Quote from: IshmaylThere are several "big deals" in this list that I won't rank quite as high as what I imagine other people would, and I'll be happy to explain my reasoning if anyone is interested.
Go for it man. I thought you were big WoT fan?
And 3 for Mistborn :cry: I loved it from page 1.
A copy of what I posted in the other thread should help explain my reasons for voting what I did. I'll try to clean this up in both threads, so that this thread has the reasons and the other has the votes. Organization FTW!
American Gods/Anansi Boys - Neil Gaiman - perfect! Flawless storytelling, combined with a captivating story! Honestly, there's only a few, very minor cases where I don't like something by Gaiman. Even in those cases, it's usually a small portion of a much larger story, and the rest of the story almost always outweighs the weaker parts. American Gods is my favorite book by him, I think. Stardust is a very close second. His poem Instructions is probably in my top 3 works of his.
Chronicles of Narnia - C.S. Lewis - I've only read a couple books, and none in a long time. I might revise my vote if I ever get the chance to read the entire series, in order. Honestly, I'm not sure how my childhood love for these books will hold up upon reflection.
Harry Potter - J.K. Rowling - A great series that matures very well. My only complaint is that the first few books seem much more child-oriented, and the overarching plot seems to take a back seat to the escapade of the year. I'm not sure I'd compare them to Scooby Doo mysteries, but I can see where others would.
His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman - Yes, there is religious commentary in this, no, it does not affect my rating; this is a genuinely good series, not a thesis disguised as fiction. Read Dan Brown for that.
The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R Tolkien - Great series, a classic, but WAY too slow for me; I can never get much further then the Prancing Pony. The only reason I know anything that happened after that is just public consciousness. Especially after the movies came out.
Vampire Chronicles - Okay, so this had some fairly decent stories, from what I read, but it constantly read too much like erotica, even in inappropriate situations. I started this series with The Tale of the Body Snatcher, which was a great story, but honestly, I'm not really sure I'm comfortable with the way Lestat was describing that dog he ran into. I don't think I read much more then that.
If Robert Jordan had actually stuck to the plan, and written a well-crafted story that had spanned 5-7 books, I imagine he would have blown me away. The fact that he needed to milk the series has bothered me. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a really good series, and really well-written, but I would have been happier if he had stuck to his plans.
I couldn't even finish Mistborn, and honestly, there aren't many books that I can say that about...I don't know if it was the (poor) writing, the (lack of) story, or the (one dimensional) characters, but I do not feel that it bodes well for the ending to WoT.
I could probably manage to up WoT by at least one point, because it is re-readable, and I had internally planned on saying that anything that I could re-read I would rank at 7.
Eye of the World blew me away when I first read it, but the series just kept going downhill afterward. By the 7th book, I was just reading to "get it over with" so I decided to stop.
EDIT:
Quote from: polycarpThe first book was good, but I'm rating the series, which falls precipitously in quality as it goes on.
Quote from: IshmaylI could probably manage to up WoT by at least one point, because it is re-readable, and I had internally planned on saying that anything that I could re-read I would rank at 7.
Honestly, I think that's overrating the value of re-readability. I think any book rated over 3, with enough time, develops some re-readability value, even if only because it's been years since the last reading, and there's nothing else to read. All the books I rated, I think, have re-readability value, although I'm not going to rush out to re-read some of them. Not yet, anyway.
I guess I should have specified that I was talking about "re-readability" for me, and not for everyone else in the world ;)
I'm not sure Beowulf really belongs on this list. I mean, are the Poetic Eddas "fantasy," or some other ancient mythological work? I thought the author had to be writing it as fantasy for it to be fantasy.
Quote from: RaelifinEye of the World blew me away when I first read it, but the series just kept going downhill afterward. By the 7th book, I was just reading to "get it over with" so I decided to stop.
You and me, man
In theory I would re-read anything I enjoyed, probably 5-6+ given enough time. In practice, it would take something extraordinary for me to do this, only because I have a finite amount of time and there is always something I else I want to read. Just look at the number of books on the list I wasn't able to vote on (I've read Anansi Boys, but not American Gods, so I didn't vote there).
If a series is good enough I'd actually re-read it (possibly as a means of studying the author's craft) it'd probably be an 8+ rank for me.
Quote from: IshmaylI guess I should have specified that I was talking about "re-readability" for me, and not for everyone else in the world ;)
I guess I probably should have clarified the subjectivity of my post, as well ;)
I thought that LotR was very boring. Good story, I guess, but presented in a terrible way.
Harry Potter was entertaining for a while but got old. I think it was more the hype (and the &%#^ stupid (&^@s that were causing it) that killed it for me. And the first movie was so &$#^ awful it ensured I could never watch another one or read another one of the books. On another amusing note, at a con last weekend I met a man who claimed to be cosplaying Hagrid. He wasn't in any kind of costume at all, he was just really tall, fat, and hairy.
Ninja: Harry Potter 1 and to a lesser extent, 2 were bad. #3 was the best movie they have produced by far. I suggest you see it and skip the rest.
Lord of the Rings was exciting and cool but definitely written for a different literary era. The Hobbit was my favorite book Tolkien wrote but that's probably because my version of the Hobbit had pictures! :)
i think Old Epics, like Beowulf and Gilgamesh, as well as modern plays like the Tempest are all fair game since they are in and of themselve de facto fantasy; Fickle Gods, Epic heroes, World Saving Events, Suspense, Action, Mystical Races, etc. Its all there, lets count them!
[blockquote=Higgs]I'm curious at why people dislike The Lord of the Rings...[/blockquote]
Count me surprised as well. I read it at 9 the first time, and waded through just fine. I find the prose and writing purely magnificent, and the scope and world-building in a class by themselves. Few books can move me at all, but this one can move me greatly decades later. And where many of my earlier favorites are made more mundane by my exposure to other works of literature, I find my appreciation of Tolkien's work only grows as time makes its enexorable march and have more to compare it to.
Tolkien's ability to create his world and effortlessly express it are nonpareil. The different styles of verse and song he crafts to bring us into his world and immerse the reader are also in their own class. The language and the use of language, while certainly subject to personal review, is one of the reasons the books have endured at such a high level of profile. Some reviewers might question the characterizations or the racial overtones or the underpinning 'Rule Brittania' inherent, but as to the literary value, to say that the reviews of the writing itself are strongly favorable by the most discerning of critics is a vast understatement. While certainly open to personal preference (much like the highest rated wines taste can be disgusting to an uninitiated palate), demonizing the literary style or merits therein is tantamount to
telling James Suckling or Hugh Johnson that they don't know wine.
I actually did see #3. I had to for a friend's birthday. It was better but not good enough to redeem them.
Beowulf was an even better story than LotR...but is was proportionately more boringly presented as well.
QuoteLord of the Rings - 2
Harry Potter - 5
Drizzt Saga - 8
Cthulhu Mythos - 8
Discworld - 10
The Hobbit - 9
These are the only series' I've actually read from that list (I am working my way through Beowulf and am trying to get some such as Frankenstein and Dracula).
LotR - It got a 2 from me instead of a 1 because of its influence and significance to the fantasy genre - I read it once, and despite liking some parts that weren't in the movie, I liked the movie far better. The books were long, wordy, and uninteresting compared to the Hobbit. I have a hard time reading things that ramble when they can get the same point across with a lot less.
Harry Potter - I liked it when I was younger, and I'd still like Prisoner of Azkaban. I stopped reading after #3 because #4 (Goblet) went right over my head as I read it. Plus, the movie rendition and the hype kind of ruined things for me.
Drizzt - I've only actually read The Dark Elf Trilogy, Sea of Swords, Spine of the World, Servant of the Shard, and the Hunter's Blades Trilogy. The Dark Elf Trilogy was really my favorite - Drizzt was alone a lot of the time, and I always liked him better when it was just him and Guen or him and some temporary friends. Sea of Swords is an important part of the series for the story afterwards, and Spine of the World and Servant of the Shard didn't actually include Drizzt, but really it's just The Dark Elf Trilogy and the new series' that are any good. Exile and Sojourn (Books 2 and 3 of TDET) especially.
Cthulhu Mythos - It is more horror than fantasy and he wasn't that great a writer, but the setting and the themes are hugely inspirational for the darker side of fantasy.
Discworld - I've only read the Death series so far, but this stuff is GREAT. I didn't get half of the humor and I was laughing the entire time. Of the Death books, Soul Music and Hogfather are probably the best, although my favorites are Reaper Man and Hogfather. Give them a read if you haven't. Seriously.
The Hobbit - Unlike LotR, the Hobbit was fantastic. This was one of my first exposures to fantasy when I actually was aware what the genre was (read: after I had watched a lot of Disney and read a lot of fairy tales). The Hobbit opened up the door for real fantasy with a grasp of fantasy worlds (most other stories made you assume it was somewhere on Earth) with their own rules and histories. It had a good mix of everything - magic that was rare but significant, fantastic races, noteworthy legions of enemies, and main characters that were one-sided in the right way and complex in the right as well.
Has anyone read the Dragonlance books, or The Circle of Magic series?
Some explanation:
Lord of the Rings - J.R.R. Tolkien = 4
I'm sorry, but the trilogy is just plain badly written. No author would be able to get away with such insane verboseness in today's day and age. Salvaged in part by its immense impact on everything else in this genre, but only worth reading because no one takes you seriously as a fan of fantasy if you haven't.
Harry Potter - J.K. Rowling = 5
Standard fare. Premise was excellent, but she falls into some serious cliches later in the series. Tops at three and goes downhill from there.
Chronicles of Narnia C.S. Lewis = 7
Good series. Well written, the symbolism is a perfect mixture of the more obvious and subtlety. The last book annoyed me, as I feel it didn't have a final-enough closing. Other than that, a definite recommendation.
Discworld - Terry Prachett = 8
Funny. As. Hell. The only reason this didn't score higher from me is that my bookstore doesn't carry them all.
Frankenstein - Mary Shelly = 6
Better than average, good personal story. Award for Most Number of Movies that are Nothing Like the Book.
The Hobbit - J.R.R. Tolkien = 7
Great book. Reads like a bedtime story, which is cool, as I'll use this to introduce my kids to fantasy. unlike the Trilogy, this one tells a story, not a world.
Inheritance - Christopher Paolini = 3
Drivel. I'm purchasing the third one only to round out the collection. His twists are obvious, obstacles to the characters are deus ex machina'd away almost 100% of the time, the majority of the supporting characters sound exactly the same, and his writing style is clunky, to say the least.
Shannara - Terry Brooks = 5
Middle of the road fare. If books were flavors, this would be vanilla. I haven't read them all, but they deteriorate in my opinion.
Vlad Taltos - Steven Brust = 7
Great books; gritty with plenty of detail. The perspective is interesting, and you cannot beat Loiosh as a sidekick, period.
I really can't believe that nobody has read Lyonesse.
I mean, come on, it's Jack Vance. And faerie, and Arthurian legend, and...
Plus, it's been out for a while so your local library probably has a copy that hasn't been checked out for a year.
Quote from: StargateShannara - Terry Brooks = 5
...I haven't read them all, but they deteriorate in my opinion.
I had the opposite impression, but I never got to the end of the series. No matter how you slice it, they were never anything like as good as the Word and the Void trilogy, or even the Magic Kingdom for Sale books. I did think that Shannara broke away from the "I can write Lord of the Rings, too!" syndrome after the first book, though.
Quote from: Higgs BosonHas anyone read the Dragonlance books, or The Circle of Magic series?
Yes to both.
I finished both series.
The Dragonlance stuff was alright, above average for game-writing, below average if looked at in terms of pure literature.
Too much racial caricature.
Circle of magic I read once when I was much younger, and liked it, then once again later, and felt like it meandered horribly.
Quote from: IshmaylI forgot about Goodkind... I said there are rarely books that I can't finish (speaking of Elantris).... Sword of Truth was a series I couldn't finish. Books 1-6 at least held my interst, with 2 of the books (Temple of the Winds, Faith of the Fallen) being almost decent (5) and the other four being mostly gag-worthy (3). Book 7, I put down in disgust, and then attempted just to read book 8 without reading 7, and sold it the day after I bought it. I will not finish that series. Overall, I rank it as a 3 max.
George R. R. Martin - A Song of Ice and Fire series - gets a 9. I will not be giving anything a higher score.[/quote]
Ah, then I should probably change the scale from 1 to 9 ;). It is, obviously pointless to have a rating that is unattainable.
Nothing is perfect, of course, so we can't assume a 10 represents true perfection, just the closest we're liable to get. Or did you mean that you just haven't found anything you like enough to fully endorse?
Either way, SoIaF is awesome!
I mentioned the same thing in my post, nothing will get over a 9 unless it is mind-altering and existential in some way.
And yes, I was talking about Elantris, not Mistborn, sorry for the confusion - I've never read Mistborn, though I probably will before Memory of Light comes out. Or maybe I won't - I wouldn't want to possibly spoil the last book in the series by a bias, if such a bias is created.
QuoteAh, then I should probably change the scale from 1 to 9 . It is, obviously pointless to have a rating that is unattainable.
Nothing is perfect, of course, so we can't assume a 10 represents true perfection, just the closest we're liable to get. Or did you mean that you just haven't found anything you like enough to fully endorse?
Either way, SoIaF is awesome!
If I ever find a perfect 10, I'll call it a perfect 10. I don't curve grades, though. ASoIaF is excellent, but I'm not going to pretend that it has no problems.
Problems, for example, like Martin needing to get to work about writing the rest of them.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonProblems, for example, like Martin needing to get to work about writing the rest of them.
:-p
We need a rofl smiley.
The next one is scheduled for Sep (hardcover).
Quote from: PhoenixThe next one is scheduled for Sep (hardcover).
:yumm:
Quote from: IshmaylDefinitely very cool to see the rankings coming out more - I like the placement of a lot of those, and dislike others, but that's how the real world works. Neat to see what people really think of fantasy books. I wish I had read Gene Wolfe and Discworld, now. As well as Song of Ice and Fire, but I will NOT read that until it's done - I'm not having anymore Jordanic experiences with endless waiting for a book to come out so I can see if my character lived or died on that last page...
He says it'll be seven books when it's finished (he seems fairly certain at this point, but we'll see). Book 5 comes out this year, so at best you're looking at 2010 before it's complete.
Added Saga of the Light Isles, Dragon Prince series, Bartimaeus, Dresden Files, Belgariad, and Prince of Nothing to list.
Quote from: IshmaylAs well as Song of Ice and Fire, but I will NOT read that until it's done
I will NOT read that[/quote]OUT
I concur. Also, should I post again once I have some more votes, or should I just edit my post to include those?
post again, please. Otherwise I have no real way of knowing.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: IshmaylAs well as Song of Ice and Fire, but I will NOT read that until it's done
I will NOT read that
I think I disagree, repectfully.
I read the Game of Thrones when it first came out in Hardcover. That was a period when I was reading intensely, and got lucky and picked it up. It was the best book I had read in decades, and I told people so. I still believe that. But that being said, it was planned as a trilogy in the beginning.
Now we suffer with a bloated mercantile attempt to capitalize on this series. It's like making the extended mix of a song
before making the normal version.
I'll wait until they are all out before I buy any more of them.
QuoteNow we suffer with a bloated mercantile attempt to capitalize on this series. It's like making the extended mix of a song
before making the normal version.
likes[/i] writing this series? Or that, as often happens, word count issues have forced a writer to split a book more ways than he originally intended?
Quote from: PhoenixQuoteNow we suffer with a bloated mercantile attempt to capitalize on this series. It's like making the extended mix of a song
before making the normal version.
likes[/i] writing this series? Or that, as often happens, word count issues have forced a writer to split a book more ways than he originally intended?
Of course I considered that. For quite a while. And I am cynical, so I will agree to that claim. But please paste the rest of my post where I rave about the series first, as that is part and parcel here. Before defending supposed attacks, please include all
pertinent comments.
But are you actually defending a Trilogy being busted out to 7 books now as a word-count issue? Have you considered the possiblity that is asinine, because word count issues such as you mention do not take longer to produce? Splitting a book takes little time, word count issues caused from creating more words does, however, add months and years. ESpecially when it somehow makes an author scrap a year of work.
However, I think perhaps you neglect to consider that by my use of the word mercantile, I might be blaming the infuence of Bantam and the editors trying to wring a few extra shekels,
NOT the Author. I won't ask for forgiveness or understanding in my belief that a publisher and agents have an interest and influence upon the length of the work in question. I happen to believe that Tolkein's LotR would have ended up being 11 books long in today's climate, and ruined for it.
And let me also applaud this thread again. You're getting some good response.
And now for some explanation...
J.R.R. Tolkien - Lord of the Rings - 9
I think people are forgetting that LOTR wasn't written in modern American English. That wordiness that is the common complaint against it is actually quite common in older books (you think LOTR is bad go further back and read Don Quixote). Once you get past that it is a marvelous series, steeped lore, tradition, and all the things that make for true classic fantasy. You really can connect with the hobbits through their feelings of being so small in such a large world (and just wanting to get back to their little home and have a nice smoke).
J.R.R. Tolkien - The Hobbit - 8
This one is an easier read which generally gets it a better score. However for me it loses a little bit there. It was written for children and so has a simpler language, which in the end makes it lose something. However that little loss is more than made up in the fact that it is a wonderful story like its big brother LOTR.
J.R.R. Tolkien - The Silmarillion - 9
The best way I can describe this one is as a masterpiece. It has a similar feel to it as the bible. This in itself says something because all the interconnection and style of that form gives it a life of its own. You can truly believe that this world exists somewhere. This book if anything should be on the required list for a committed world builder as it shows you how to really get a dynamic history going, mixing myth and known fact into a beautiful combination.
Christopher Paolini - Inheritance - 5
This gets a 5 from me as Paolini really showed with it his grasp of both writing and the genre in general. However in doing so he reused alot of old concepts, causing it to lose a great deal vs if he had committed his imagination more fully to the story. However it does maintain good re-readability value if you can get past that.
C. S. Lewis - The Chronicles of Narnia - 7
Another good one, however like the hobbit it was intended for children. Yet its style of writing is even more severe in this manner than the hobbit. So it loses a bit more here. However it is also a very enjoyable read and likewise has its own dynamic history like LOTR.
I would have more but I can't recall everything I have read. Indeed though I am much more a sci-fi fan and will probably have a huge massive list when we do one on that.
The Oddessy was great in my opinion, well written, interesting plot, etc. But the Illiad was just too confusing for me. Our teacher had us do "close reading" with it, where we would have to have notes and highlited parts on at least every other page, but even with that it was insanity.
Quote from: Higgs BosonThe Oddessy was great in my opinion, well written, interesting plot, etc. But the Illiad was just too confusing for me. Our teacher had us do "close reading" with it, where we would have to have notes and highlited parts on at least every other page, but even with that it was insanity.
perhaps that was why 'Vreeg the insane' found the opposite...Interesting view, and totally correct, in my book.
Quote from: NomadicJ.R.R. Tolkien - Lord of the Rings - 9
I think people are forgetting that LOTR wasn't written in modern American English. That wordiness that is the common complaint against it is actually quite common in older books (you think LOTR is bad go further back and read Don Quixote). Once you get past that it is a marvelous series, steeped lore, tradition, and all the things that make for true classic fantasy. You really can connect with the hobbits through their feelings of being so small in such a large world (and just wanting to get back to their little home and have a nice smoke).
You can't compare the writing styles of two books over three hundred years apart. The problem is that the books move so incredibly SLOWLY, which only compunds the wordiness issues.
Quote from: NomadicChristopher Paolini - Inheritance - 5
This gets a 5 from me as Paolini really showed with it his grasp of both writing and the genre in general. However in doing so he reused alot of old concepts, causing it to lose a great deal vs if he had committed his imagination more fully to the story. However it does maintain good re-readability value if you can get past that.
Grasp of writing? Are you kidding?
Quote from: NomadicC. S. Lewis - The Chronicles of Narnia - 7
Another good one, however like the hobbit it was intended for children. Yet its style of writing is even more severe in this manner than the hobbit. So it loses a bit more here. However it is also a very enjoyable read and likewise has its own dynamic history like LOTR.
Narnia was meant for all ages, and it has quite a few layers if you're willing to look deeper into them.
Quote from: Stargate525You can't compare the writing styles of two books over three hundred years apart. The problem is that the books move so incredibly SLOWLY, which only compunds the wordiness issues.
Sounds like you'd better avoid the Wheel of Time.
Quote from: Polycarp!Quote from: Stargate525You can't compare the writing styles of two books over three hundred years apart. The problem is that the books move so incredibly SLOWLY, which only compunds the wordiness issues.
Yeah, wasn't a huge fan of 'em.
Quote from: Stargate525Quote from: NomadicJ.R.R. Tolkien - Lord of the Rings - 9
I think people are forgetting that LOTR wasn't written in modern American English. That wordiness that is the common complaint against it is actually quite common in older books (you think LOTR is bad go further back and read Don Quixote). Once you get past that it is a marvelous series, steeped lore, tradition, and all the things that make for true classic fantasy. You really can connect with the hobbits through their feelings of being so small in such a large world (and just wanting to get back to their little home and have a nice smoke).
You can't compare the writing styles of two books over three hundred years apart. The problem is that the books move so incredibly SLOWLY, which only compounds the wordiness issues.
Quote from: NomadicChristopher Paolini - Inheritance - 5
This gets a 5 from me as Paolini really showed with it his grasp of both writing and the genre in general. However in doing so he reused alot of old concepts, causing it to lose a great deal vs if he had committed his imagination more fully to the story. However it does maintain good re-readability value if you can get past that.
Grasp of writing? Are you kidding?
Quote from: NomadicC. S. Lewis - The Chronicles of Narnia - 7
Another good one, however like the hobbit it was intended for children. Yet its style of writing is even more severe in this manner than the hobbit. So it loses a bit more here. However it is also a very enjoyable read and likewise has its own dynamic history like LOTR.
Narnia was meant for all ages, and it has quite a few layers if you're willing to look deeper into them.
Ok firstly yes I can compare them I have that right. However you should probably re-read what I said as I wasn't comparing them, I was pointing out that compared to some other books LOTR isn't hardly wordy at all. Furthermore while it may barely move along for you and come across as wordy, to others it runs smoothly and wonderfully.
No I am not kidding, just because I feel that someone has a grasp of writing and you don't doesn't mean you should discount my opinion. I would say I have a bit of experience here and my opinion holds a little more weight than some average Joe just throwing out his 2 cents.
C.S. Lewis wrote Narnia as a children's book. Does this mean an adult cannot enjoy it, certainly not. However it does mean that its style takes on a more simple form which detracts from it for
me.
Note the above bolded word here. This was my personal opinion, not something I brought up to be debated (I just felt like sharing it). In closing... its my opinion so :P
Quote from: LordVreegOf course I considered that. For quite a while. And I am cynical, so I will agree to that claim. But please paste the rest of my post where I rave about the series first, as that is part and parcel here. Before defending supposed attacks, please include all pertinent comments.
But are you actually defending a Trilogy being busted out to 7 books now as a word-count issue?[/quote]Have you considered the possiblity that is asinine, because word count issues such as you mention do not take longer to produce? Splitting a book takes little time, word count issues caused from creating more words does, however, add months and years. ESpecially when it somehow makes an author scrap a year of work.[/quote]However, I think perhaps you neglect to consider that by my use of the word mercantile, I might be blaming the infuence of Bantam and the editors trying to wring a few extra shekels,
NOT the Author. I won't ask for forgiveness or understanding in my belief that a publisher and agents have an interest and influence upon the length of the work in question. I happen to believe that Tolkein's LotR would have ended up being 11 books long in today's climate, and ruined for it.[/quote]
Insulting the professionalism and dedication of an entire industry is marginally better than insulting the artistic integrity of an artist. Though since I trained in publishing (but left the field to pursue writing), and since many of my friends are editors, agents, and publishers, I still take personal offense. These are people that love books, love stories, and love authors. Despite what you seem to think, even publishers rarely get rich (the media conglomerates that own them are another story, but then they're always bashing publishers for not keeping up with TV, music, or whatever).
Regardless no one forces an author to do something like split a series; and no one forces a powerhouse like GRRM to do much of anything. Any claim that the series has sold out will still boil down to claiming to author sold out to the publisher.
Quote from: NomadicJ.R.R. Tolkien - Lord of the Rings - 9
I think people are forgetting that LOTR wasn't written in modern American English. That wordiness that is the common complaint against it is actually quite common in older books (you think LOTR is bad go further back and read Don Quixote). Once you get past that it is a marvelous series, steeped lore, tradition, and all the things that make for true classic fantasy. You really can connect with the hobbits through their feelings of being so small in such a large world (and just wanting to get back to their little home and have a nice smoke).
Since we are discussing how much we, as 21st century readers, can enjoy the experience of reading the book, pacing and ease of reading is a big issue. The Lord of the Rings is good to have read; I've read it several times. But if I just want to sit back and relax and enjoy my evening, I tend to enjoy it more with more modern authors with a faster pace and easier reading.
Quote from: PolycarpSounds like you'd better avoid the Wheel of Time.
While the novels go through certain rhythms of pacing, I didn't find them that slow. It just feels more like it because they're written like one giant book rather than like 11 separate books (kind of like LotR was intended to be published in a single volume).
Quote from: PhoenixWhile the novels go through certain rhythms of pacing, I didn't find them that slow. It just feels more like it because they're written like one giant book rather than like 11 separate books (kind of like LotR was intended to be published in a single volume).
Yeah, as much as I don't adore this series as the end-all fantasy series, I don't find them particularly slow, other than 2 books.
Quote from: NomadicOk firstly yes I can compare them I have that right. However you should probably re-read what I said as I wasn't comparing them, I was pointing out that compared to some other books LOTR isn't hardly wordy at all. Furthermore while it may barely move along for you and come across as wordy, to others it runs smoothly and wonderfully.
Hence the beauty of the opinion.
Quote from: NomadicNo I am not kidding, just because I feel that someone has a grasp of writing and you don't doesn't mean you should discount my opinion. I would say I have a bit of experience here and my opinion holds a little more weight than some average Joe just throwing out his 2 cents.
Well, I could point out several flaws in his prose but, like you said, this is neither the time nor the place.
Quote from: NomadicC.S. Lewis wrote Narnia as a children's book. Does this mean an adult cannot enjoy it, certainly not. However it does mean that its style takes on a more simple form which detracts from it for me.
Fair enough, but calling it a straight children's book seems to deny that it has any meaning for adult readers.
Quote from: NomadicNote the above bolded word here. This was my personal opinion, not something I brought up to be debated (I just felt like sharing it). In closing... its my opinion so :P
You can't claim your opinion is better than mine if you're going to pull this out afterward!
I'm calling you out, foo!
*draws pistol*
...
*erases pistol, draws sword*
Much more appropriate.
:fencing:
wow, I had no idea that peoples' likes and dislikes of certain books could cause such animosity. It's almost like we're talking about whether or not Pluto should remain a planet...
Quote from: Ishmaylwow, I had no idea that peoples' likes and dislikes of certain books could cause such animosity. It's almost like we're talking about whether or not Pluto should remain a planet...
*pulls out pistol and shoots stargate*
never bring a sword to a gunfight.
*points pistol at ishy*
are you then implying that Pluto is not a planet?!
[blockquote=Phoenix][blockquote=215915983=LordVreeg]
Of course I considered that. For quite a while. And I am cynical, so I will agree to that claim. But please paste the rest of my post where I rave about the series first, as that is part and parcel here. Before defending supposed attacks, please include all pertinent comments.[/blockquote]
Noted. I believed I had, since the comments left out were about the book, and here we were talking about his artistic integrity. As an artist, I see calling that into question to be one of the most offensive, most personal insults a person might make. (None of which has anything to do with the caliber of his novels, which your earlier commentary seemed to pertain to).[/blockquote]
Actually, you said you were talking about this
'That's cynical, and even pejorative towards a person many of us respect both as a writer and beyond that' and that does include your respect for him as a writer, which is also the part in my comment you left out. So you may have been talking later about just the artistic integrity, but you were not at first. So don't leave out the parts that are respectful of him as a writer, or the parts that respond to your initial response comments.
[blockquote=Phoenix][blockquote=Vreeg]But are you actually defending a Trilogy being busted out to 7 books now as a word-count issue?[/blockquote]
No. I posited the need to maintain consistent word count throughout the books as one of several reasons (the most important reason I posited being that he simply likes to write). Most likely, any number of factors may have contributed. Artists change and revise their visions all the time; what he originally intended is, frankly, irrelevant.[/blockquote]
You did mention both, and you did mention him enjoying his work as the first reason for this 'extension'. I think the word count issue is as ridiculous and undefendable as I mentioned before. But the enjoyment of his work is certainly relevant and possible, and likely probable. I apologize for jumping at the ridiculous and not including the likely.
And I agree with your comments on it being most likely a number of additive issues is the most probable fact. Life is rarely black and white.
However, artists changing and revising their needs are fine, as long as they are not going back on what they have said before. Artists have no more right to abuse expectations than anyone else. If it were 'irrelevant' in truth, certain uninvolved entities, like the Opal Council Overlord for example, or myself, would not be backing off and waiting. It is not that I don't love Martin's stuff, as I said. I just don't trust anything he says now. I am looking forward to the educated difference between 'changing and revising their visions' and what I will gently call (to avoid hurting artistic sensibilities) 'misrepresenting'. For the record, I do not believe he intended the series to be longer in the first place, but the popularity of the vehicle has created the opportunity for him to indulge it writing more than he first intended.
[blockquote=Phoenix][blockquote=Vreeg]'¦Have you considered the possiblity that is asinine, because word count issues such as you mention do not take longer to produce? Splitting a book takes little time, word count issues caused from creating more words does, however, add months and years. ESpecially when it somehow makes an author scrap a year of work.[/blockquote]
This was a little confusing (did you call me unintelligent, or Martin?), but you seem to be saying that you imagine that every time word count was an issue an author could just mash two books together or split one down the middle? Or that you think it unusual for an author to decide to do a rewrite? Many authors do dozens or rewrites. The desire to produce the finest story possible prompts perfectionism.[/blockquote]
Hmm. Sorry it confused you, but I don't see the word unintelligent anywhere. I think I could be accused of calling you (since it was obviously your interpretations that were questioned about Martin's actions, not the actions themselves) wonderfully, indiscrimininately, unreservedly protective of the author in question, however.
I said specifically that word count issues such as you mention (id est, too many words mean longer books, so they need to be broken into parts) does not take anywhere near the time to correct than writing whole new pieces. I said,
"But are you actually defending a Trilogy being busted out to 7 books now as a word-count issue? Have you considered the possiblity that is asinine, because word count issues such as you mention do not take longer to produce? Splitting a book takes little time, word count issues caused from creating more words does, however, add months and years. ESpecially when it somehow makes an author scrap a year of work."
And of course this is caused by a rewrite. That's my point! Whatever the reasoning, it is the rewriting that is taking all the extra time, not any word count issues. It is the fact he is rewriting I was complaining about. And one hopes the ability to expand the scope has not ruined the perfection like so many authors we have mentioned.
[blockquote=Phoenix][blockquote=Vreeg]'¦However, I think perhaps you neglect to consider that by my use of the word mercantile, I might be blaming the infuence of Bantam and the editors trying to wring a few extra shekels, NOT the Author. I won't ask for forgiveness or understanding in my belief that a publisher and agents have an interest and influence upon the length of the work in question. I happen to believe that Tolkein's LotR would have ended up being 11 books long in today's climate, and ruined for it.[/blockquote]
Insulting the professionalism and dedication of an entire industry is marginally better than insulting the artistic integrity of an artist. Though since I trained in publishing (but left the field to pursue writing), and since many of my friends are editors, agents, and publishers, I still take personal offense. These are people that love books, love stories, and love authors. Despite what you seem to think, even publishers rarely get rich (the media conglomerates that own them are another story, but then they're always bashing publishers for not keeping up with TV, music, or whatever).[/blockquote]
Ok. So respond to my point instead of looking for somewhere else to find umbrage.
Your original comment,
"That's cynical, and even pejorative towards a person many of us respect both as a writer and beyond that.
Have you considered the possibility he just likes writing this series? Or that, as often happens, word count issues have forced a writer to split a book more ways than he originally intended?"
is purely a defence of the author. I made it clear to you that you might have been incorrect in reading my intent as I was more blaming the machine than the artist, and instead of gracefully taking responsibility for the mistake, you ignore the mistake and light off into the wild blue with another attempt to take personal affront. Nice Flame.
I suppose the next step is to tell me that the publishing industry actually works on charity and agents and publishers don't really care about the money.
And that they would never change plans midstream to take advantage of a series that was going well to make more money off of it, especially if the writer was inclined to expand upon his works. I love how this,
"However, I think perhaps you neglect to consider that by my use of the word mercantile, I might be blaming the infuence of Bantam and the editors trying to wring a few extra shekels, NOT the Author. I won't ask for forgiveness or understanding in my belief that a publisher and agents have an interest and influence upon the length of the work in question. I happen to believe that Tolkein's LotR would have ended up being 11 books long in today's climate, and ruined for it."
is "insulting the proffessionalism and dedication of an entire industry".
I said that the publishers and agents have an interest and influence upon the length of the work in question, I'm sorry you can be so aggrieved at me calling a business a business, and can take such personal offence to me saying what is obviously true.
You misrepresented where my comments were directed, and then dramatically overreacted to the comments afterwards. I didn't say they didn't like books, or authors, or kitty-cats, and I didn't say I thought they were getting rich at it. Those were your words, and nothing I said even insinuated that.
[blockquote=Phoenix]Regardless no one forces an author to do something like split a series; and no one forces a powerhouse like GRRM to do much of anything. Any claim that the series has sold out will still boil down to claiming to author sold out to the publisher.[/blockquote] Ah, let us not doubt the powerhouse. No unabashed fanboyism here, right?
Who said sell out? That is your wording and HAS NOT been used by me, and I'll thank you to stop it, after being wrong as to my aim and after putting reams of words into my mouth (insulting an entire industry, claiming people are getting rich, or saying that people in the industry don't love the industry, for a start).
My assertation, to put it in black and white, is that the original plans of the Author were changed when the series took off. No one planned anything evil or sold out, but the publisher saw the oportunity to create a vehicle. And after it continued to do well, the author (who I agree might certanly truly enjoy being able to do more) was offered the opportunity to write more books for the series.
I may not think anyone is getting rich on it, but it's not like anyone is trying to make money off of this, or that the rights have been sold to HBO, or anything, right? No mercantile (to use the dirty word again) dimension at work at all.
I hope, personally, that George Martin makes a ton of money from this series, and that his publishers and agents do the same. I mentioned a few times that I truly enjoy his work, may writing the extended mix before the song work well for him and his readers.
I'll just wait until they are all out bfore buying any more of them and reading them.
and lastly, as I said before,
" And let me also applaud this thread again. You're getting some good response."
LV, I never intended to put words in your mouth. If you feel I did, I apologize (I sure feel you put a lot of words in my mouth, so I can see how you feel).
Asinine means unintelligent. Use of the word in any context is inflammatory, and the only reason to use it to be either insulting or dismissive. So yeah, it did produce an inflamed response, sorry.
Accusing someone of flaming is about as much flaming as anything they might have said. As is accusing someone of fanboyism, though the insult seemed almost a joke, so I'll try not to take offense (The comment that he is a powerhouse was from a marketing publisher that trained me, not my original description of him; I had never even read his work until then. The comment that editors don't force bestsellers to do anything also came from one of the top editors in the field, albeit not a fantasy editor.)
Use of the word mercantile as the reason for making a decision led me to believe you were implying the finances won out over art (as opposed to just being factor), which is what I would term "selling out," whether directed at the editors or the author.
Your words were "we now suffer a bloated mercantile attempt to capitalize on the series." However you may want to say I've taken this out of context, I cannot possibly imagine an interpretation of this sentence that is not chiding someone involved for selling out (and I would most likely defend any author against this kind of abuse until proof beyond the fact that the series did make money is presented).
I understand what your saying about stated goals of an artist/designer/whatever versus what happens. I look at the flip side--if a developer of anything is bound by his original estimates, it means he should not reveal those plans to the public, should not share with his fans, for fear of being later straightjacketed when a better idea comes along.
QuoteMy assertation, to put it in black and white, is that the original plans of the Author were changed when the series took off. No one planned anything evil or sold out, but the publisher saw the oportunity to create a vehicle. And after it continued to do well, the author (who I agree might certanly truly enjoy being able to do more) was offered the opportunity to write more books for the series.
Very fair assertion. Had your original post looking anything like this, I would not have been upset.
[blockquote=Battlin' Bird]'¦[blockquote=Vreegoliscious]My assertation, to put it in black and white, is that the original plans of the Author were changed when the series took off. No one planned anything evil or sold out, but the publisher saw the oportunity to create a vehicle. And after it continued to do well, the author (who I agree might certanly truly enjoy being able to do more) was offered the opportunity to write more books for the series.[/blockquote]
Very fair assertion. Had your original post looking anything like this, I would not have been upset. [/blockquote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We'll just go with this, and you and I can review to together when it comes out.
Fair enough.
Quote from: Nomadic*pulls out pistol and shoots stargate*
never bring a sword to a gunfight.
*points pistol at ishy*
are you then implying that Pluto is not a planet?!
*stabs Nomadic*
I am of course wearing full body armor, I am not a MORON.
Quote from: Stargate525Quote from: NomadicNote the above bolded word here. This was my personal opinion, not something I brought up to be debated (I just felt like sharing it). In closing... its my opinion so :P
You can't claim your opinion is better than mine if you're going to pull this out afterward!
Well, he can, but he has to clarify from the beginning that it's better
for him. Since he didn't clarify that immediately, though, you're right in this case.
As a related side note, the wordiness of Don Quixote, or for that matter, War and Peace, Great Expectations, or any of many other books, does not make LotR any less wordy. It makes LotR less wordy
in comparison, but it does not make any fundamental changes to the trilogy
itself.
You all really need to re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that LOTR magically gets less wordy because there are other books out there that are more wordy. Here I'll even be nice enough to quote it for you.
QuoteThat wordiness that is the common complaint against it is actually quite common in older books (you think LOTR is bad go further back and read Don Quixote).
Don't know how you got the idea I was saying otherwise (my response doesn't really count here since I was trying to find a way to reword it so he would understand what I was saying).
Anyhow, I didn't say what I said for it to be debated. From my end I posted my opinion and people felt the need to refute it (which comes across as them saying that they think I am wrong about my opinion).
As long as we're asking others to re-read what we write, due to implications we think those others might have picked up, you may want to re-read the first five words of the paragraph that you partially quoted ;) :p lol
I don't see how that changes anything... though perhaps your signature might explain that :P
My point was that in that paragraph, I didn't mention you or anything you said. But then, you're right, maybe my signature does explain my entire post :p
Here's a question:
Is graphic fiction (comic books) excluded from this list deliberatley or accidentally? Why is everyone talking in terms of pure text?
Is it because there aren't a lot of original fantasy stories in this medium as compared to pure text as a medium?
My intent with the list was novels, not every medium ever put onto paper such as poems, plays, short stories, or comic books. It is why I was somewhat hesitant about some of the classics, but decided they were close enough to novels. I think a separate list would work best for top rated comics/graphic novels, in part because I believe the art form (and I am in no way discounting it as art, though I don't read them), is sufficiently different from novels to warrant a separate list (for the same reason I proposed a separate list for sci fi--also, I don't really want to personally track gianormous lists, since I'm doing this by hand).
A few more authors and series to collect votes on:
Shana Abe - The Drakon
Poul Anderson - King of Ys
Poul Anderson - Operation Otherworld
Poul Anderson - Three Hearts and Three Lions
T.A. Barron - Great Tree of Avalon
T.A. Barron - Lost of Years of Merlin
John Anthony Bellairs - The Face in the Frost
Holly Black - The Spiderwick Chronicles
Marion Zimmer Bradley - Avalon series
Marion Zimmer Bradley - Atlantean series
Marion Zimmer Bradley - Colin McLaren series
Marion Zimmer Bradley - Shadow's Gate series
Marion Zimmer Bradley - Darkover series
Gillian Bradshaw - The Wolf Hunt
Gillian Bradshaw - Hawk of May
Emma Bull - War for the Oaks
Edgar Rice Burroughs - Tarzan
Chris Bunch - Seer King Trilogy
Chris Bunch - The Dragonmaster Trilogy
Chris Bunch - The Last Legion
Lillian Stewart Carl - Sabazel series
Lillian Stewart Carl - Lucifer's Crown
Jonathan Carroll - Answered Prayers Sextet
C. J. Cherryh - Forge of Heaven
Molly Cochran - The Broken Sword
John Crowley - Little, Big
Bryan Davis - Dragons in our Midst
Lyon Sprague de Camp - Harold Shea
Lyon Sprague de Camp - Gavagan's Bar
Lyon Sprague de Camp - Pusadian series
David Drake - Queen of Demons
Diane Duane - Young Wizards
Lisa Goldstein - The Alchemist's Door
J. V. Jones - Sword of Shadows
CaitlÃn R. Kiernan - The Five of Cups
Holly Lisle - Arhel
Holly Lisle - Glenraven
Holly Lisle - Bard's Tale
Holly Lisle - Devil's Point
Holly Lisle - The Secret Texts
Morgan Llywelyn - The Elementals
Morgan Llywelyn - Red Branch
Thomas Malory - Le Morte D'Arthur
Peter Morwood - Horse Lords
Jonathan Swift - Gulliver's Travels
Jack Vance - Tales of the Dying Earth
David Wellington - Monster Trilogy
David Zindell - Ea Cycle
If you've read any of these, let us know whether we should as well.
Darkover series - Marion Zimmer Bradley - 5
Dark Sun - Tribe of One series - 5
Deathgate Cycle - Margarett Weiss - 4
Dragonlance (original series, can't remember name) - 4
Riftwar Saga - Raymond Feist - 6
I've created what I hope is a more user friendly first page. For new users to vote, just copy the list at the end and add a number. I may try to do some kind of consolidated update for those that have voted.
Certainly ASOIAF. It may have its faults, but I'm personally glad it was extended to seven books. Provided GRRM doesn't go and kick the bucket before the series is finished.
As for WoT, I'm not such a fan. I feel the series started well, but slowly got bogged down and slightly boring.
Votes should come later.
Quote from: snakefingWell, I'd give the Belgariad a 3. Barely readable.
Well, guess I'll bump that down to the bottom of my reading list ;)
Sounds like Tad Williams and Gene Wolfe need to be on the top. And maybe Terry Prachet.
Quote from: IshmaylDarkover series - Marion Zimmer Bradley - 5
queen[/i]. :P) Instead she relied on more standard male sci-fi/fantasy protagonist that didn't
really have a lot to do with the story, and it kind of fell flat.
I imagine I've read a lot of books you didn't know I've read ;)
And no, I haven't read Stormqueen, but I know what it's about. I didn't really like the Darkover series enough to read more books about Darkover.
Quote from: PhoenixQuote from: snakefingWell, I'd give the Belgariad a 3. Barely readable.
Get some Gene Wolfe from the library if you can. His style is quite distinctive and not really easy to read. Some people can't get into it.
Terry Pratchett is just good goofy fun with a bit of a cynical edge. Definitely worth looking into.
I'm really not sure what to say about the Belgariad. When I read it, I got the sense that it was really aimed at kids. So maybe it is not so bad, if you look at it that way. But I couldn't stomach it myself.
I like Tad Williams okay, but haven't read that much of him.
Quote from: snakefingQuote from: PhoenixQuote from: snakefingWell, I'd give the Belgariad a 3. Barely readable.
Get some Gene Wolfe from the library if you can. His style is quite distinctive and not really easy to read. Some people can't get into it.
Terry Pratchett is just good goofy fun with a bit of a cynical edge. Definitely worth looking into.
I'm really not sure what to say about the Belgariad. When I read it, I got the sense that it was really aimed at kids. So maybe it is not so bad, if you look at it that way. But I couldn't stomach it myself.
I like Tad Williams okay, but haven't read that much of him.
Wolfe is near the top of my list as wel. I rarely feel a story being written at so many different levels at once as I read it, yet it still engrossed me. The strange characters and the way he makes the bizarre seem to fit is also amazing
Someone asked why I voted the Belgariad so low. My answer - it read like a series of children's books. It was as if he'd taken the fantasy genre and decided to "dumb it down" and simplify it until everything was easy enough to understand for children... and yet, as far as I'm aware, it's supposed to be "adult" fiction.
The plot was laughable, the characters less than two-dimensional... I can't tell you how bad I think the Belgariad is. I only finished it out of a kind of sick fascination - the way you can't help but poke at a sore tooth.
His Elenium series is marginally better, as it at least has some vaguely entertaining characters, and I will admit I enjoyed some passages, but it's still, in my opinion, drivel. He spoiled any sense of tension there might have been by having the goodies (and they definitely are goodies, not just protagonists) overcoming every challenge set before them with little to no losses.
Luminous Crayon, I'd like to hear your reasoning behind calling the books (you know which ones) on your list "Fantasy." I respect your taste in literature, but I just don't think they belong in this list.
... where is the list we're referring to?
Quote from: Crippled Crow... where is the list we're referring to?
Here (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?51908.last). I originally thought a separate discussion thread would work better for me keeping track of votes. But since I track both, it doesn't really matter.
I gotta say, I'm surprised at how well rated Memory Sorrow & Thorn is. It was the first series of books that I put down without finishing. Of course that was a lot of years ago, so I may like it more now.
Also, as I said in my vote, more of you need to read The Black Company (Glen Cook) and the Malazan Book of the Fallen (Steven Erikson)
Pellanor, MS&T has a notoriously slow start - in fact, the very first time I attempted to read it, I remember I took a vacation from it around chapter 6, and didn't get back to it for a couple months. You should give it another try sometime.
Also, Steve Landers mentioned over in the ratings page that he didn't like the ending. I see that comment every now and then too, but I think Tad Williams said it best in an interview, which I will paraphrase in Ish-Speak (spoilering below for those who haven't read - I recommend you don't read it, lest something be spoiled, though I will try to be ambiguous):
[spoiler]
Tad has said that he is constantly surprised at how people complain about such a happy ending, considering the fact of how many people die (and actually stay dead, JORDAN!), and how dark the story is up until the last two chapters. All the "surprises" in those last 2 chapters are well thought-out, and are even foreshadowed throughout the entire series, so I've never really been able to understand people complaining about too happy an ending. [/spoiler]
Oddly enough, although I never finished MS&T, it wasn't due to the slow start... I loved the first two books, I've even re-read them several times, but when I started reading the third, To Green Angel Tower or whatever it was called, just... I dunno... my interest waned.
Discworld 10
American gods/ Anansi Boys 10
Vampire Chronicles 6
Conan 8
Elric 8
Corum 8
Harry Potter 6
Lord of the Rings 5
Alvin Maker 7
The Tempest 7
Belgariad 6
Cthulhu Mythos 8
Xanth 6
Incarnations of Immortality 7
Blue Adept 7
Chronicles of Narnia 4
Word and the Void 5
Circle of Magic 5
Dark Tower 6
Prydain Chronicles 6
Midsummer Night's Dream by William Shakespeare 8
Oz by L. Frank Baum 5
Those were my rankings. I think the general trend is I like action better than plodding exposition. I also like works with a sense of humor better than ones that are written in a dead serious tone.
Lord of The Rings in the specific got about three bonus points for importance to the genre and detailed mythology. I have tried to read it a number of times. I have so far ended up stalling out somewhere in the stuff in Rivendell in Fellowship. It doesn't flow well for me. I can read The Bible better than this stuff, and that is not meant to be a compliment towards The Bible.
Has no one else read the L5R: Clan Wars series? Come on, they're the classics of the 'western interpretation of traditional Pseudo-Sino-Japanese literature!' IMO, L5R is the LotR of Asian Fantasy (though, obviously not its peer).
Quote from: PellanorI gotta say, I'm surprised at how well rated Memory Sorrow & Thorn is. It was the first series of books that I put down without finishing. Of course that was a lot of years ago, so I may like it more now.
Also, as I said in my vote, more of you need to read The Black Company (Glen Cook) and the Malazan Book of the Fallen (Steven Erikson)
Oh, yes, the Black Company books do indeed rock. They get high praise from me.
Quote from: LordVreegOh, yes, the Black Company books do indeed rock. They get high praise from me.
I'm currently working my way through them, but they seem pretty good so far. I'm taking a short break from it, though, to read something my wife recommended: The Excalibur Murders. Don't know what I think about this yet.
I'm still surprised more people haven't read the Alice books, personally.
By the way, what's a good Pratchett book to start with? My local library has some, but I don't think they're in order.
The first one I ever read was Guards Guards, its the first book with Vimes in it, pretty good. The first Discworld book is The Colour of Magic.
The thing about the Discworld is that there's several different groups of people that are followed in the books.
The Witches, The Watch, Moist von Lipwig, Tiffany Aching, Ricewind are all main chars in multple books. So people who like one group (The Watch) might not like the books of another group.
The ranking thread is nice, but I think it would be more helpful to have a thread where people posted with their favorite books they think others would enjoy. Then you could tally how many people suggested the books so people can see "Hey this book was suggested by five people. I should look into reading it."
Has anybody ever read the Everworld Series? It's a YA series by K.A. Applegate (of Animorphs fame), about four from the suburbs of Chicago who inexplicably meet up early one morning, notice a girl whom they all have some connection to, and... get (literally) dragged into a nightmarishly primitive alternate universe known as Everworld. Now, of course, they have to find a permanent way back home... if they can survive long enough in such an intensely foreign reality.
I've never read it, someone I knew a long time ago read it and said it was pretty good. I've read most of Animorphs (the same person I knew was obsessed with them), they're not that bad. Cliche but still throwing a few curve balls.
My favorite book I ever read by her was the Elmist or Tales of the Elmist or something. Its the origin story of the Elmist a sorta cosmic being who upholds good.
Well Newspaper you could always just check and see who voted for what book, so if several people rank it highly you can read it.
Most of my favorite books are science fiction so I won't mention them here, but some of the best fantasy novels I've read are The Black Company by Glenn Cook, His Dark Meterials by Philip Pullman, A Song of Ice and Fire by George R R Martin and The Hungry Cities chronicles by Philip Reeve (bordering on science fiction but its more science fantasy). WoT is also good.
The very first novel I read was The Hobbit, awesome. My mother read it to me, then I started over and read it for myself. Best time I ever spent reading a book.
I tried to follow up with The Fellowship, but there was something different about it. It just seemed to drag on. I put it down a few pages into the realization that some forest was deciding to have different path today. Didn't touch anything close to a novel for a year.
6th grade, some spoiled brat ripped his animorph #2 in half and left it, and #1 on the ground outside his school. I collected most of the series 'till one of the mains became a butterfly for good. I also read a bunch of Babysitter's Club and Boxcar Kids on the side.
Hidden in the school library I found "Wizard's First Rule". This one was nice, but I stop liking the series after the third book. I kept reading 'till the sixth cause it was the closest thing to porn I had access to. The climax of the sixth was really awesome, but everything in between just isn't worth it. Did Goodkind finish the series, or is he still trying to drag it on with more anti-communism propaganda?
High school gave me access to much better books. Like Xanth and Pern, as well as Encyclopedias. Now I own a really big thesaurus, just cause I like flipping thru it and finding random alternate words.
My random picks you'd probably never have bothered with otherwise:
Thieves and Kings by Mark Oakley: This is comic book series that's been cut short, but what little there is has that childhood charm everyone will enjoy. Poetic and epic, this is a neglected treasure.
Speed of Darkness: The authors name escapes me. Third of the first run of StarCraft novels. The first feels like a really good fan-fic, while the second is bad one. Speed of Darkness is a heart tugging tragedy and enhances the SC setting. A movie adaptation would make me weep.
Reboot: I know it's a TV series. Watch v1.09: Wizards, Warriors, and a Word from our Sponsor (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5kznjTaSozo)
Actually, you can get allot of crazy ideas from watching reboot, since they did every trope they could in 4 short seasons and a couple of made for TV movies.
Quote from: NewspaperThe ranking thread is nice, but I think it would be more helpful to have a thread where people posted with their favorite books they think others would enjoy. Then you could tally how many people suggested the books so people can see "Hey this book was suggested by five people. I should look into reading it."
The table actually does tally how many people voted for the book (though not how many gave it good votes).
Feel free to create such a list ;)
Actually, I don't know that I'll continue updating it much longer. It was a nice project, but I've got lot's of other projects, too.
What would be really cool is if there was some way to make polls work such that the rankings could be automatically generated and each member could vote on every series, so that no one had to maintain it by hand.
I understand it was designed to be helpful, but I always felt rankings were more likely to turn people away from a book rather than try it and make their own opinion. If people would support it I would gladly make a list where people post their top three 'gotta read this book'.
Well, i can only speak for myself, but my list of "gotta read" books would shift around quite a lot as i read new things.
Robert. E. Howard
George R.R Martin
Gene Wolfe
Storm Constantine
Mervyn Peake
Robin Hobb
Raymond E. Feist
All of them a bit more realistic and dark, more mature fantasy than say Harry Potter or some of the other fluffy, pointless garbage they market. I'd put R.R Martin, Howard, Peake and Wolfe at the top, with the rest trailing after as great...but not earthshakingly so.
Only three works might be kind of limiting. Even three authors restricts things a lot.
My three favorite authors are Frank Herbert, George R. R. Martin, and Brandon Sanderson.
Is Sanderson that good? Hadn't really heard of him before it was announced he was going to finish WoT
Ishy and I have very different opinions on the matter ;)
I absolutely loved Mistborn (you'll see it's one of the few books I gave a 10). While he thought Elantris (Sanderson's first book) was weak.
One of the many things I loved about Mistborn, is that each book feels complete, but by the end of the last you see things in the first a whole new light. Little threads planted so carefully, memorable, but seemingly unimportant until you realize it holds everything together.