Fantasy Books

[Darat]

...snip...

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.

Late nineties - here is one from 1997 showing it number one: http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Bookmark/1997/March/top100.asp

LOTR has always had a classic quality among people who read fantasy, but fantasy is not a common genre to read.

Depends on the definition of "fantasy" you want to use, for instance fairy tales have always been popular.

More than half of all books sold are some kind of romance novel.
Another quarter are some kind of self help book.

Any evidence for that?

This leaves the remainder for all other types of literature. I wouldn't even consider the first two literature in the first place.

You don’t consider books such as "Jane Eyre" literature? You must use a different definition of "literature" then I do.

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.

Can you support the assertion that he is "popular amongst people able to understand his work" and the number of people who can understand him 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.

That is just totally untrue; there is a wealth of original 1st source material about the Elizabethans.

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.

Er? Don’t understand your point.

 

[Leif Roar]

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

This is where you commit one of the classical blunders -- the most famous of which is "Never engage in a major land war in Asia", but only slightly less famous is this: "Thinking that a disagreement of opinion must be caused by a lack of understanding."

With danger of committing a rethorical faux-pas, I'll make a line from a sit-com mine: "Oh, I get Shakespear all right; I just don't like him." Actually, I rather do like Shakespear; but the point is that it's quite possible to understand Shakespear and just plain not like it.

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

I'll pet you pennies to dollars that if you were to do a survey on the question "Which is greater litterature -- Shakespear or comic books?" more than 80% of the answers would be "Shakespear." (Remember that comic books are a niche, and most people don't read comic books at all.)

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.

We're discussing fantasy authors here. The above is a rather pretentious comment to make in a thread where we discuss the relative merits of David Eddings and Michael Moorcock. And you're still comming the same blunder, in that you imply that the only reason why someone wouldn't like, say, Donaldson, is because they just don't understand him.

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.

I stated my reasons for avoiding the Covenant books. Nowhere in those reasons did I include the book's popularity or lack of such. (Although, it would be silly to dismiss popularity when deciding which books to read. Overall, good books are more likely to be popular than bad books.)

 

[Leif Roar]

[BAnd 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.[/B]

You're wrong on both counts here. The books sold well from the start, and Tolkien didn't die until 1973.

From Wikipedia:
In the early 1960s, Donald A. Wollheim, science fiction editor of the paperback publisher Ace Books, realized that The Lord of the Rings was not protected in the United States under American copyright law because the US hardcover edition had been bound from pages printed in the UK for the British edition. Ace Books proceeded to publish an edition, unauthorized by Tolkien and without compensation to him. Tolkien made this plain to US fans who wrote to him. Grass-roots pressure became so great that Ace books withdrew their edition and made a nominal payment to Tolkien, well below what he might have been due in an appropriate publication. However, this poor beginning was overshadowed when an authorized edition followed from Ballantine Books to tremendous commercial success. By the mid-1960s the books, due to their wide exposure on the American public stage, had become a true cultural phenomenon. The Second Edition of the Lord of the Rings dates from this time - Tolkien undertook various textual revisions to produce a version of the book that would have a valid U.S. copyright.

From Encyclopædia Britannica:
J.R.R. Tolkien, born January 3, 1892, Bloemfontein, South Africa, died September 2, 1973, Bournemouth, Hampshire, England

[The Lord of the Rings] was divided originally because of its bulk and to reduce the risk to its publisher should it fail to sell. In fact it proved immensely popular. On its publication in paperback in the United States in 1965, it attained cult status on college campuses

 

[Vagabond]

You don’t consider books such as "Jane Eyre" literature? You must use a different definition of "literature" then I do.<<<<

Of course I consider that literature. That is not the kind of book I meant by romance novel. I meant the pulp kind. You aren't really making any points nor countering my points so there is really no point in trying to talk further. I don't have the inclination to find sources for points that weren't countered. Doesn't mean anything anyway.

 

[Vagabond]

You're wrong on both counts here. The books sold well from the start, and Tolkien didn't die until 1973<<<<<

I meant after the books were written not after Tolkien died. I am not going to argue what selling "well" is or isn't. Compared to now they sold nothing. Making pointless corrections is crass as well. It doesn't mean anything at all, because it doesn't counter a point of mine nor make any point of your own. The fact I made an error doesn't mean my point was wrong either. That is a logical fallacy.

 

[Vagabond]

With danger of committing a rethorical faux-pas, I'll make a line from a sit-com mine: "Oh, I get Shakespear all right; I just don't like him." Actually, I rather do like Shakespear; but the point is that it's quite possible to understand Shakespear and just plain not like it.<<<<<

You can like a flower or not and you don't have to understand it to make such a decision. However, human thought requires understanding before you can give it a fair judgement. You can still have an uninformed opinion but that is what it is. This is a delusion. Rather like people who have read a few books but never went to college thinking they are just as smart as those who went. Or thinking "street smarts" is as valuable as education. These are the delusions stupid people live under so they can have faux self esteem based on nonsense. They only think they understand it. You cannot possibly know what you do not know or do not understand properly. Thus the need for education in the first place.

 

[Leif Roar]

I meant after the books were written not after Tolkien died. I am not going to argue what selling "well" is or isn't. Compared to now they sold nothing.

A slight exaggeration here, but compared to how well the Lord of the Rings is selling now, the only books that could have been said to "sell well" in the 1960ties were the Bible and Mao's Little Red Book.

Making pointless corrections is crass as well. It doesn't mean anything at all, because it doesn't counter a point of mine nor make any point of your own. The fact I made an error doesn't mean my point was wrong either. That is a logical fallacy.

If I had claimed that your position was wrong because you'd made an error (which wasn't central to your position,) I would have commited a logical fallacy. Merely correcting a factual error is not a logical fallacy, as it is not a logical argument.

 

[Kiless]

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? )

Thank you for the link! Glad to see he's still around. And as for the 'bestiality' garbage, peh. Took me ages to track down the whole series, pre-Amazon.com years. I thought I was one of the few who enjoyed his work; great to see there's others!

 

[Leif Roar]

You can like a flower or not and you don't have to understand it to make such a decision. However, human thought requires understanding before you can give it a fair judgement. You can still have an uninformed opinion but that is what it is.

True, but that's not what we're discussing here. Rather, we're discussing a contrary, informed opinion.

You have effectively claimed that people who don't like the Covenant books are uninformed and unsophisticated, and "just don't understand them." A claim which is, in my sincere opinion, complete and utter hogwash.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

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.

I know exactly the points being made. It is entirely possible to understand a books point and still find it to be stupid, boring, trite, poorly written, etc. That's the point YOU don't seem to understand.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You don’t consider books such as "Jane Eyre" literature? You must use a different definition of "literature" then I do.<<<<

Of course I consider that literature. That is not the kind of book I meant by romance novel. I meant the pulp kind. You aren't really making any points nor countering my points so there is really no point in trying to talk further. I don't have the inclination to find sources for points that weren't countered. Doesn't mean anything anyway.

What about books we consider "literature" now, but were considered "pulp" at the time they were written? Dickens springs to mind.

 

[epepke]

(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.)

I'm one of those who love them. IMO the writing is terrible. There's a drinking game called "Clench," which involves opening a random page and seeing if the word "clench" appears. The setting is largely derivative, although somewhat interesting. However, what is essentially a psychoanalysis of the main character makes up for it all.

I think people who have led reasonably happy lives probably wouldn't get much out of it. People who have experienced severe trauma or chronic unhappiness or who have worked or lived with those that have, however, have a fair chance of getting a lot out of it.

 

[Wudang]

I loved this from alt.humor.best-of-usenet years back
click here

"You know the main problem with Thomas Covenant? He pants too much.

Now, probably my memory is exaggerating; it's been a few years
(decades?). But mention Thomas Covenant and I instantly think of a character who rarely will "say" anything, but instead prefers to "pant" it.


The vocabulary use was a trip, too...


"Some coffee, Mr. Covenant?"


"No!" he panted, glaring. The gelid liquid was anthraciously black, atramentous, nigrescent as his carious and macerated soul. "No," he groaned. "Do you hear? I will not!" Shaking, he fumbled for his empty mug, clawing at it with numb hands like blocks of rotted wood. Finally, gasping, he closed his fingers on the malefic vessel, upending it, then ramming it downward to the table again... violently stopping the irrefragable, ineluctable maw with intransigent formica. The sudden whipcrack sound threw a refulgent oriflamme of pain across his sight, and he closed his eyes with a febrile shudder. "No," he whispered. No more. No more.


"All righty then, I'll be right back with your check!"


...or something like that. (I didn't manage to get "suppurating" and
"chancreous" in there, or, more's the pity, "roynish".) "

I have vague memories of, just occasionally, thinking "you keep using that word. I am note sure it means what you think it means". For example, and I could be wrong, I thought he mentioned "roynish grunts". Sure, the ur-viles could be roynish but not a sound.
I was glad I stuck with the books but I am not sure that I would recommend them to everyone, including some friends with very high-brow tastes. Nor do I think they serve as a good intro to fantasy. The genre is largely, if you will, cheeseburgers, satisfying, enjoyable, etc and suited for certain times and tastes. Work like Covenants are a full-blown sit-down dinner.

 

[JJEagan]

Sorry to butt in; would Philip Jose Farmer be considered Fantasy? I remember reading the "Riverworld" series when I was young.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I have vague memories of, just occasionally, thinking "you keep using that word. I am note sure it means what you think it means". For example, and I could be wrong, I thought he mentioned "roynish grunts". Sure, the ur-viles could be roynish but not a sound.

I didn't notice the panting, but I did note that whenever he could have used the word "red", he used "incarnadine". It's a very good word, but once per trilogy is quite enough. Use it too often, and it begins to look crazy.

Also "condign".

 

[bigred]

Any one have any recommendations?

I have already read Tolkien's Books many times, Harry Potter, Tales of Narnia, etc. However, most others I have grabbed I have found less than stellar.

Don't have time to read the replies and would be shocked if he wasn't mentioned but the first 2 books of Piers Anythony's "Xanth" series were excellent IMO. After that (even by his own admission) they get pretty silly and are suited mostly for really young kids/etc.

 

[bjornart]

I agree with some of the previous posters, and I disagree with some. But I'm not going to tell you who. Instead I'm going to recommend Laurell K. Hamilton's Meredith Gentry series.

 

[Vagabond]

If I had claimed that your position was wrong because you'd made an error (which wasn't central to your position,) I would have commited a logical fallacy. Merely correcting a factual error is not a logical fallacy, as it is not a logical argument.<<<<<

Ah, but when you make a correction which has nothing to do with the topic at hand nor the point being made, then I am forced to answer, then somebody else jumps in and I am forced to assert crap like Jane Eyre isn't a pulp romance novel and the conversation goes down the hole because now we we are talking about that instead of what the actual topic was. Do not make a correction unless it's point based or has some bearing on the topic otherwise you are just throwing a wrench into the discussion. Particularly when something is most likely only a late night brain fart and not really a error in the first place. When you make such a correction for no logical reason, I can only assume you are pursuing a logical fallacy by attacking my arguement by pointing out an error.

 

[Vagabond]

True, but that's not what we're discussing here. Rather, we're discussing a contrary, informed opinion.

You have effectively claimed that people who don't like the Covenant books are uninformed and unsophisticated, and "just don't understand them." A claim which is, in my sincere opinion, complete and utter hogwash.

A book on how to play the guitar is going to be boring as hell if you don't have any interest in learning to play the guitar and it is going to be profound if you do. The person's understanding, frame of reference and even life experiences do play a huge role in whether they will find something useful and or enjoyable or not. I wouldn't say it's impossible to understand it and still not like it. But, I would say it's highly improbable. You might understand it on a purely english language basis, but not understand it on an emotional basis. If it strikes a cord with you, because of who you are, you WILL like it.

Many don't like Thomas Covenant because he is a hero you will get angry at. They don't like the anti-hero, they don't like the reluctant hero, they don't like hero's who are flawed. If you are like that you will hate them, but if you can get past such things you will like them. I would personally consider anybody who was unable to embrace an imperfect hero, unsophisticated and probably immature. They aren't going to like Hamlet either.

 

[Vagabond]

I think people who have led reasonably happy lives probably wouldn't get much out of it. People who have experienced severe trauma or chronic unhappiness or who have worked or lived with those that have, however, have a fair chance of getting a lot out of it.<<<<<

I don't think trauma or unhappiness are necessary, as I never really had either and I got them. But, I am willing to entertain the possibility that those experiences might open up a level of the books I might have missed.