Questions about fantasy books in general

[Gary Wassner]

I can't say I disagree about Feist. But I am a little disappointed that I don't make any of your lists, Jay I figured, since you went from best to worst, I would show up somewhere. I feel lost and adrift.

 

[sanityassassin]

I find a lot of these contributors rather elitest in there comments, who is to say stephen donaldson is better than terry prachett or david gemmel is not as good as neil gaiman its all personal taste and all write in there own way with different styles and different views in what fantasy really is is it similar to our own world with just a little diffrence or a completly different world full of different races and monsters with magic flying all over the place. each to there own just remember 1 mans meat is another mans poison.

 

[Mark Robson]

I find a lot of these contributors rather elitest in there comments, who is to say stephen donaldson is better than terry prachett or david gemmel is not as good as neil gaiman its all personal taste and all write in there own way with different styles and different views in what fantasy really is is it similar to our own world with just a little diffrence or a completly different world full of different races and monsters with magic flying all over the place. each to there own just remember 1 mans meat is another mans poison.

A very good point. I agree.

 

[Jay]

Blah, blah, blah,

A very good point. I agree.

I don't agree at all - the point is redundant, and obvious. The notion that it's all individual opinions is I think understood. There is nothing elitist about having an opinion., however, some people think the two are synonymous, and they are not.

I say that Neil Gaiman is better then David Gemmell, the fact that it's my opinion is implied by being in a post I typed.

can't say I disagree about Feist. But I am a little disappointed that I don't make any of your lists, Jay I figured, since you went from best to worst, I would show up somewhere. I feel lost and adrift.

That list represents a fraction of the authors I have read it by no means is it a comprehensive list, or meant to be.

It's ridiculous when simply stating an author is better then another is considered elitist - it's simply having an opinion. If we aren't here to share opinions about fantasy authors what are here for?

 

[Brys]

What do you mean, elitist? Why is one opinion more elitist than an other? Why should we give more credit to someone who prefers David Gemmell to someone who prefers Fritz Leiber, for example? Just because you may think they're too literary doesn't mean we don't enjoy them more. If someone was saying anyone who hadn't got a Masters degree in English literature's opinion didn't count, then that would be being elitist, but simply stating opinions, as we are here, can hardly be considered elitist.

 

[cyborg_cinema]

After hearing so much on some other message boards about how much the fantasy genre lacks GOOD books...

...any sci-fi books that the critics recommend have fantasy genre roots.

 

[GOLLUM]

I'd have to agree with Jay and Brys on this whole elitism thing. Without wishing to presuppose what you were intending to convey Sanity, are you possibly not confusing Elitism with members and I can only really speak for myself here, who have perhaps very clear and strong opinions of what they like in thier literature? I didn't speciaflly post a tier system in this post but I too have specific "rankings" for want of a better word with particular authors in terms of great to not so great IMO. I also tend to extoll to an extent the works of authors like Steven Erikson because I am genuinley ethusiatic about the work they produce and not because of any intentional or otherwise feeling of superiority as it were...

 

[Gary Wassner]

What could possibly be wrong with stating what we like, if we truly do like it? If one were to make fun of another person for his tastes or tell him/her that they are less than intelligent for liking someone, then that would be different. The elitism that some perceive in these lists comes from the assumption that judgments are being made with regard to other people's taste who might disagree with the books on their own list. My son loves Jordan and can't wait for each and every book to come out. He's a Princeton graduate, a very intelligent person, and his taste and mine do not always coincide. He has his reasons for enjoying Jordan. Who am I to tell him that his enjoyment is false or misguided?

My lists tend not to coincide with many of the very knowledgable readers on many of the boards. I have my very personal reasons for the things I enjoy. I always look for a certain type of satisfaction in a book and well-written and creative is often not enough for me. For me to call something brilliant, it really has to be brilliant. I always thought best meant better than all the rest.

But offering opinions is what a forum is all about. We would probably find this exercise to be more effective and intelectually profitable if we said why we ranked some books high and some so low.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

But offering opinions is what a forum is all about. We would probably find this exercise to be more effective and intelectually profitable if we said why we ranked some books high and some so low.

I can't argue with that, and that's exactly why I'm less trigger-happy with recommendations than I used to be. Unless I can really offer a good rationale behind my choices, and have the time to type it out, it's just another name check. Also, my views are still being formed. A year back, I had not read Gene Wolfe. Today, I'd have to rank him in my own 'first tier' by any parameter. ANd he's not exactly a brand new author! Any ranking that I provide can only be 'for the moment'. I'd hate to seem more authoritative than I actually am.

 

[Taltos]

At first I wanted also write about these tiers - that they have meaning only to the poster and are a big ego trip. Then started to think, and came to conclusion, that they serve some purpose - if you can find someones list with which first and last tier choices you mostly agree - then you can try the authors whom you haven't read and he/she has put them on higher tears.

This works even better if you know the person, what his/hers preferences in other areas are etc.

Also, I usually find that ranking books only by authors is too general. One author can be brilliant in one book and mediocre in next. At least I haven't found an author whos brilliant all the time.

 

[Mark Robson]

My take on Sanity's post was that there are many who grade fantasy by how 'high brow' it is. (Substitute elitest for 'high brow') The language that a writer uses means little to me. The fact that David Eddings choses to write stories in simple, easy to read english, does not make him any less a good storyteller than someone who writes with plum in his mouth. That someone rates Neil Gaimon more highly than David Gemmell is a matter of personal taste and nothing more.

Good fantasy to me, is a well told story. If it grips me and transports me to the world in which the story is written, then great - it's a good book, written by a talented writer. The talent is no less if the book appeals to children rather than would-be intellectuals - if anything, this is harder to achieve, as the attention span of your average young person these days can be limited!

2c

 

[GOLLUM]

My take on Sanity's post was that there are many who grade fantasy by how 'high brow' it is. (Substitute elitest for 'high brow') The language that a writer uses means little to me. The fact that David Eddings choses to write stories in simple, easy to read english, does not make him any less a good storyteller than someone who writes with plum in his mouth. That someone rates Neil Gaimon more highly than David Gemmell is a matter of personal taste and nothing more.

Good fantasy to me, is a well told story. If it grips me and transports me to the world in which the story is written, then great - it's a good book, written by a talented writer. The talent is no less if the book appeals to children rather than would-be intellectuals - if anything, this is harder to achieve, as the attention span of your average young person these days can be limited!

2c

Well for me personally the books that appeal to me the most are those that have, to use your term "high brow" prose, in combination with a gripping story with interesting characters. I enjoy being intellectually challenged and indeed stimluated and made to think about various sociopolitical issues whilst reading an entertaining and well told story. I can't agree with you equating "high brow" prose with "plum in the mouth" as you term it. Just because an author likes to question or explore various e.g. social themes doesn't necessarily mean they have a "plum in the mouth" or an elitist/snob attitude towards others as this term invaribly implies. For me it's not good enough that a story simply be well told, I think we can and indeed should expect IMO at least, more than that.

I for one am very glad we have such authors including Gene Wolfe, Steven Erikson, R Scott Bakker, Italo Calvino, Kafka, Shakespeare, Albert Camus, etc... and think the world would be a much poorer place without their contributions.

When it's all said and done as we've been saying ad finitum on this thread already, it's all a matter of personal taste, so if you enjoy Eddings then that's great I just don't happen to share that view.

 

[GOLLUM]

Just to clarify a point I made on the previuos post I do genereally enjoy for want of a better term more "complex" prose than simple plain english but this is not to imply that stories written in a simpler style of prose can't also explore interesting social concepts effectively. I just get more generally out of the more dense, complex or multilayered prose that explores various concepts or ideas provided there's also a decent storyline attached to it of course...

 

[sanityassassin]

I seem to have started a bit of a debate about these tier system and i apoligise if I caused offence writing it seemed to have help in my clarifacation of why these people have created these lists and helped me and possably others to understand these lists a bit better I think there was a lack of understanding but the replys seem to clear the situation.

this quote seems to sum up my point of veiw the best:-

At first I wanted also write about these tiers - that they have meaning only to the poster and are a big ego trip. Then started to think, and came to conclusion, that they serve some purpose - if you can find someones list with which first and last tier choices you mostly agree - then you can try the authors whom you haven't read and he/she has put them on higher tears.

This works even better if you know the person, what his/hers preferences in other areas are etc.

Also, I usually find that ranking books only by authors is too general. One author can be brilliant in one book and mediocre in next. At least I haven't found an author whos brilliant all the time.

A very good point as I have found especially with Michael Moorcock some I've read were really good others I did'nt enjoy at all.

 

[GOLLUM]

I seem to have started a bit of a debate about these tier system and i apoligise if I caused offence writing it seemed to have help in my clarifacation of why these people have created these lists and helped me and possably others to understand these lists a bit better I think there was a lack of understanding but the replys seem to clear the situation.

Stress thee not thine friend...

As long as things don't get overly personal, which I don't think they have, these discussions are actually quite fun and stimulating for ze little grey cells...

 

[Mark Robson]

For me it's not good enough that a story simply be well told, I think we can and indeed should expect IMO at least, more than that.

Why, why, why?! By saying this alone, you raise certain authors above others unfairly. True, you make it clear it is your opinion, and it's obvious that not everyone agrees with you, but for someone who claims to be a thinking man, you are in danger of contradicting yourself by this statement!

Surely by telling a story well, the writer achieves his/her objective. Does it grip their target audience? If their target audience likes dense text, then it is easy to know what to expect from the author, but why should that make them any more clever than someone who tells an outstanding and gripping story in simple, easy to follow, English? (Particularly if the storyline is complex.) Was CS Lewis any less brilliant than Tolkien? In my opinion, no. He was simply aiming his story at a different audience. That required him to use a different skill set.

I get the feeling that we will have to agree to differ on this one, Gollum.

 

[Rosemary]

One author can be brilliant in one book and mediocre in next. At least I haven't found an author who's brilliant all the time.

This statement is just how I would have put it, Taltos.
I can think of quite a few examples that I have come across. I really enjoyed Janny Wurts Stormwarden (?) series. I have had trouble putting down some of Mr Feist's books down, so intriguing, and yet I personally could not finish the first book of The Empire!
Some books are more intellectual, others are easy reading but however you look at it - unless the storyline is well written and holds your interest - it doesn't really matter.

It is all just a matter of personal preference in the end.

 

[Jay]

I must be missing something (which is possible, so bear with me)...

Why, why, why?! By saying this alone, you raise certain authors above others unfairly. True, you make it clear it is your opinion, and it's obvious that not everyone agrees with you, but for someone who claims to be a thinking man, you are in danger of contradicting yourself by this statement!

What does personal preference have anything to do with some non-existant scale of fairness?

I either like something or I don't , even if I knew what "being fair" implied, I wouldn't practice it; once I reached a personal conclusion, why bother?. I think one is being fair by having read a book they say they don't like - what more can anyone ask for?

Me thinking someone like Christophwr Paolini or Terry Brooks is the quinessential example of POS fantasy publishing for instance doesn't have to be a conclusion based on any sense of uniform fair play. It is what it is - we can only speak for ourselves.

Surely by telling a story well, the writer achieves his/her objective. Does it grip their target audience? If their target audience likes dense text, then it is easy to know what to expect from the author, but why should that make them any more clever than someone who tells an outstanding and gripping story in simple, easy to follow, English? (Particularly if the storyline is complex.) Was CS Lewis any less brilliant than Tolkien? In my opinion, no. He was simply aiming his story at a different audience. That required him to use a different skill set.

I don't see the relevance of this to the "tiers" - are you saying we cannot like a certain type of work more then an another, and beyond that advocate our preferences? If your answwer is no, they I don't see what your issue is, and your answer is yes (an impossible stance to take on a online discussion community), than I just utterly diagree with you.

Off-topic - I don't think either Lewis or Tolkien were brilliant - Competent? Yes. Enjoyable? Yes. Nostalgic memories? Yes.neither stack up to contemporaries in their respective sub-genre like someone like Peake or Leiber still do. They had their strengths, Tolkien was an incredible linguist, and world builder, and Lewis....well Lewis on hindsight good at being overbearing

If i just completely misinterpited you post (as said, possible) - just let me know.

 

[McMurphy]

Just My Personal Distinction between Two Levels of Literature

Surely by telling a story well, the writer achieves his/her objective. Does it grip their target audience? If their target audience likes dense text, then it is easy to know what to expect from the author, but why should that make them any more clever than someone who tells an outstanding and gripping story in simple, easy to follow, English? (Particularly if the storyline is complex.) Was CS Lewis any less brilliant than Tolkien? In my opinion, no. He was simply aiming his story at a different audience. That required him to use a different skill set.

For me, I break down the difference between good literature and great literature as follows:

Good Literature = (and you put it well) A story that is well told and provides a satisfying and entertaining adventure regardless of the target audience it was written for.

Great Literature = Everything that good literature achieves and yet offers a subtext within plots and themes that invites readers to re-examine certain elements of life and encourages thinking and rethinking.

For example, I believe that Harry Potter is good literature, while Watership Down is great literature.

It must be noted that great literature is not a novel or story too caught up in lecturing that it forgets the fundimentals of what makes good literature, and I think that is where people sometimes wrongly place some works above ones that are just interested in telling a solid story.

 

[Brys]

Why, why, why?! By saying this alone, you raise certain authors above others unfairly. True, you make it clear it is your opinion, and it's obvious that not everyone agrees with you, but for someone who claims to be a thinking man, you are in danger of contradicting yourself by this statement!

Surely by telling a story well, the writer achieves his/her objective. Does it grip their target audience? If their target audience likes dense text, then it is easy to know what to expect from the author, but why should that make them any more clever than someone who tells an outstanding and gripping story in simple, easy to follow, English? (Particularly if the storyline is complex.) Was CS Lewis any less brilliant than Tolkien? In my opinion, no. He was simply aiming his story at a different audience. That required him to use a different skill set.

I get the feeling that we will have to agree to differ on this one, Gollum.

I agree - except it all depends on what you count as story well told. Personally, I don't think Eddings' story is a story well told. Others may think differently. But I think that if someone's writing is poor, then for myself, it severely detracts from the reading experience and makes it less enjoyable. On the other hand, prose is hardly the only factor I consider in what makes a good fantasy novel - I rate Erikson as my favourite author constantly, despite his prose not even comparing to masters such as Peake, Harrison, Calvino or Mieville.

I agree though about your point with the audience intended, which is why I don't think Eddings is actually that terrible - his novels are clearly designed for a younger audience, and as such, writes good novels. I agree with Jay though that neither Lewis nor Tolkien were brilliant, only good.

@McMurphy, great definitions there.