novels, all mention of Dragonlance should be kept well away."
Listen, Mister, Weis and Hickman wrote one of the best series I have ever read. Ok, it wasn't the Dragonlance series, but it did have a few dragons in it. It was called, um, well, I forget what the series was called, but the books were: DRAGON WING ELVEN STAR FIRE SEA SERPENT MAGE THE HAND OF CHAOS THE SEVENTH GATE
Oh. yeah, the Death Gate series!I just loved it. Liz
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Icarus,
AK liked Tom Covenant. I was the one who hated him, the whiny s.o.b that (I think) he was. (No offense to Covenant lovers)
AK, I really want to know why people love that series. Should I read the next trilogy? Am I missing something in the first three books? I could have gotten past "the bad thing,"but not the way he handled it. I just felt so very sad about EVERYTHING.
Also, I see the WHEEL of TIME to be based more on the Arthurian legend, vaguely, than Tolkien. Tolkien himself based his stories on the Celtic-Norse myths, so any other fantasies which base their world on those myths come off as Tolkienesque.
I liked The Wheel of Time, until I started to feel like I was being toyed with. Also, Jordan is way too into women getting spanked, especially by other women. It really started to get on my nerves after a while.
Liz
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Tolkien did not create the fanatsy genre! What about Poul Anderson? What about Hope Mirrlees? What about Mervyn Peake? What about Lord Dunsany, fer cryin' out loud! The claim that Tolkien invented fantasy as we know it is born either out of ignorance (in as unpejorative a sense as possible) or selective amnesia.
I have no problem with his writing per se--unlike China Mieville, who loathes it mainly, it seems, because he's a socialist, I merely view it with a mild disinterest--but words cannot express how much it irks me to see Tolkien touted as, effectively, "the original and still the best" while other writers of--and this is only my opinion--superior skill and inventiveness are forgotten entirely.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Interesting, because I thought that Jordan was way better toward his women than Tolkein.
And I caught your stance and AK's; I was referring to her statement that she didn't like Covenant at first, although she came to love the series.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Um, Poul Anderson wrote a couple of decades after Tolkien. Tolkien is my grandfather's age (actually 10 years older or so). He fought in World War I. Anderson is my parents' age. I met him. He came to speak to our SF club on campus. He definitely post-dates Tolkien. Don't know those other people but I'm pretty sure if they wrote fantasy that they must post date him too. He did invent the genre in modern English writing. Of course mythologies of many cultures could be called fantasy, and those he DID draw upon. But there was no genre of fantasy, no way to market his books, when he wrote them.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword was published in 1954.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Tolkien did not create the fanatsy genre!"
I am not quite sure if you are referring to my comment about writers who base their stories on Celtic myths? What I meant was that Tolkien did, and other writers did, but the others often did so on their own, not necessarily to copy Tolkien. It is assumed by many that the writers were copying Tolkien, because they didn't realize he was copying someting himself. Oh, great, I'm sure that really cleared things up.
Icarus, About the view of women: I think Tolkien came from a very different world. It is kind of like the Hemingway argument to me.
Jordan started to give me the creeps. For some reason, the writer's persona started leaking out, and it made me feel uncomfortable. I am the weird one, I'm sure, because I have mentioned this before and no one sees it the way I do.
Liz
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:Don't know those other people but I'm pretty sure if they wrote fantasy that they must post date him too.
ARGH!
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Heh heh heh.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<smiles sweetly>
Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
First of all, I want to apologize if this thread has meandered off these topics; I just found this post half-written this morning and I wanna finish it.
Magson-- I quote "Hi":
quote:After reading Meiville' article I like to add, that I don't like Tolkien fantasy either. I never liked elves, unicorns and gnomes and stuff like that, particularly if they're cliché. I can tolerate it but I'm not the biggest fan.
I just have to say it- I'm no big fan of Tolkien either, but mainly because I stopped right when I got to the part with the elves- I wasn't that attached to the characters much at that point too so I had not felt any need to continue at that time. I do plan on continuing on eventually. If it has a good plot then I‘ll like it regardless of the elves, gnomes and trolls.
I took this to mean "Tolkien uses elves and stuff, and that's like totally cliche now, so I can't be bothered". That just makes me crazy. There WEREN'T elves, in the way we think of them now, before Tolkien! He did it first, he did it best.
I don't know what all you consider to be "boring drek"; every word of the trilogy is exquisitely crafted and honed; he was a professor of language (that's how he created authentic-feeling languages from scratch).
Sorry, but dismissing Tolkien like that is like saying, "Hey, you said this Hendrix guy was all great, but everyone has done this stuff a million times. Whenever he starts using the wah and whammy like that, I'm like 'whatever', 'cuz I heard Sum 41 do that once and it was like so much more rad."
Peace policy
Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
For what it's worth, I didn't read a word of Tolkien until two months before Fellowship of the Ring came out. I devoured the whole trilogy in a couple of days, the Hobbit a few days afterward, and I'm still slowly working my way through the Silmarillion (which is written like the Bible--a bland reciting of myth and legend and historical text, all rolled into one and served up interminable--still, it sheds new light on the events in the trilogy).
No, I haven't read as much fantasy as some people here, but I still say Tolkien's stuff is incredible. The language isn't "stilted", it's beautiful, and it's exactly as it's supposed to be. He wrote in the style in which he intended--if the story were written in contemporary casual language, it wouldn't have the ancient feel and texture that makes it so great. Epic tales of good and evil, set in an ancient and magical world, work a lot better when the language isn't modern and colloquial (Piers Anthony, I'm talking to you). Tolkien's quality shows through in every sentence--I've never seen a story world so finely crafted, so incredibly consistent, so minutely detailed and powerfully enchanting. He dedicated his life to writing these books, and it shows. Sorry if there isn't enough humor or sarcasm or more hack-and-slash in there for ya . . .
Whatever. To each his own; I'll shut up now.
Peace policy
[ July 13, 2003, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: policyvote ]
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Policy -- yup, we seem to like different things.
I don't believe that Tolkien's "every word" is crafted and placed with precision. It comes off to me as simply overwrought. And his pacing is simply atrocious. Glacial describes a pace that's faster than his plot. So I guess we get to agree to disagree.
FWIW, as a young teen (like 12-13 age) I lovedThe Hobbit. I actually wore out a copy of it because I reread it so many times. I eventually worked my way over to LOTR at age 14, read it once, was bored by it then, but did make it all the way through. Tried to read The Silmarillion but couldn't get out of the 1st chapter. I never looked at Tolkien again, until after the movies came out. I tried to start the books again, but it took me 5 weeks to get to the Tom Bombadil scene in FOTR, when I normally read about a 500-600 page book in a week. After all that time I realized the book just couldn't grab me -- in fact it was downright boring. I'll never read Tolkien again.
Policy,vote, have you ever tried reading Dennis McKiernan? Many who do dismiss him as a Tolkien rip-off. He specifically states at his website that he became an author because of Tolkien and that he wrote in homage to him. His pace is also relaxed, yet something about how he uses the language grabs me, draws me in, and doesn't let go. In his Iron Tower trilogy, the "final battle"/climax of the books actually occurs right about halfway through the 3rd book, then he has a wonderful denouement of 100+ pages. Plus his characters are wonderful, well-drawn, fleshed out, and I rejoiced in their joy, and wept (literally) at the price they paid to push back the evil in their world. McKiernan "does it" for me. Tolkien doesn't.
Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
No, I haven't tried McKeirnan yet, but now certainly will. I hope I like his stuff as much as you do!
I guess I can understand how you might be bored by Tolkien's pacing. For me, the language and the milieu pulled powerfully enough that I didn't notice how long it took for stuff to start happening. It might have to do with my childhood love affair with C.S. Lewis' work--I guess my paradigm for fantasy is that it should sound old and self-important.
Peace policy
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:I guess my paradigm for fantasy is that it should sound old and self-important.
In that case, McKiernan's still got your back.
Edit: Here are some brief reviews of several of McKiernan's books. This reviewer liked Dragondoom the most -- same as me. That's still my favorite book of all time, 16 years after I 1st read it. In re the Iron Tower he said "by the end of the series I was more than a little misty eyed." If you look up one post, you'll see I had a similar reaction. . . . Good stuff!
[ July 13, 2003, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Magson ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Magson, you and I have COMPLETELY different tastes in books; I detect a kind of "fantasy Tom Clancy" vein in you that, whenever I run across it in novels, makes me twitch -- and, like policy, LOVE the "glacial pacing" of LotR.
Christy had some trouble with the initial pacing of Fellowship, so I had to read it to her to get her through the first few chapters. After that, she enjoyed it enormously.
Me, I LIKE the fact that Tolkien was able to maintain a consciously epic style as well as he did; not all stylistic touches are bad, and not all "accessible" books are improvements on their inspirations. (Compare the God-awful Sword of Shannara to the original, for example, and see what I mean.)
BTW, I did like Weis' Death Gate books. But Dragonlance is still dreck. Posted by Hi (Member # 5289) on :
From policyvote:
quote:I took this to mean "Tolkien uses elves and stuff, and that's like totally cliche now, so I can't be bothered".
I do read any fantasy, clichéd or not if I heard it was good then of course I'll read it. So it is not as you put it, "Tolkien uses elves and stuff, and that's like totally cliche now, so I can't be bothered". I gave it a chance and like I mentioned, I still plan to give it a chance. I have a list of things that I consider essential reads and Lord of the Rings is one of them. I might come back after reading it, liking it. Or I might come back after reading it, not liking it. Hyperion is an example of an essential I came back liking. Dune is an example I came back thinking it was okay, but not enjoying it.
I admit, I do tend to have a bias when it involves a certain elements mostly due to bad experiences involving that particular type of fantasy but all in all- it comes to certain things that make me stop reading. Elves had been a factor that stopped me reading. I can’t deny it and like I pointed out- I like character development. It didn't have character development quite yet (Okay, so it’s just the beginning.) so I didn't feel motivated to continue on. I read a lot of stories with characters that were, to me, rather two dimensional but with an amazing plot or wonderful world building (Niel Gaiman's "Neverwhere" comes into mind as well as- and probably many people will argue this- Dune.)
Probably the biggest reason that I had not mentioned for not finishing the book was because I didn't like the Hobbit. I read it, thought it was okay, but did not enjoy it. So yes, this was probably the biggest reason that made me not want to continue on. From what I heard, If you like the Hobbit, you’ll like Lord of the Rings. I also heard if you don’t like the Hobbit you can still like Lord of the Rings but like I said, I do plan on continuing because I heard such great things but you can understand how I am hesitant, right? If you had read a book you didn’t like, wouldn’t you feel rather hesitant to read any of his other books?
Quote from me:
quote:After reading Meiville' article I like to add, that I don't like Tolkien fantasy either. I never liked elves, unicorns and gnomes and stuff like that, particularly if they're cliché. I can tolerate it but I'm not the biggest fan.
When I say Tolkien fantasy. I mean the type of fantasy that descended from Tolkien, not exactly Tolkien himself.
Another quote from me:
quote: I just have to say it- I'm no big fan of Tolkien either, but mainly because I stopped right when I got to the part with the elves- I wasn't that attached to the characters much at that point too so I had not felt any need to continue at that time. I do plan on continuing on eventually. If it has a good plot then I‘ll like it regardless of the elves, gnomes and trolls.
*shuffles feet* Okay, that just me trying to make my point and sometimes I exaggerate when attempting to do that. Elves are part of the reason but not like I stated above in my second and third paragraph, my main one. I also said that I am not a big fan of Tolkien because I have not finished his book yet.
From PV:
quote: That just makes me crazy. There WEREN'T elves, in the way we think of them now, before Tolkien! He did it first, he did it best.
Oh, sorry about that. I admit, that’s just my ignorance and lack of knowledge in the book.
quote: Sorry, but dismissing Tolkien like that is like saying, "Hey, you said this Hendrix guy was all great, but everyone has done this stuff a million times. Whenever he starts using the wah and whammy like that, I'm like 'whatever', 'cuz I heard Sum 41 do that once and it was like so much more rad."
I am not saying Tolkien is not great because I heard it a million times before. I’m just saying I don’t think I will like it because ordinarily, I don’t like that type of fantasy. I think it would be more along of lines of,
“Hey, you say this Hendrix guy was all great but whenever he starts using the wah and whammy like that, I cringe because I am reminded of Sum 41 stuff and think it’s horrible.”
I said, I will continue on. I’m annoyed when people don’t give Harry Potter a chance simply because of the apparent hype. It would be rather hypocritical of me to read like say, a Harlequin romance and declare it trash, then refusing to read any Jane Austin books or Gone with the Wind. I said I wasn’t a fan of Tolkien because I had not read Tolkien, and although I had stopped because I was reminded of bad past experiences I plan on continuing on because I don’t want to dismiss it simply because I have seen it done before and simple because I have seen it done badly.
Uh, long post but I hope that clarifies a couple of things.
[ July 13, 2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Hi ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"But Dragonlance is still dreck."
Tom, I hope you know my "Listen, Mister" thing was teasing... It's funny, I must have been protected form an unseen force from reading the Dragonlance series. My library never seems to have the first book in the series when I go to look for it. It must be an omen. If you liked Deathgate, but still hated the other, I will take your word for it.
One thing about many fantasy series' is that the books are long. if I like them, that is great, but I get mightily mad when I plod through a whole book I am not really inspired by. I am a fairly slow reader, so time is an issue.
Liz
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Tom, could you define "fantasy Tom Clancy?" I don't get it. Perhaps some examples of which books I've recommended that you feel fit into that mold?
Of course, you're also the one who keeps telling me I should read the next 2 Thomas covenant books, so I know we definitely don't always like the same books. Sorry, but after the 1st one was just so much suckage, I'm not about to read any more Donaldson.
Terry Brooks is another author I don't read. Shanarra? Magic Kingdom for Sale? *shudders*
DragonLance -- the 1st one was good as a teenager. I can see the flaws in it now that I'm a "more mature reader." It's still fun. Considering that Weis and Hickman were game designers, not authors when they wrote it, and it's actually a pretty stunning achievement. The 2nd and 3rd books were much better, although, admittedly not "great." I think the 2nd trilogy, Legends, was most excellent, though. The reset of it is largely garbage written by other authors. I did like Rickard Knaak's Legend of Huma. Still, I stopped reading new DL books a loooong time ago. I'll admit to picking up the 2 Weis & Hickman "5th age" ones, but I wan't terribly impressed with them. Loved Darksword, didn't care for Rose of the Prophet, loved Death Gate, and while I've enjoyed their latest 2 in a new world, I can't remember what they're called, so they must not be standouts. Still, I'll give W&H props for being the "hook" that really got me into fantasy in the 1st place, just like OSC, Heinlein, and Herbert got me into Sci-fi.
And if anyone can stomach a sci-fi recc, I just finished The Reality Dysfunction (parts 1 & 2) by Peter Hamilton, and they're simply amazing. Now I have to go get The Neutronium Alchemist and The Naked God to see how it all turns out.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Speaking of Tom Clancy, I just learned today that he has a new book starring Jack Ryan Jr. as the main character. Is it just me, or is that really, really sad?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:The Silmarillion is just garbage. If you don't see that, you've let your Tolkein-worship get the better of you.
Philistine. Silmarillion was beautiful.
I am somewhat of an oddity, since I LOVE the pacing and rhythm of ancient myth. I don't know many other people who like to read Celtic myth. And I was into mythology long before I found fantasy. Also keep in mind that Silmarillion was assembled posthumously from all sorts of random notes and stories (Guy Gavriel Kay was one of the editors, btw).
Tolkien wasn't writing a story. He was writing a complete mythology for a fictional world. The Hobbit is a "story," the way we think of it now. LOTR was not meant to be so. If you try to read it as such, you will likely be disappointed. And I also generally demand that people read to the end of the first book (about halfway through Fellowshi), since that is where the story really takes off.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
For all the Tolkien defenders that have spoken - I love you.
For the comment about women in LotR, it's hard to say the Professor didn't treat women well, in that there just weren't that many of them in the story. But Eowyn and Galadriel were not there just for decoration, and both of them were strong, even frightening in their own way. Neither one of them can be dismissed as a "typical" female character.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: Silmarillion was beautiful.
Please answer the following questions:
Are you a guy?
Are you single?
Are you Christian?
Do you like chocolate?
If your answer to all of the above questions is yes, then I know someone who would like to marry you.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
See, problem is, I can say yes to all but the most important of those.
Chocolate? Check. Christian? Check. Single? Check. Guy? We have a problem here.
Sorry. I would have married you on the spot otherwise. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
It wasn't me, it was my friend. One of the essential things she's looking for in a guy is that he can say that the Similarrion is beautiful. Too bad you're not (a guy I mean). Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Isn't anyone going to acknowledge or rebut the fact that Tolkien didn't really found the modern genre of fantasy after all?
[ July 14, 2003, 04:04 AM: Message edited by: ae ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I thought that's what you were doing. More data! More details! You may possibly convince me.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Isn't anyone going to acknowledge that Tolkien didn't really found the modern genre of fantasy after all? Or try to rebut it?
ae I would say rather that he brought to a modern audience a sub-genre in fantasy ( though probably the largest sub-genre.), namely old english myth telling, with elves and dwarves etc. Yes, there were fantasy writers before JRRT. But not many. Look how many are around today. A lot of the explosive growth in fantasy is because of JRRT and LotR. He reinvented fantasy by inventing extensive fictional languages, geography, history, legends, etc. on a scale unheard of before in its depth.
This is what he should be remembered for--his incredible attention to detail, intricate plotting, charcterization, and imagery. He set the bar for all future fantasy writers, and he set it high. Morbo Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Well, not much evidence is needed, really. People were writing and publishing stuff in a somewhat similar vein to Tolkien's before and around the time that LotR was published. Ergo, Tolkien could not possibly have founded the genre of fantasy, or even the sub-genre of high fantasy. To attribute that position to him is unfair to the writers who did.
Disclaimer 1: He did, however, popularise the genre. No argument there.
Disclaimer 2: None of what I'm saying has anything to do with his merit.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Morbo:
quote:I would say rather that he brought to a modern audience a sub-genre in fantasy ( though probably the largest sub-genre.), namely old english myth telling, with elves and dwarves etc.
High fantasy, in other words. Yes, I agree.
quote:Yes, there were fantasy writers before JRRT. But not many. Look how many are around today. A lot of the explosive growth in fantasy is because of JRRT and LotR.
Unfortunately, in my opinion.
quote:He reinvented fantasy by inventing extensive fictional languages, geography, history, legends, etc. on a scale unheard of before in its depth.
I would dispute that, except of course for the fictional languages bit.
quote:This is what he should be remembered for--his incredible attention to detail, intricate plotting, charcterization, and imagery.
I would dispute this too.
quote:He set the bar for all future fantasy writers, and he set it high.
And, uh, this. Live and let live, I guess.
[ July 14, 2003, 04:34 AM: Message edited by: ae ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What you're saying, AE, is that you're simultaneously a Philistine AND a snob. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
AK: "Cool! Where in the country were you? It was in about 1974 that I first read it, I think. I started college in 1976 and nobody at my school (a small quite provencial school), seemed to have heard of it then."
It was 1976 and I was at a junior boarding school in Lake Placid, NY. (My dad taught there for a year) It was a neat school, and I taught there for two years after college. I think, though, that it was The Hobbit they taught in eighth grade, and then everyone read the rest of "The Trilogy," as we called it, on their own.
Eaquae Legit: "I am somewhat of an oddity, since I LOVE the pacing and rhythm of ancient myth."
I do, too. My favorite is The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I don't have anyone new to mention, but I'd just like to throw my own recommendation behind a few that are already out there.
Joel Rosenberg doesn't write deep, heavy stuff. If you're looking for something that will change your life, you may be disappointed. What he does write, though, are fun stories that include some of my favorite characters in all of fiction.
I'm a big fan of Roger Zelazney. He's written a lot of stuff, but I think what he's best known for (and rightly so) is his Chronicles of Amber series. I started with that one, and after that, the rest of his stuff just didn't measure up (although they were still good reading).
Gene Wolfe is my favorite writer, period. Everything I've ever read by him has at least impressed me, but many of his works have amazed me. My personal favorite is The Fifth Head of Cerberus, although he is best known for his The Book of the New Sun series, and it's sequel series, The Book of the Long Sun and The Book of the Short Sun. I just recently finished reading Peace, which is now giving Fifth Head a run for its money or the number one spot. Wolfe blurs the lines between the traditional speculative fiction genres and is, in my opinion, one of the best writers who ever lived.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Gene Wolfe is brilliant.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Lord of Light is the best thing Zelazney ever wrote, hands down.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:Isn't anyone going to acknowledge or rebut the fact that Tolkien didn't really found the modern genre of fantasy after all?
It depends on how you define 'modern' 'genre' and 'found.'
Every genre has its precursors. I don't see anyone arguing that Tolkien was the first writer of fantasy. Do you define 'genre' by a certain type of writing, certain elements, symbols, plotting, characters, etc.? Do you define it by when it first became a recognized marketing and publishing category and found a readership?
Modern is also relative. To me Dunsany is not a modern fantasy writer. But that's because I have a somewhat strict definition of 'modern.' And if you're going to include him, what about other authors of the early 20th and late 19th centuries who wrote 'fantastic' literature, but it was grouped more in the nebulous 'literary' category because fantasy wasn't quite yet a field of its own.
As fars as 'found' goes. This a term that will always be in contention, but really, the 'founding' of a literature happens when a great figure comes along -- even if there are precursors who influence him/her or who he/she stole from. Thus Eminescu *founded* Romanian literature. Chaucer *founded* English literature (or not -- there's a lot of room for discussion with that one -- I'd probably make the case for Shakespeare, but whatever).
I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Tolkien is the founder of the modern fantasy genre. And like most folks who do the 'founding' (Jedediah Springfield, for example), he gets more acclaim and more blame than he probably deserves.
-----
Wolfe's Fifth Head is quite remarkable. It's the kind of work that should be taught in intro. to lit classes, imo.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I read a bunch of Zelazny's "Amber" series, and I liked it, but didn't contine after the sixth book or so. I don't even remember why.
It reminded me of another writer I have not heard mentioned at all: Michael Moorcock. I guess he is both a sci fi and a fantasy writer. i read the "Messiah at the End of Time" series. I LOVED the first book, it is one of my very favorites.(People in the future go back into the past, capture people, and put them in a menagerie.)
I read a few books in the Elric saga.("Elric of Melnibone) It made me uncomfortable. I feel the same discomfort now, just writing about it. I am not sure why. I didn't dislike the books, I guess they were too dreamlike or something. Did anyone else read them?
Liz
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Zalmoxis:
quote:Every genre has its precursors. I don't see anyone arguing that Tolkien was the first writer of fantasy. Do you define 'genre' by a certain type of writing, certain elements, symbols, plotting, characters, etc.? Do you define it by when it first became a recognized marketing and publishing category and found a readership?
I would argue that by the first definition, Tolkien did not found the genre of fantasy. By the second, he did, but this doesn't seem to be what people mean when they say it. Look at these posts (emphases mine):
quote:You guys ripping on Tolkien crack me up. Why do you think elves and dwarves are considered cliche? Because Tolkien set the bar so high with them that everyone thought that was the only way to do things. He simultaneously defined and redefined the fantasy genre, much as Jimi Hendrix did with guitar. Just like Hendrix, once everyone saw what Tolkien was doing, they knew that he was WAY ahead of his time, and operating on a level other people wouldn't reach for decades, if at all.--policyvote
quote:There was no genre of fantasy before Tolkien was published. I have one that was printed long enough ago that they still were being marketed as sort of kids' books. There's a funny dancey font that the title is in, as though it's not a serious book at all. Lord of the Rings! <laughs> There was no way to market them as fantasy because there WAS NO SUCH GENRE before these became wildly popular.--ak
quote:He did invent the genre in modern English writing. Of course mythologies of many cultures could be called fantasy, and those he DID draw upon. But there was no genre of fantasy, no way to market his books, when he wrote them.--ak
quote:He reinvented fantasy by inventing extensive fictional languages, geography, history, legends, etc. on a scale unheard of before in its depth.--Morbo
Parts of these do refer to the genre as a marketing category, but that's not all they're referring to. They're saying that Tolkien did something new, and did it better than anyone who came before. This is what I disagree with.
quote:Modern is also relative. To me Dunsany is not a modern fantasy writer. But that's because I have a somewhat strict definition of 'modern.'
I'm not sure what relevance this has. "Modern" as we are using it isn't a separate clause; it is merely a part of "modern fantasy", which is a term we are using to refer to a certain sort of writing. Whether or not this genre did, in actual fact, arise in modern times is not pertinent to the discussion.
quote:And if you're going to include him, what about other authors of the early 20th and late 19th centuries who wrote 'fantastic' literature, but it was grouped more in the nebulous 'literary' category because fantasy wasn't quite yet a field of its own.
That's precisely my point: that Tolkien did not, in fact, do anything but popularise the fantastic! He made it widely read and he gave it its own marketing category, but that is all he did. The genre of literature existed before him, the most convenient example of this being Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword, even if it was perceived as being either a subset of Literature or of science fiction.
quote:As fars as 'found' goes. This a term that will always be in contention, but really, the 'founding' of a literature happens when a great figure comes along -- even if there are precursors who influence him/her or who he/she stole from. Thus Eminescu *founded* Romanian literature. Chaucer *founded* English literature (or not -- there's a lot of room for discussion with that one -- I'd probably make the case for Shakespeare, but whatever).
I'm not well-versed in this stuff. Could you explain in a bit more detail what exactly the founding of a branch of literature entails? "[T]he 'founding' of a literature happens when a great figure comes along" is not very helpful.
quote:Wolfe's Fifth Head is quite remarkable. It's the kind of work that should be taught in intro. to lit classes, imo.
I agree.
Elizabeth:
quote:I read a bunch of Zelazny's "Amber" series, and I liked it, but didn't contine after the sixth book or so. I don't even remember why.
Probably because the series got worse as it got longer.
quote:It reminded me of another writer I have not heard mentioned at all: Michael Moorcock. I guess he is both a sci fi and a fantasy writer.
Moorcock is one of those writers I respect but don't really like. I know I should assess his older works as products of their time and recognise how innovative and original they were, but I've been spoiled by newer, better things, and can't really appreciate it. I'll probably pick up some of his newer stuff some time.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I'm bumping this to give props to Martin and give Kasie a chance to take a look.
And again, though the fool that started this thread was entranced with Hobb, he was a fantasy virgin and knew no better. Hell, I'm not even a huge Brust fan anymore, and he's far above the average himself.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Oh yes. I've read Zelazny's Ridiculously Large Book of Amber, and it's truly memorable. Despite all the trauma therapy I'm taking to put it behind me.
Think Brust minus plot.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Most of my fantasy preferences have already been listed, but I didn't see anyone mention Card's own Hart's Hope which was excellent. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think everyone assumes that everyone else is familiar with Card's works, but yes, Hart's Hope is really good fantasy.
Eddie, I think I understand your disallusionment with Hobb, but did you try either of the following trilogies? They make the ending of the Farseer Trilogy make more sense I believe. It even becomes almost neccessary.
I admit that they are far from perfect works, but I wouldn't be ashamed of your praise. After all, I think Martin is Hobb's biggest fan .
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I don't care for Hobb, either. They kept me interested enough to finish, but when I was done I felt unfulfilled. Like eating a huge meal that was only illusion. In the end there's nothing left in your stomach. Does anyone else feel that about her? I am that way about much of fantasy, though, which is probably why I don't read it much. But UKL and Tolkien are different.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I've read people's complaints about Hobb, and I still don't get them. I have nothing but good to say about any of the Farseer, Liveship or Fool books. I think they're as well written as (or better than) any fantasy since Tolkien. Better than Martin, even (although I do really like Martin).
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
I'm currently reading them in Barnes and Nobles and hoping I finish before someone catches me.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I recall attempting (I can only assume that I was not sucessful) to register earlier this year or late last year. I guess I either decided to register as some form of "The Fool" instead or had got some error message through the process of registration. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)