Favorite Fantasy Series (High or Low)?

[Morrigan]

He's one of my favourite authors.

Nice. I hear his Saxon stories aren't too good unfortunately... I got the first volume as a birthday present but I still haven't read it (my backlog is just too big... my next fiction reading will probably be Joe Abercrombie's Red Country, and I have yet to try Malazan or whatever too), is that true? I hope not.

I did say earlier that one of the characters has redeeming qualities.

ETA: It's been a while since I read it, but as I recall the only character I found in any way sympathetic was Daenerys; the rest of the cast I either didn't care about at all or actively loathed. The writing itself is exemplary, and while I was reading it, I couldn't put the first book down. But once I had finished it and paused for a moment, I found I had no interest in continuing.

So I recognise the quality of ASoIaF and can understand why people like, even love the series; it's just not for me. Contra SoT, which is objectively rubbish.

Fair enough. I was just curious about your characterization of the cast as "loathsome". That you "don't care about" the characters is one thing (though that still baffles me as I find them all very human and compelling with believable motivations), but "loathsome" is a damn strong word to describe the Stark folks (Bran, Arya, Sansa, Catelyn and Ned), Jon Snow, or even Tyrion. In fact, I can think of only a few POV characters who are effectively loathsome characters and their POVs are introduced in later books:

Queen Cersei and Theon Greyjoy

There are other loathsome characters of course, but they're not POVs and you aren't meant to like them: Lysa Arryn, Joffrey Baratheon, Ser Gregor Clegane, Vargo Hoat, Littlefinger, Tywin Lannister, etc.

 

[catsmate]

Actually the atrocity justifications reminded me of Spinrad's "The Iron Dream". As do other novels.

Oh wow, that brings back memories.

 

[Morrigan]

I just realized I messed up my spoiler tags above. Must have clicked the S icon instead of the "Spoil!" next to it. Derp. Fortunately they're very minor spoilers, but I apologize regardless.

 

[Morrigan]

Speaking of Joe Abercrombie.... the First Law trilogy is being turned into a graphic novel. Which is awesome in itself, but the best part? You can read it all for free in its serialized online form

http://www.joeabercrombie.com/2013/04/10/the-first-law-graphic-novel-2/

Awesome. Love the art so far. Muuuuch better than the art in the ASoIaF comic adaptation...

 

[Doctor Evil]

Speaking of Joe Abercrombie.... the First Law trilogy is being turned into a graphic novel. Which is awesome in itself, but the best part? You can read it all for free in its serialized online form

http://www.joeabercrombie.com/2013/04/10/the-first-law-graphic-novel-2/

Awesome. Love the art so far. Muuuuch better than the art in the ASoIaF comic adaptation...

I was just browsing through it myself. Its been a few years since I read these. It will be a nice way to reread the series, although I am not sure the format will be as effective as the original story. The internal monologues of the various characters were the best feature of the books, and I am not sure that they can be adequately reperesented in a comics format.

 

[luchog]

Tolkien has always been a favorite, and I re-read the LotR every other year or so. C.S. Lewis is as as well, although less for Narnia than for some of his other work, particularly Till We Have Faces.

I love Pratchett, and have read the Discworld books up through Wintersmith so far, some of them multiple times; as well as the Bromeliad trilogy and Good Omens.

I've read quite a lot of Michael Moorcock, and the Elric books are still my favorites of his writing, with Dancers at the End of Time a close second.

Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast Trilogy is also something I would highly recommend; at least the first two books. The third is kind of a departure, and gets a bit odd (paralleling his decline in health).

Robert Howard is kind of hit or miss for me. I really like some of his stuff, but others just fail to grab me. Same with H.P. Lovecraft (who jumps genres constantly, sometimes in the same book).

As for stuff I don't like so much. Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time was okay for the first couple books; but I really started to dislike it after that, though I manage to get about halfway through book 7 before finally giving up. The part that really made me quit was his characters. They are unbelievably stupid, and just generally refuse to grow up, acting like cliquish or emotionally stunted teenagers through the whole thing. The only one who even begins to grow up is Mat. Perrin desperately needed to get the emo slapped out of him. The beginning of the end for me was realizing that I'd read an entire book that was nothing but filler, in no way relevant to the story. And I spent all of it wishing someone would strangle Nynaeve to death with her bloody braid.

I tried to read Terry Brooks' Shannara series, but found it trite, simplistic, and little more than a collection of tropes badly put together.

As for Terry Goodkind, I read Sword of Truth up through Faith of the Fallen before wishing I could scrub it from my brain and regain the time I'd wasted on it. Leaving the politics aside (I do have mild Objectivist leanings, so that wasn't all that bad to me); his writing is sophomoric at best. His plots are swiss cheese, and depend on ludicrous deus ex machina and horribly contrived devices; some of which are pure ass-pulls that make no sense in context, and are either dropped or badly retconned later. And given that there is almost no internal consistency to the series, it takes some effort for those to stand out. His good characters are flat Mary Sues, his evil characters are card-carrying villain caricatures; and both of them are prone to spend excessive amounts of time on monologues and lectures that destroy already-uneven pacing. That said, he does manage to create some interesting secondary characters, the ones who aren't blatant racist stereotypes; and I thought that the Mord Sith were actually one of the more original aspects of the series (which isn't really saying much). Too much of it was almost direct plagiarism of Ayn Rand.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Absolute favorites:

A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin
The Deverry Cycle by Katharine Kerr
The Chronicles of Amber by Roger Zelazny
The King's Blades books by Dave Duncan


Other series that I quite enjoy:

The Books of Swords by Fred Saberhagen
The Elric Saga by Michael Moorcock
Dragonlance (Chronicles and Legends) by Weis & Hickman
The Dark Elf books and The Demonwars Saga by R. A. Salvatore
The Dragonriders of Pern by Anne McCaffrey
The Apprentice Adept and parts of Incarnations of Immortality by Piers Anthony
Any other series by Dave Duncan


And I liked the Sword of Truth books somewhat, but Faith of the Fallen through Naked Empire are inordinately preachy. I thought the Chainfire books got the series back on track, though.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Nice. ...Fair enough. I was just curious about your characterization of the cast as "loathsome". That you "don't care about" the characters is one thing (though that still baffles me as I find them all very human and compelling with believable motivations), but "loathsome" is a damn strong word to describe the Stark folks (Bran, Arya, Sansa, Catelyn and Ned), Jon Snow, or even Tyrion. In fact, I can think of only a few POV characters who are effectively loathsome characters and their POVs are introduced in later books:...

I have to agree with Pixy Misa. I found the first book difficult to get through and had no interest in reading any of the others. I didn't find any of the Starks likable although I had some understanding of Sansa. Dany was sympathetic but the graphic descriptions of child sex (she was thirteen) turned me off. I thought the children were poorly done, and some of it just made me roll me eyes (little-girl-who-doesn't-like-sewing-must-be-a-tomboy-because-you-can't-possibly-do-both, how many times have I heard that? slides through adult's legs during a chase, have you ever tried that? it doesn't work, the dumb, but gentle! and loyal stable-hand, etc. - maybe some of this is improved in later books, but I'll never get there).

I definitely think GRRM spent a LOT of time "living in his characters' world", and the writing is good - I just don't like the story. I don't hate it, I just couldn't ever build any interest up. It felt like watching them live life, not becoming involved in a story. I understand that, and why, other people really like it, but it wasn't for me. At all. It was a relief to finish the first book & move on to other things.

I read "The Lies of Locke Lamora" at about the same time and loved it. Also read the sequel to that, which was good, and am awaiting the third book with 'bated breath.

 

[luchog]

The Chronicles of Amber by Roger Zelazny
The Dragonriders of Pern by Anne McCaffrey
The Apprentice Adept and parts of Incarnations of Immortality by Piers Anthony

I liked the Chronicles of Amber, despite some gaping plot holes (awizarddiddit).

Pern was... interesting when I was younger, now I find some of the characterizations and circumstances a bit painful to read. I always preferred the Harper Hall trilogy to the original Pern trilogy.

Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality starts out well, but goes downhill fast; as does Apprentice Adept. Although I read all of the latter, and most of the former, I consider only the first few books to be worth bothering with. Anthony is extremely hit or miss for both his fantasy and sci-fi; and Xanth really needed to die in a fire.

I also really like Stephen R. Donaldson's fantasy. I've read the first and second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant twice, and I'm almost halfway through the Last. But then, I'm the sort of person who enjoys having to pick up an unabridged dictionary every third page; and has a fondness for the darkest of anti-heroes. Mordant's Need was also a very good read, though it's not as consistent as Thomas Covenant, and has a couple of pieces that stand out jarringly.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I liked the Chronicles of Amber, despite some gaping plot holes (awizarddiddit).

Do you mean within the first 5 (Corwin) books, or later in the series?

Pern was... interesting when I was younger, now I find some of the characterizations and circumstances a bit painful to read. I always preferred the Harper Hall trilogy to the original Pern trilogy.

I kinda grew up with the series, and think that later books actually get more mature as both the author and the readers grow up.

Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality starts out well, but goes downhill fast; as does Apprentice Adept. Although I read all of the latter, and most of the former, I consider only the first few books to be worth bothering with. Anthony is extremely hit or miss for both his fantasy and sci-fi; and Xanth really needed to die in a fire.

With regards to the Apprentice Adept books, only the original trilogy are worth reading IMO. With Incarnations of Immortality, I'd say there's one awesome book (Death), a couple of good books (Satan, Time, maybe Fate) and then the rest.

I also really like Stephen R. Donaldson's fantasy. I've read the first and second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant twice, and I'm almost halfway through the Last. But then, I'm the sort of person who enjoys having to pick up an unabridged dictionary every third page; and has a fondness for the darkest of anti-heroes. Mordant's Need was also a very good read, though it's not as consistent as Thomas Covenant, and has a couple of pieces that stand out jarringly.

I, somehow, ended up reading the Second Chronicles before anything else, and then felt no need to continue reading any of his books.

 

[PixyMisa]

The rule of thumb for Piers Anthony is that the first book in any one series is great, the second book is probably pretty good, and after that you're on your own.

 

[ZirconBlue]

The rule of thumb for Piers Anthony is that the first book in any one series is great, the second book is probably pretty good, and after that you're on your own.

Yes, my old, more generous rule, was if he switched publishers on a series, don't buy the ones after the switch.

 

[gumboot]

I have to agree with Pixy Misa. I found the first book difficult to get through and had no interest in reading any of the others. I didn't find any of the Starks likable although I had some understanding of Sansa. Dany was sympathetic but the graphic descriptions of child sex (she was thirteen) turned me off.

There's no graphically depicted sex in "A Song of Ice and Fire". Some characters talk about sex in pretty frank terms, and there's a lot of sex in the TV series, but in the books themselves the references to sex are actually pretty tame, mostly hinted, and left to the reader's imagination.

 

[Tiktaalik]

There's no graphically depicted sex in "A Song of Ice and Fire". Some characters talk about sex in pretty frank terms, and there's a lot of sex in the TV series, but in the books themselves the references to sex are actually pretty tame, mostly hinted, and left to the reader's imagination.

You have a different idea of graphically depicted, then. There's a scene with Dany & what's-his-name (I forget - her husband) coming out of a pond that's too graphic for sex-with-a-thirteen-year-old in my mind.

 

[luchog]

Do you mean within the first 5 (Corwin) books, or later in the series?

Mostly in the Corwin books. The Merlin series is tighter.

I, somehow, ended up reading the Second Chronicles before anything else, and then felt no need to continue reading any of his books.

That seems to be the reaction of a lot of people after reading the first book. I can understand why, as his work is pretty dark and brutal on the surface. It's kind of an anti-Tolkien fantasy, and subverts a lot of the common fantasy tropes. It takes a bit of persistence to get the real story underneath all the grimdark. As bad as it gets, Thomas Covenant is not nearly as brutal as his Gap Cycle stuff, but Gap is effectively a re-telling of the Ring Cycle, so there's a good reason for the grimdark.

 

[Daald]

Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time was okay for the first couple books; but I really started to dislike it after that, though I manage to get about halfway through book 7 before finally giving up. The part that really made me quit was his characters. They are unbelievably stupid, and just generally refuse to grow up, acting like cliquish or emotionally stunted teenagers through the whole thing. The only one who even begins to grow up is Mat. Perrin desperately needed to get the emo slapped out of him. The beginning of the end for me was realizing that I'd read an entire book that was nothing but filler, in no way relevant to the story. And I spent all of it wishing someone would strangle Nynaeve to death with her bloody braid.

Let me try to defend it a bit since I don't think anyone else will

I always tell the people that want to read it this much.

Read book 1. If you don't love it, quit.
Read to book 3. If you don't love it. quit.
After that though, there is no stopping Books 7-10 will really test you as it is basically build up. If this was a trilogy, those books would be the middle book. Stuff happens but it is way way too slow. Some people like that though where others just hate it. The point to have stopped though is 3.

Books 11 - 14 are great IMO. The characters finally mature and get over their hangups and become the heroes that they should have been earlier.

I think you see them as stupid teenagers because I think they are supposed to be that. They do get over it and I think in a realistic way. If you ever want to give the series another try remember my advice. Books 7-10 (and 10 especially since it is the boring parts left out of book 9) will try you. They should find a way to distill those books into 1 book and then re-release the series. It would be much better

 

[TragicMonkey]

Mostly in the Corwin books. The Merlin series is tighter.


That seems to be the reaction of a lot of people after reading the first book. I can understand why, as his work is pretty dark and brutal on the surface. It's kind of an anti-Tolkien fantasy, and subverts a lot of the common fantasy tropes. It takes a bit of persistence to get the real story underneath all the grimdark. As bad as it gets, Thomas Covenant is not nearly as brutal as his Gap Cycle stuff, but Gap is effectively a re-telling of the Ring Cycle, so there's a good reason for the grimdark.

For me it wasn't the grimness or darkness that annoyed, it was the constant whining and moaning. I don't demand completely sympathetic characters, but if every single one of them fills me with the desire to slap them its just not going to work. I'm already naturally biased in favor of dark lords anyway, and every page of the books convinced me more and more that destroying that world and everyone in it was the right thing to do.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Mary Stewart's Merlin series (though "The Wicked Day" disappointed me).
Cherry's "Morgaine" novels.
and LOTR of course.
I don't count Pratchett as fantasy. Too real.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Let me try to defend it a bit since I don't think anyone else will

I always tell the people that want to read it this much.

Read book 1. If you don't love it, quit.
Read to book 3. If you don't love it. quit.
After that though, there is no stopping

I disagree fundamentally.

If you liked books one through three, quit immediately while you are ahead. Just read the wikipedia entries for the rest of the series and save a lot of time, boredom and irritation.

 

[Vortigern99]

Most of my post was factual, rather than opinion. You do know I worked on LOTS right?

No, it wasn't factual. The words "ridiculous" and "trainwreck" are matters of opinion, as is the lion's share of your anti-LOTS screed. Your presumptuous "correction" of a point I never made (regarding the writing) is almost the only factual assertion in the post to which your above quote responded. The rest is sour belly-achin' and arguable opinionation. I'll eat my wedding ring if you can prove me wrong.

I get it, you don't like the show. I appreciate all the hard work you must have put into it, and I think you're selling the finished product far short of the praise it deserves. That I enjoy it, even find it superb within its genre, does not make me a tasteless barbarian. This same sentiment is also directed at Morrigan, whose smarter-than-thou posts have got me re-swallowing my lunch to keep it down.

Both of you are going on ignore; I tire of your high-and-mighty posting, as if your opinion is the most fact-based or righteous, and everyone else is an illiterate buffoon. We disagree, end of discussion and an end to my wasted time trying to have any kind of reasonable discussion with either of you.