Comments on Best Fantasy Books of the 21st Century - page 2
Comments Showing 51-100 of 128 (128 new)
As the poster above said, quality and genre are two different questions. I think the exclusion of PNR should keep Twilight out, but it does have fantasy elements, aka vampires.Also, I'm hardly a fan of Twilight, but I'm not sure what the problem is with its being a "middle-aged women's fantasy." Tons of fantasy books represent the wish-fulfillment fantasies of teenage boys--Name of the Wind, for instance. I hope you aren't trying to say catering to men's fantasies is legitimate but catering to women's isn't.
Chance wrote: "They might have an easier time of things if people would pay attention to what they add, for one."I agree with Chance, and if there are books on the list that you don't think fit, then do what I do, pretend they are not there. I uses this list and others like to discover books I don't know about. I'm not going to read something just because it's on a list.
At any rate, GR discourages Librarians (and we are volunteers) not to remove books from lists unless they are clearly miscategorized (non-fiction on a fiction list, for example), or unless the list creator requests it.
Chance wrote: "As was mentioned before, it is considered fantasy by some/most/even a single person."^^ Your sentence makes no sense; I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
And if we're talking about dragons living in OUR world, with everything else the way it already is, serving the same function as a pet dog, then yes, it wouldn't really be fantasy.
The only function vampires serve in Twilight, is to be a 'super-boyfriend' - richer, hotter, and more controlling.
Grack21 wrote: "Twilight is fantasy. Get over it."Then why is there more romance in it than all fantasy elements in the book combined?
Genre is not exclusive. A book can be Romance and Fantasy.
More people have shelved it as fantasy than romance, actually. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't allowed in your favorite genre.
Also, by that definition, Attack of the Clones isn't SciFi, its Romance. :P
What about The Bad Beginning (A Series of Unfortunate Events, #1. It was published before 2000 AND I don't quite see the 'fantasy' relevance... unless anything nonfiction and/or YA can be called fantasy.
By the way this conversation turned out, it almost seems like there's no standard at all. Let's say if enough people put Twilight on a shelf called 'Horror', is it then a horror book? That's just silly.
I deleted The Bad Beginning as it was published in 1999.The problem is who gets to make those discretionary calls. If 1000 people shelve Twilight as horror, and 100 people vote for it on a horror-themed list, why should one random librarian get to delete it because they don't think it's horror? Goodreads does not allow librarians to make judgment calls like that. Lists are supposed to be democratic. So, if you don't think something fits, vote for its competition. Or make your own list with specific parameters.
Edit: I know you all know this, but it is just a Goodreads list after all....
Emma wrote: "Also, I'm hardly a fan of Twilight, but I'm not sure what the problem is with its being a "middle-aged women's fantasy." Tons of fantasy books represent the wish-fulfillment fantasies of teenage boys--Name of the Wind, for instance. I hope you aren't trying to say catering to men's fantasies is legitimate but catering to women's isn't. "The Name of the Wind is clearly fantasy: it's set in a different world, there's magic etc. and I fail to see how that is some male sexual fantasy. It's just pure fantasy. I love that book. Just sayin'.
Also, the heading on this list: 'Only fantasy books, please do not add science fiction or paranormal-romance books.
'paranormal-romance books' ... ooh what does that sound like? - I think the list creator was quite specific.
No need to get sarcastic, I mentioned that earlier. Nevertheless, the existence of subgenres doesn't make fantasy not fantasy.Also, I don't want to get off on too much of a tangent here, but NotW is total Gary Stu wish-fulfillment--Kvothe is the bestest at everything from magic to music to fighting to sex... but whatever, the fact that it doesn't appeal to me doesn't mean I'm going to go around trying to think up ways to exclude it from the genre.
Don't look into the deadlights Emma. ;)
OK, I'm done. :)
Removed some pre-2000 Discworld books (Small Gods, Reaper Man), some Dark Tower books (Wizard and Glass, Drawing of the Three) and The Princess Bride.
Wealhtheow wrote: "I wish I could vote for Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell a million times."I second that. Brilliant novel.
Really this list should be done by a person who has read all these books, not by people voting, the books that have been read the most will get the most votes, not the best books. Harry Potter has been read by more people than any other book on this list, while being a great story it is not even close to being the best book on this list, and I've only read about 10 of these books, mainly Harry Potter and Brandon Sanderson. The Brandon Sanderson books are all way better than Harry Potter.
Andrew wrote: "... The Brandon Sanderson books are all way better than Harry Potter."What would you recommend, Andrew?
Lot of great books, but a number of them were actually published in the 20th century, not the current one.
I'd be happy to remove them if y'all would point them out (preferably with the approximate location on the list).
The Eye of the World (list place 243) was published in 1990.
I like this list, because it's the first one I see where The Magicians actually make it to top 100, woop!
I went through and deleted the more obvious errors in the first five pages of the list. The most glaring were The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.
I'm wondering if people are muddling up fantasy as in wish fulfillment with fantasy as in magic and dragons.There are a few that sort of cross over between Supernatural and Fantasy, so I can see the argument for them.
Erm... someone seems to have added all of Lynsay Sands vampire books, I love reading them but they are most definitely not fantasy. Paranormal/contemporary-modern romance yes, crime romance in some cases... I could make a good case for Science-Fiction too but fantasy?
If it features a vampire, it's fantasy. Fantasy is a broad category.
I would argue that the while a vampire might feature in a fantasy novel, a vampire itself does not constitute fantasy, it is a creature of the horror genre that has been co-opted into romance by it's supernatural and attractive nature.I love fantasy novels and I love adult vampire romance... I read a lot, but I don't confuse the two.
Louise wrote: "I would argue that the while a vampire might feature in a fantasy novel, a vampire itself does not constitute fantasy,"Librarians are only supposed to delete entries that are entirely mischaracterized, and many persons, myself included, see fantastic fiction as any fiction that features impossible things. It is a broad, inclusive category, not a narrow marketing genre.
Doesn't that mean we can add just about anything then? Jane Eyre for example is a fictional book that features impossible things, but I wouldn't call it fantasy.In any case this list explicitly states: "Only fantasy books, please do not add science fiction or paranormal-romance books." Or I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it.
Louise wrote: "Doesn't that mean we can add just about anything then? Jane Eyre for example is a fictional book that features impossible things, but I wouldn't call it fantasy.In any case this list explicitly s..."
I can't comment on Jane Eyre, because I haven't read it. The exact instructions to librarians deleting books are:
"Only delete books from the list that are totally miscategorized. Deleting books that aren't will result in a loss of librarian privileges, and possible deletion of account. We're super serious!"
It seem to me, therefore, that they want us to use an extremely light hand in editing these lists. Fantasy has been a category of literature for far longer than narrow marketing genres have existed. Putting two and two together, I conclude that anything that has a fantastic element must be left in lists such as this one, because it is extremely difficult to come up with objective criteria to exclude it. Sure, like anyone else I have my opinion about what constitutes true fantasy, but I think it's an abuse of librarian privileges to impose my opinions on others.
In other words, if I can't come up with an objective reason for excluding something that can be agreed upon by anyone who is a sane adult, I leave it alone.
Xenophon is right. There's a lot of space between personally disagreeing with something and thus not voting for it yourself, and taking it upon yourself to delete other people's votes. If a book is a simple wish-fulfillment fantasy with no magical or supernatural elements whatsoever, it would be totally miscategorized. But if it has imaginary creatures it stays, regardless of whether they're dragons or vampires.
Deleted for being published before 2000:Harry Potter Boxset (the books published after are already up there)
Lords and Ladies
Gardens of the moon
Assassion's Apprentice
The Amber Spyglass
The Children of Hurin
If anyone finds more, let me know the number and title and I'll take a look.
Careful...Children of Hurin was published posthumously by Tolkien's son in 2007.
And The Amber Spyglass was published in 2000
I'd advise a little less zeal!
Julien wrote: "Careful...Children of Hurin was published posthumously by Tolkien's son in 2007.
And The Amber Spyglass was published in 2000
I'd advise a little less zeal!"
I looked at the pages for both of them. The Amber Spyglass said "first published January 1st 1999"
The edition of Children of Hurin - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... This says that it was first published in 1988. Maybe it's referring to when it's written then? Or maybe the page has the wrong information?
I checked everything I deleted against their Goodreads page.
I'm not sure where the 1988 date for Children of Hurin is coming from; part of it was published in Unfinished Tales in 1980, but it was not published in full until 2007. It couldn't have been *written* in 1988, at any rate, as Tolkien died in 1973.I suspect 2000 may be correct for The Amber Spyglass; it was nominated for book prizes in 2001, which is suggestive of 2000 as a first publication date and not 1999.
The book pages here, alas, are not always correct.
Yep. Better check the infos twice before deleting anything. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is often more trustworthy than GR. Anyway, it's best to leave lists alone unless you're 100% sure that a book is misplaced.
Yeah, if I have doubts I check Wikipedia and WorldCat to see what they say.
Harry Potter?! Why haven't this list been edited?
The Harry Potter books in this list were all published in the 21st century! (Well, to be technical, the 21st century began in 2001, but this list also accepts books puslished in 2000).
Julien wrote: "The Harry Potter books in this list were all published in the 21st century! (Well, to be technical, the 21st century began in 2001, but this list also accepts books puslished in 2000)."Lol, so if the series had 20 books you could just put them all in the list...lol...
No. Look. Only the books published after 2000 are on the list. You won't find the first 3 in the series.
I'm surprised not to see a minimum number of ratings on this list - of say 1000. There are at least 3 books on the first page that certainly look like author spam - and as many as 5. And at least 12 on page 2.
Hahaha. No self-promotion please. Even hilarious ones.
There are a number of fairly clear science fiction books on this list and I don't see an obvious discussion in previous messages.On page 14:
Victorious, Tripoint, Freedom's Ransom, Miles Errant
On page 13 - the following are nonfiction
Harry Potter's Bookshelf: The Great Books behind the Hogwarts Adventures, The Unofficial Harry Potter Cookbook: From Cauldron Cakes to Knickerbocker Glory--More Than 150 Magical Recipes for Muggles and Wizards
I'll give these a day or two for comment, but when I check back in - hearing nothing - I will delete them.
Elsewhere and I will delete
Ella Enchanted is from 1997
Peter Pan is from 1902
Howl's Moving Castle is from 1986
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass is from 1865
The Complete Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales is from 1823
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is from 1998
Again I would strongly suggest a minimum number of ratings of 1000. If the book doesn't have that many - than there's no reason not to vote for it on Best Fantasy with between 100 and 999 ratings
Best Fantasy on Goodreads with less than 100 ratings
However to make a change to the list like this would basically require the list creator to make the change, or there be concensus on this message board or for a librarian to take a risky toe across the line.
I'm terribly sorry. I was looking at a different list recently, and I guess that's why the number two thousand popped into my head. There are almost nine hundred books on this list. But I still think people need to be more courteous to those who give their time to help because they want to. And I still think that it would take a long time to figure out all the little details of all of those books, on this list or any other.