Fantasy Book Club discussion

The Riddle Master trilogy is one of my favorites...but you really need to read Lore of the Rings. Are you a Harry Potter fan? If so imagine what you'd say to someone who said they'd seen the movies, and hadn't been inspired to read the books. If you know what was missed there you get a bit of what is missed by seeing the LotR movies and not reading the books. I like Jackson's movies, but I love the books. You're missing a lot. Really.

It's kind of baffling to me how many fantasy fans have not read THE fantasy. I mean it's like our bible. Love it, hate it, or leave it, it is the most important source of the genre we all love here.
The movies do come really close. But.....I agree it should be like required reading. ;)

LotR is good (I think) but it something of an acquired taste for many people. Americans, I think, find it a little more difficult to read than Brits because of some of the more stylized language. It definitely does not read like a modern book.

As for what kind of fantasy I like...I like fantasy with a few strong characters. Some series drive me crazy with the sheer volume of characters they have but never take time to develop. I like to see the world through the character's eyes and understand them as whole people. Sanderson and Jordan, IMO, are brilliant at that which is probably why I re-read their books so frequently.

I agree, Kelly. A lot of characters is tough to follow, especially when they're dumped on me in short order. A character walks into a room & meets a dozen others. A paragraph is devoted to each & when all is done, I can't remember the first person's name. I need more associations through action to keep characters straight. Plain description just doesn't do it for me.

I really hate a lot of characters with similar, unpronounceable names, especially at the beginning &/or end of the names. Axmphuotere & Axmphiere or something odd like that. I NEVER manage to keep them straight in a case like that.

Names don't trip me up so terribly as long as there is a "version" of the name that I can deal with. I've never minded some author's (like Weis and Hickman) who have "elvish" names for their characters that are really long but then they have a "human" name for those same characters that's used more frequently (ex: Tanthalas/Tanis, Lauralanthalasa/Laurana).

I know that I have odd conventions in my own writing but I generally do have a simplified version of complicated names (because *I* don't like having to type a 25-character long name multiple times).

I have read some series with loads of characters that were well-done but you really do need a series to do it well. Having a 20 character cast in a novel just won't work. I think the worst example of that I've ever seen was one Star Trek book I tried to read ages ago. I can't remember the name or the author (it was set in the Voyager universe, though) but it had a dozen characters in the first three chapters and was a stand-alone novel. By the time I got to the end, I couldn't even figure out WHO the story was supposed to be about.

I really enjoyed The Way of Kings, though. The way that Sanderson developed a fairly broad cast (around 15 characters) but focused on 5 majors for most of the novel was great. You felt like you were reading about an entire world but you weren't forced to try to constantly assimilate 15 points-of-view. You dealt mainly with five with a smattering of other chapters that left you wondering just why that area/person had been given a PoV chapter and how they tied in to the main story. The wondering wasn't in a bad way, though. It was really well done.

I don't mind long fantasy names that I can't say. What I hate are books with similiar names. Steven Erikson seems to be really bad at this. Like the names Coltaine and Cotillion. I can't think of others right now...but I know there are others.

I like a big cast of characters but in my opinion it works less when an author tries to give full attention to each person. Characters should be broken up into groups, or families, and then one character chosen from each to be the pov voice.

Regarding LOTR. I don't think a fantasy fan has to LIKE it. I just find it surprising how many here haven't read them. There's plenty of books that I would personally rate higher. I do think though that if you like Robert Jordan there's a good chance you'll like Tolkien, just maybe not as much.

Wastrel wrote: "On the one hand, none of Martin's characters are people I could meet out on the streets - they're all hollywoodised people, far bigger than life. "

ASoIaF does deal with the "big players" and often leaves the 'regular folks' by the wayside. But I liked how he wrote 'The Hedge Knight' which is set in the same world but is on a much more 'human' scale.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11...

It's always going to be a matter of taste. For example I don't care for The Song of Ice and Fire and I think Mr. Jordan lost control of his stories, that or began to stretch it. Those are my opinion/s and many will disagree. I don't find the Names in Lord of the Rings bad or even that difficult. They make an internal sense and aren't just random as the names in some fantasies, but again that's going to be individual. Neither do I think Americans are less taken with the books than UK residents, the sales figures alone argue against that. When the books were released back in the '50s they took off on college campuses and then made the leap to the general public. The series has been voted The Book of the Twentieth Century, so again I think it's going to be more individual taste.

All I advise is that each reader give the series a fair chance. Everyone won't like it as well as I or it's other fans, but it would be a shame if someone missed it simply because they decided not to sit down and give the book (trilogy + the Hobbit) a fair try.

That way if you don't care for it, you know it's your taste.

The title of the thread is "What kind of fantasy would you LIKE to read?". For me I like fantasy from several sub-genres: high, low, urban, epic and otherwise. Lord of the Rings has to rate up there as my favorite or close to it. Along side it is a lesser known trilogy by Elizabeth Moon The Deed of Paksenarrion. I find it's another a lot of people have set aside without trying. Also at the top of my list is/are the Dresden books by Jim Butcher and Zelazny's first Amber series (I'm leaning toward a reread on those right now, which means another pause in te new books LOL). Many (though definitely not all) Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion books are among my favorites (Hawkmoon, and Elric at the top). I also like The Green Rider books, The Riddle of the Stars series (especially the first Riddle Master of Hed), Weeks Night Angel Trilogy, Jim Butcher's other series Codex Alera and a lot of others. I'm not sure there's a real common thread here except that they're the ones I like LOL.

Althea wrote: "Wastrel wrote: "On the one hand, none of Martin's characters are people I could meet out on the streets - they're all hollywoodised people, far bigger than life. "

ASoIaF does deal with the "big p..."

This is true (at least, so far as i recall. I haven't read the Hedge Knight since... at latest, 2003? [Before I started the series itself]).

Hmm. i should read that again.

I'm very belatedly moving this thread to General Fantasy Discussions.

I was kinda wondering.........lol.

I prefer my fantasy to focus on characters and story than on world building. I know many people come to fantasy to see the world the author's created but to me that should be the "tip of the iceberg" and most of it should lie under the water and only come in as necessary as it relates to the story as a whole.

I know many people come to fantasy because of richly described passages but I personally find myself skimming past them.

If I like the characters I can forgive almost anything. I like world building but it's not all important. And an author can go into too much detail. I can't enjoy Terry Brooks. His decsriptions on characters is light and impresonal but he can use two pages describing a tree to you.

Damali wrote: "If they're talking about fairies or elves, do the research."

While I have problems with authors whipping up a creature with only surface resemblances to vampires and then calling it a vampire just to cash in on the vampire craze, I have trouble with words like 'elves' and 'fairies' in the same sentence as 'research'. Am I researching Disney's Tinkerbell, Shakespeare's Titania, or Butcher's Queen Mab?

Traci wrote: "If I like the characters I can forgive almost anything. I like world building but it's not all important. And an author can go into too much detail. I can't enjoy Terry Brooks. His decsriptions on ..."

Speaking of too much detail, have you read any of Russell Kirkpatrick's Fire of Heaven series? He focuses way too much on describing every facet of his fantasy world and so little on his characters that they seem to be mere afterthoughts thrown into the mix every now and then.

I don't mind world building. It's crucial to any fantasy novel. But, when it's overdone to the degree that I'm skipping over large portions of the story just to find a bit of action or interaction between the characters, then that's not what I want to read.

Marc...you can if you want to. :)

Traci wrote: "If I like the characters I can forgive almost anything. I like world building but it's not all important. And an author can go into too much detail. I can't enjoy Terry Brooks. His decsriptions on ..."

I'm with you, Traci. The characters make or break the story for me. I like good world building, but I can still enjoy a book if it is weak. And too much world building and attention to every little detail gets annoying. Getting attached to and involved in the lives of the characters is what gets me addicted to stories and keeps me coming back for more.

Marc wrote: "Damali wrote: "If they're talking about fairies or elves, do the research."

While I have problems with authors whipping up a creature with only surface resemblances to vampires and then calling it..."

So vampires, creatures that have ALL sorts of variations throughout so many, many cultures are things that you need to research? (Stoker's vampires walked in sunlight) But fairies and elves don't? I confess I'm puzzled by this statement. For example- Butcher didn't create Mab, he drew from quite a few sources to create his fairy queens.

Damali wrote: "All paranormal creatures need research. If you're basing it on Bram Stoker, then do the research. If you're creating a whole brand of vamps, do the worldbuilding. Make me believe it. Don't just give it fangs and a cape, and send it to school with a bag of glitter."

What they need is consistency, not research, unless you're using someone else's monsters and who would do that? Calling something a vampire just because it has fangs and drinks blood is lazy writing and cheating, not a lack of research.
And it's kind of annoying to have to debate this with one hand tied behind my back.

Marc wrote: "What they need is consistency, not research"

I think a writer is more likely to create a consistent mythos (and a far richer one, as well) if she or he has done the research.
It always helps to know what has gone before, for one thing, so you're not just retreading tired territory, and for another thing, because the stories that have endured have lasted through the centuries for a reason... they contain the things that get under our skin and resonate with our psyches.
To get in touch with those things, the research helps.
A lot of writers create reams and reams of backstory on both their world and their characters, and they do research the mythology... I think it helps create a better end product. (Unless of course, the author then feels compelled to publish their entire back story as if it were a novel (cough, Anne Rice, cough). ;-)

Anyway, I personally like books that have *both* complex, well-realized characters AND a fascinating world with a sense of history and things going on beyond the edges of the story... Gimme my cake and let me eat it!

i totally kno what you mean. i like worldbuilding when it's well done, but i'm tired of simplistic characters and the ol' overly simplistic good vs. evil blah. it mite have been new and interesting when tolkien did it, but it's so overdone now.

there's a lot of pressure on authors to write according to the trends, ie. what is currently selling now. therefore, all the derivative stuff. unfortunately, if you're a new author and your book doesn't fit into the publishing trends, then it's that much more difficult to get published. i can't tell you how many times my manuscript has been turned down because "the writing was good, but just not what fantasy 'should' be".

I'd like to read some fantasy that is a lot leaner, both in scope and plot. Also, I'd like to see more stand-alone stories. When you get to the point that the storyline is so massive that the author dies before the series ends, you have a problem.

Ok, maybe someone can help me out here. I'm looking for a lead female character fantasy where the female fights with a sword or some form of fighting instrument, NOT with magic! And I dont want urban fantasy! I'm looking for a kick ass female lead with some smooth fighting skills.

James wrote: "I'd like to read some fantasy that is a lot leaner, both in scope and plot. Also, I'd like to see more stand-alone stories. When you get to the point that the storyline is so massive that the autho..."

WOT? :P

Lilyan wrote: "Ok, maybe someone can help me out here. I'm looking for a lead female character fantasy where the female fights with a sword or some form of fighting instrument, NOT with magic! And I dont want urb..."

You might try asking in the Action Heroine Fans group.
http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/2...

Lilyan wrote: "Ok, maybe someone can help me out here. I'm looking for a lead female character fantasy where the female fights with a sword or some form of fighting instrument, NOT with magic! And I dont want urb..."

Off the top of my head: The Deed of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon -- Pakse is a sheepfarmer's daughter who joins a mercenary group and goes on to do great things. Black God's Kiss by Catherine L. Moore -- a collection of stories from the 1930's about Jirel of Joiry; sort of a female analogue of Conan. I'll add others as I think of them . . .

Lilyan wrote: "Ok, maybe someone can help me out here. I'm looking for a lead female character fantasy where the female fights with a sword or some form of fighting instrument, NOT with magic! And I dont want urb..."

*puts 'delegated pimper of Ash: A Secret History' back on again*

So, have you considered reading Ash: A Secret History. I mention it because nobody else does, because not many people seem to have read it.

Anyway, the heroine is a (19yo? iirc?) mercenary captain in a strange fantasy version of the 15th century. She's definitely a lead character, and she definitely fights with a sword. It tends more toward gritty realism rather than sword-and-sorcery, so it's not exactly a procession of single-combat fight-scenes, but she does kill people now and then. It might not be 'fantasy' enough for you - it starts off straight, becomes increasingly fantastic and strange, but never actually gets to the dragons-and-elves level. And rather than "kick-ass female lead with smooth fighting skills", she's more "pragmatic female lead with armour and luck who's waiting to eventually be killed because no matter how good her skills are she's in a profession with an extremely short life-expectency". In other words, it's more a medieval/fantasy/(sci-fi?) version of "Band of Brothers", rather than a version of Bond or Bourne.

If you liked that Ash-pimping, you can see more of it over on the "tired of asexual heroes" thread...

Oh, also The Morgaine Saga by C.J. Cherryh and P.C. Hodgell's series beginning with The God Stalker Chronicles.

Lilyan wrote: "Ok, maybe someone can help me out here. I'm looking for a lead female character fantasy where the female fights with a sword or some form of fighting instrument, NOT with magic! And I dont want urb..."


Few authors do this realistically or well. Here's the genunie exception: The Paladin by C.J. Cherryh

In a fun/action vein, try Jennifer Roberson's Tiger and Del series. An excellent fun read with a competent swordswoman.

Also, if you like more victorian settings: Swordspoint by Ellen Kushner.

Janny wrote: "Few authors do this realistically or well. Here's the genunie exception: The Paladin by C.J. Cherryh."

The Paladin is a rare gem of a book.

Janny wrote: "Lilyan wrote: "Ok, maybe someone can help me out here. I'm looking for a lead female character fantasy where the female fights with a sword or some form of fighting instrument, NOT with magic! And ..."

I thoroughly enjoyed The Paladin and the Morgaine Saga and have always admired Cherryh's storytelling.

I will confess, I am one of those that has not read LotR. I read the Hobbit in high school and enjoyed the story. I tried to read LotR, but I just wasn't able to get into it. Perhaps I should give it another try, but I just don't feel the urge. Loved the movies, I'm sure the book is better, the book is always better, but I think I have a mental block about it.

As for world building vs. character building, I love great characters. I think the world can be touched on less if the characters and the plot they are involved in are done well. You will get a sense of the world without taking pages to describe it if the characters interact with it.

I didn't read LotR until I knew the movies were coming out. So even though I like to tease readers about it I was a late reader of the series too. When I was a preteen I was reading young adult romance/school drama books not fantasy. And a few years later when I got into fantasy I thought The Hobbit was a childrens book and assumed LotR was too. I know now how wrong I was.

Bridget wrote: "I think the world can be touched on less if the characters and the plot they are involved in are done well. You will get a sense of the world without taking pages to describe it if the characters interact with it. "

Exactly right.

I tried multiple times to get into LOTR, but never could. Too much detail for me. I do enjoy The Hobbit though. I've read it a couple times and I'll probably read it again before the movie comes out. But even that has some slow parts. I love the Hobbit cartoon and the LOTR movies (except for Bakshi, I thought that was a disaster)

Guys thank you for all the recom! I will deff check them out. and yes wastrel ive already seen ur ad for Ash on the other thread hahaha

After reading up on those books I decided to go for Tiger and Del by Jennifer Roeberson :D

I'm a bit late in coming back to this theme, but on the subject of fantasy names, I find it limiting that so many writers in this genre try to make up names that sound "elvish," in Tolkein's style, and/or Celtic.
I got a blast from a very stuck-up forum participant last year when I introduced my characters, who have names taken from historic eastern Europe. They sound VERY different from what you usually get in fantasy, but on the other hand, they are real.

Names are funny things. Personally I think the name an author chooses for a character shouldn't be argued. Of all things in a creative work, the name is something the author can choose to fit with their world, setting, character, etc. As long as the author makes the name work for the story, I'm fine with the name.

This is a fairly easy question for me. I'd like more DIVERSITY in fantasy. I'd like to read more Ursula LeGuin Earthsea-type worlds that are multicultural/multiracial/multiethnic. I'd like to read more books based on myths of other cultures such as the Aztecs, Africa, or Asian deities. Sometimes, elves, orcs and dragons just gets a little old.

Vixenne wrote: "Sometimes, elves, orcs and dragons just gets a little old. "

Not all of us have elves, orcs, and dragons as our default setting. The book Tinker has Oni, tengu, and other creatures from Japanese mythology.

Marc wrote: "Not all of us have elves, orcs, and dragons as our default setting. The book Tinker has Oni, tengu, and other creatures from Japanese mythology..."

Thanks for the rec and don't get it twisted about elves, orcs and dragons. I like them when done well.

Vixenne wrote: "This is a fairly easy question for me. I'd like more DIVERSITY in fantasy. I'd like to read more Ursula LeGuin Earthsea-type worlds that are multicultural/multiracial/multiethnic. I'd like to rea..."

I agree entirely. [I would - my hobby is inventing worlds]. However, it's tricky, particularly when you're basing things on a culture that's still living, or that a living society still feels patriotic bonds to. It's hard for a European writer to set things in, say, India, without coming across as colonialist and orientalising. One day, hopefully, we will be reading lots of fantasy by Indian authors drawing from their own cultures, but so far either it isn't being written or it isn't getting through to the general public over here, and until then we may have to keep waiting in our romano-celtic ghetto.

I agree, and I guess disagree, with the diversity argument. The world is rich with unique cultures and myths. And yes I'd like to see more. More diversity with characters too. But I do get tired of reading fantasy that mirrors our world too closely. With barely concealed racial stereotypes.

You know, I hear the same excuse about "getting it right" from a lot of genre fiction writers and it still doesn't fly. Writing a fantasy set in another culture takes a willingness to research deeply and to create characters that are multifaceted instead of stereotyped. In short, it takes imagination, which is what fantasy writers and readers are all about. Folks are still stuck on this "otherness" kick and it's just lame.

Vixenne wrote: "You know, I hear the same excuse about "getting it right" from a lot of genre fiction writers and it still doesn't fly. Writing a fantasy set in another culture takes a willingness to research deep..."

Surely you and I are the ones on an 'otherness kick'? You specifically asked for fiction in a setting Other than European culture!

From the point of view of the writers: they can write about something they know and love and that will be popular, or they can write about something that they'll have to put masses of work into (ideally their entire lives) and that will end up with them getting paraded around the internet as despicable bigots no matter how hard they try. Which is a more appealing career choice?

It's not about research because, firstly, any fantasy must diverge from reality (and hence fail to adhere to the findings of that research - and it's hard to distinguish 'misunderstood' from 'intentionally changed') and, secondly, the idea that there is a perfect and unbiased representation of a culture is nonsense. When an outsider talks about your culture, it is easy to take offense, and if you even consider taking offence you will find many ways in which the outsider was 'wrong' - but of course many times the outsider may actually be 'right' in terms of having 'facts' on their side. Facts are usually disputable, and when they are not, they are easy to be ignorant, so no number of facts is adequate to stave off accusations of bias and error.

[I would also argue that getting under the skin of a culture requires more that facts and 'research', and can't be done on a part-time armchair basis]

Anyway, i'm not saying nobody should ever try it. I'm just saying that I can understand why authors might find it difficult. Of course, if you think it's easy, you can write your own fantasy series and many of us will be happy to read it. But as I think it's difficult, and don't intend to attempt it myself (at least not in the near future) I don't feel happy criticising people for not doing it.

[I also think there's a problem with criticising 'writers', as they are not a natural group. It's easy to criticise specific writers for actively being racist in what they DO show, but hard to criticise an individual author for what they happen NOT to be interested in talking about. This sort of criticism only works by bemoaning the actions of 'authors' - that is, putting the blame at the feet of some amorphous 'group' and somehow trying to transfer the guilt onto individual members who have done nothing identifiably wrong. I think this is very dangerous, and ultimately is the mechanism that underlies a great deal of bigotry.]

Finally, I'd suggest that the entire fantasy genre is an "otherness kick". Otherwise we'd be reading about accountants and Hounslow.

When I speak of "otherness", I'm not talking in terms of fantasy, but in terms of how people tend to view each other. There is this sense of not being able to "relate" be it on the grounds of color or religion or whatever. And yet, you have male authors who do a hell of a job writing female characters and vice-versa.

I agree that it can be very risky for an author to step out of their comfort zone (and I am a writer so I know this to be true) and yes, considering the huge RaceFail discussions that have been happening all over the blogosphere, staying on the safe and narrow side of the road does make perfect sense. However, one person's Fail may be someone else's AHA moment. By the way, the whole Fail discussion has generated some positive change in the fantasy and sci-fi genres, so overall it's been a good thing for the genre to be infused with fresh blood and new ideas. There are independent authors and sites of fans who aren't waiting around for the genre to be more inclusive, but that still doesn't mean we should ignore the reasons why it isn't.

Having said all that, my belief isn't some indictment of all authors or anything, but again, I've read the whole argument before and no matter how well-intentioned it may sound on its face, at the end of the day it still sounds like a judgement that some cultures are more worthy of being mined for ideas than others.

I hope you get where I'm going with this. I just don't think authors should feel limited in what they write. I certainly don't. I get the feeling sometimes that people just don't like to talk about diversity because the whole conversation scares them or makes them hostile, when in fact the idea ahould be about expanding one's vision of "what-if".

Vixenne wrote: "You know, I hear the same excuse about "getting it right" from a lot of genre fiction writers and it still doesn't fly. Writing a fantasy set in another culture takes a willingness to research deep..."

Racial stereotypes not racist stereotypes.

I actually agree with you. Give us fantasy based on cultures and myths that we are not exposed to. Give us a hero who doesn't fit the same tired european mold. Give us the pov of characters who are usually minor.

But I also want uniqueness. I'm admitingly a little tired of the elf and fairy thing. But it seems like to me many authors take cultures we all recognize and give them a new name. Why do every desert race have to resemble muslim countries? Every "native" american indian. And yes why does every hero come from europe. (I know I'm generalizing.)

So I guess I want it both ways. Lol. I want diversity. And I want unique worlds that don't resemble our own with fancy names. Just maybe not in the same book.

Wastrel wrote: "...It's not about research because, firstly, any fantasy must diverge from reality..."

I believe I understand the point you were making & agree to some extent, but research is needed. I recently re-read the Empire trilogy by Raymond E. Feist & Janny Wurts. They created a fantasy culture, but it wasn't completely unrecognizable. It was based on & deeply rooted in our reality & I think the stronger for it. It's interesting what they had to say about writing it.

I forget which group that was in. Anyone else remember?

Other fantasy authors have commented on how much research goes into their writing. It's part of that 'suspension of belief' thing. It's like a cup that can only be filled so far & when it runs over, the story is ruined. So, while they stretch our beliefs in some areas, they need to be careful in others. Fires don't burn clean & hot with wet wood, horses don't run around like cars, & other things like that.

Sometimes that requires a lot of research & sometimes incorrect details slip by everyone until the reader sees them & throws the book across the room in frustration. My wife does that with book 6 of Jordan's WoT series. (An archer sticks his bow under a horse's girth to hold it - drives her nuts.) While she loves the series, apparently he didn't know anything about horses & that has seriously hurt it in her eyes. Folks who don't know any more about horses than he did might not mind at all, but I'll bet even some of them wonder since it is just some common sense & logic. In any case, not doing proper research &/or having someone well versed in the subject read his work harmed it.

Knowing a subject well enhances how an author writes it, too. Read Janny Wurts descriptions of sailing or horses &, if you have any familiarity with them at all, it's pretty obvious that she knows them well. Roger Zelazny studied fencing & martial arts, which made his fights much more authentic. It's the handling of mundane details that often separates an OK work from a really good one.

Jim wrote: "Wastrel wrote: "...It's not about research because, firstly, any fantasy must diverge from reality..."

I believe I understand the point you were making & agree to some extent, but research is need..."

It was in the Series group.