Fantasy Books

[hewhocaves]

I don't read much fantasy, soley because it seems so repetitive (like Mr. Incredible says.. how many times do you have to save the world and can't it just stay saved?").

Hving said that, I liked David Farland's Runelords trilogy although the last book was a bit of a let down. More than that, there was a short set of books (two) by a scandinavian author (thorannon gunnarson or something like that) that was really good. I can't remember the name of the author correctly or the title of either book (and i lost both of them)

John

edit:
ah apparantly his name was Thorarrin Gunnersson. Song of the Dwarves. Also wrote some very bad DnD novels. Oh well.

 

[Jas]

I'm going to be seconding a few books here, especially the Rebecca Bradley nomination...she was actually my archaeology prof for one class. Fascinating woman, and her books are extremely well written.

I also love Mercedes Lackey, some of my favourites being the earlier Valdemar books (the last few are pretty awful though), Joust & Alta, Bardic Voices: The Lark & the Wren , the Elemental Masters series, and her collaboration with Andre Norton, The Elvenbane. The problem though, is she seems to reuse phrases to exhaustion, and many of her series (with a few exceptions), seem to peter out after the first book.

Other good ones are:

A Door Into Ocean : Definitely a must-read, and a favourite of lesbian lit profs (at least around here :b)

Kelley Armstrong : Urban fantasy, the first book is about a woman turned werewolf attempting to blend into human society.



Summon the Keeper : Another Canadian, though this book is my favourite. Quite funny, especially if you're canuck.


Kushiel's Dart : the first book in the series, and I'm halfway through it. Wonderful, however the protagonist is a female masochist, so it might not be for everyone.


The Mists of Avalon : How could we have gotten this far without anyone mentioning this? One of the best retellings of the Arthurian legend out there, however, I wasn't a big fan of the sequels/prequels.

 

[Vagabond]

To find out what other people think? It's sort of the same idea behind posting to internet message boards.<<<<

To what end? If nobodies opinion but your own has any bearing on matters of taste then getting other's opinion is a waste of time. Everybodies opinion doesn't matter. I don't care what an 11 year old might think, nor do I care what the opinion is of somebody who finds a book I think is excellent, insipid and dull or somebody who doesn't enjoy the fantasy genre in the first place. However, I do care what people of like mind and intellect think.

You might not like Dante as a whole. I don't either. However, often you will get something from a work that has value despite the fact the work isn't all that great. "the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in time of great crisis remain neutral." is one of my favorite quotes and I use it often. I would have missed out on this wisdom if I had avoided Dante because somebody like you said it was dull. For this reason it is lacking for you to give a blanket condemnation of a work, particularly when since you found it dull you probably didn't have sufficient intellect to understand it, nor did you probably give it a fair reading at the time either.

Shakespeare isn't considered great because everything he wrote is great. He is considered great because some of what he wrote is great. You might miss the great avoiding the not so great. Dante isn't perhaps a good example but Thomas Covenant would be considered highly by the vast majority of people who like fantasy. Thus why you would recommend it to somebody in the first place.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Tastes differ. You can care what someone says, or not. Up to you. Imposing your tastes on others isn't going to work. Get over it.

 

[Vagabond]

The problem though, is she seems to reuse phrases to exhaustion, and many of her series (with a few exceptions), seem to peter out after the first book.<<<<<

This is a common problem most authors have. Particularly when they put out a book such as Hyperion which was never intended to be anything other than a book, and when it sells a few copies because it's good, it's now suddenly a trilogy.

 

[Vagabond]

Tastes differ. You can care what someone says, or not. Up to you. Imposing your tastes on others isn't going to work. Get over it.

Particularly when like yourself you have no taste. Sorry I wasted my time trying to explain to you. It was obvious to me before the effort you don't have the intellect sufficient to understand. Keep reading and grow up some and perhaps you will someday.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Particularly when like yourself you have no taste. Sorry I wasted my time trying to explain to you. It was obvious to me before the effort you don't have the intellect sufficient to understand. Keep reading and grow up some and perhaps you will someday.

Ah, so anyone who doesn't enjoy the same books as you do is lacking in intellect. Got it.

 

[Bikewer]

Rancor and bitterness raises it's ugly head even on the most benign of threads.....

 

[UrsulaV]

I second the recomendations for China Mieville--I finished "Perdido Street Station," put it down, found my shoes, and bolted to the car to go buy the sequel.

Steven Brust's Taltos books are a great read, too.

Since nobody's mentioned him yet, Tim Powers--"The Anubis Gates" was wonderful, and I hate books with time travel with a passionate intensity bordering on the religious.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Rancor and bitterness raises it's ugly head even on the most benign of threads.....

Vagabond et. al., you are invited to take this to the "Your favourite fantasy author sucks" thread, which I created specifically as a forum for this kind of thing so it would not spoil this thread.

(And I did too mention Tim Powers and The Anubis Gates, but it does deserve a second mention because it is good. Or even a third, like this one).

 

[Leif Roar]

Dante isn't perhaps a good example but Thomas Covenant would be considered highly by the vast majority of people who like fantasy. Thus why you would recommend it to somebody in the first place.

Actually, from what I've seen on discussions on the subject, Thomas Covenant is one of those works that people either hate or love; seemingly in roughly equal numbers. As far as I've been able to judge, there is no consensus on whether the books are good or not, or on whether they are a central work in the fantasy genre or not.

(Personally I haven't read them; partly because the description of the books, both from people in the love camp and from people in the hate camp, suggests that it's not the kind of book I would enjoy, and partly because my one foray into Donaldson's authorship, the first Gap book, didn't strike any chords in me.)

 

[Darat]

Actually, from what I've seen on discussions on the subject, Thomas Covenant is one of those works that people either hate or love; seemingly in roughly equal numbers. As far as I've been able to judge, there is no consensus on whether the books are good or not, or on whether they are a central work in the fantasy genre or not.

I didn't like the first lot of Covenant books (not read any of new ones) but I would recommend them to someone who was looking for introductory works of fantasy. His writing is OKish, they are slightly different (although his bad guy Lord "Do you think my bum looks big in this? Isn't black concealing?" is a bit OTT and camp) then the run of the mill stories, I mean leprosy isn’t something that is integral to many books.

(Personally I haven't read them; partly because the description of the books, both from people in the love camp and from people in the hate camp, suggests that it's not the kind of book I would enjoy, and partly because my one foray into Donaldson's authorship, the first Gap book, didn't strike any chords in me.)

When the first "Gap" novel came out I read it and thought it was terrible, a friend of mine persevered with the series and recommended I read the rest, which I did. I'd second his recommendation - don’t judge the "Gap" series by the first book, as a whole work the series is surprisingly quite good!

 

[Kiless]

IWhen the first "Gap" novel came out I read it and thought it was terrible, a friend of mine persevered with the series and recommended I read the rest, which I did. I'd second his recommendation - don’t judge the "Gap" series by the first book, as a whole work the series is surprisingly quite good!

Agreed. Really got into the 'Gap' series, post the first book. I'm finding little else to do but chime in and agree with a lot of the posts but I do like Harry Harrison's works and what fantasy Alan Dean Foster wrote... although some may class a lot of what they wrote Sci Fi.

 

[Darat]

Agreed. Really got into the 'Gap' series, post the first book. I'm finding little else to do but chime in and agree with a lot of the posts but I do like Harry Harrison's works and what fantasy Alan Dean Foster wrote... although some may class a lot of what they wrote Sci Fi.

Alan Dean Foster is still with us and still writing! At one time I’m sure it was compulsory for him to provide the novel for every science-fiction or fantasy film released. His website can be found here: http://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm

(As an aside the friend I mentioned above was castigated in the local book shop for buying one of the "Spellsinger" series books - the reason being "it's about bestiality". Takes a special kind of mind to see things in a certain light doesn't it? )

 

[Vagabond]

Ah, so anyone who doesn't enjoy the same books as you do is lacking in intellect. Got it.

Doesn't have anything to do with what they enjoy or don't enjoy. It has to do with not being able to understand concepts. Rather like you chiming in when you have no clue as to the points being made.

 

[Vagabond]

Rancor and bitterness raises it's ugly head even on the most benign of threads.....

There is no nice way to tell somebody they are too unsophisticated to discuss the topic at hand.

 

[Vagabond]

Actually, from what I've seen on discussions on the subject, Thomas Covenant is one of those works that people either hate or love; seemingly in roughly equal numbers. As far as I've been able to judge, there is no consensus on whether the books are good or not, or on whether they are a central work in the fantasy genre or not.

(Personally I haven't read them; partly because the description of the books, both from people in the love camp and from people in the hate camp, suggests that it's not the kind of book I would enjoy, and partly because my one foray into Donaldson's authorship, the first Gap book, didn't strike any chords in me.)

And people either love or hate Shakepeare depending on whether they have the ability to understand him or not. I would say a vast majority of people would say comic books are superior literature to Shakespeare. That is hardly a reason not to read him. Nor does this make comic books great literature either. If you like deep books and have the capacity to understand them, then read them. If not don't read them or wait until you have more comprehension later in life.

I gave a speech on Lord of the Rings a few years back in my college literature class and not one person in about 30 including the teacher had ever heard of Lord of the Rings at the time. Now I would be hard pressed to find people who have not. This doesn't change the quality of the Lord of the Rings one way or the other. It was what it was when it was obscure and it's the same now it's popularist. You should not base judgements on such things.

 

[Vagabond]

When the first "Gap" novel came out I read it and thought it was terrible, a friend of mine persevered with the series and recommended I read the rest, which I did. I'd second his recommendation - don’t judge the "Gap" series by the first book, as a whole work the series is surprisingly quite good!<<<<<

As first books often are because they are largely exposition which isn't the most interesting thing to read but gives you deep characters which you can care about and which give the story more meaning. Imagine just watching fellowship of the ring or reading just that book and judging the entire thing from just that.

 

[Darat]

And people either love or hate Shakepeare depending on whether they have the ability to understand him or not.

I like some of Shakespeare’s works (not many) and others I don't, that's based on personal taste not on an understanding (or not) of the particular piece. We shouldn’t; forget that the only difficulty in understanding Shakespeare is that it is a now ancient form of English with a lot of historical allusions after all he was a popular playwright writing for the masses, the illiterate and uneducated masses at that.

I would say a vast majority of people would say comic books are superior literature to Shakespeare.

Really? I'd say the opposite. I think you might get a lot of people who would say something like "I know Shakespeare is meant to be great literature but I prefer comic books".

That is hardly a reason not to read him. Nor does this make comic books great literature either. If you like deep books and have the capacity to understand them, then read them. If not don't read them or wait until you have more comprehension later in life.

But Shakespeare didn’t (as far as we know) write any great, deep novels, he did a bit of verse and a few plays and whilst of course a play can be read it still remains a play.

I gave a speech on Lord of the Rings a few years back in my college literature class and not one person in about 30 including the teacher had ever heard of Lord of the Rings at the time.

I'm very surprised to hear that, after all an Amazon.com reader’s poll voted it the "The Book of the Millennium" and it was voted the country’s favourite and "Most Important Book of the 20th Century" in several UK national polls.

Now I would be hard pressed to find people who have not. This doesn't change the quality of the Lord of the Rings one way or the other. It was what it was when it was obscure and it's the same now it's popularist. You should not base judgements on such things.

Tolkein has never been “obscure” by any measure, consistently over many decades he remains one of the best selling authors.

Finally I take it just because Shakespeare remains popular no one should draw any conclusions about the merit of Shakespeare’s work from that ....

 

[Vagabond]

I'm very surprised to hear that, after all an Amazon.com reader’s poll voted it the "The Book of the Millennium" and it was voted the country’s favourite and "Most Important Book of the 20th Century" in several UK national polls.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vagabond

Now I would be hard pressed to find people who have not. This doesn't change the quality of the Lord of the Rings one way or the other. It was what it was when it was obscure and it's the same now it's popularist. You should not base judgements on such things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Tolkein has never been “obscure” by any measure, consistently over many decades he remains one of the best selling authors.

Finally I take it just because Shakespeare remains popular no one should draw any conclusions about the merit of Shakespeare’s work from that .... <<<<<

And when was this poll? Lord of the Rings didn't really sell any copies at all until the 70's at which time Tolkien himself had been dead for close to 15 years. LOTR has always had a classic quality among people who read fantasy, but fantasy is not a common genre to read. More than half of all books sold are some kind of romance novel. Another quarter are some kind of self help book. This leaves the remainder for all other types of literature. I wouldn't even consider the first two literature in the first place.


Shakespeare is the same, he is hardly popular among average folks nor have most people read any of his work except perhaps when forced to in high school. He is popular amongst people able to understand his work. Which is a small number. Also he was writing for illiterate people but this doesn't effect their hearing any. Which is why they were plays and not massive book publications. We don't really know much about common folk of the time, so their vocabularies or lack thereof is largely speculation. But, Shakespeare wouldn't have written them that way if he didn't think they wouldn't be understood by the audience nor would he have written so many if they weren't being understood. Just the fact you have the capacity to understand what he writes doesn't mean you are going to like it all, but this is necessary in order to like any of it in the first place.

Try reading "How it is" by Samuel Beckett. The entire book has no punctuation whatsoever. You will read the first few pages and think this is complete and utter nonsense. However if you keep reading you might just find it's argueably the deepest book ever written and makes perfect and profound sense. It's not for the faint of heart however nor the casual reader.