Looking for some good Fantasy

[El Bastardo]

Salvatore is always the first writer I recommend to people looking for something new to read. We all have our favorites right?

I definitely think his Dark Elf line of stories and the Cleric's Quintet are the best of his books vs the Demonwar books. I just felt like those were a little too similar at times and not as fun/exciting.

I never said that Salvatore wasn't my favorite, or a favorite.

I just stated there are better writers to recommend, even though I read little of what I'd classify light-hearted fantasy.

Salvatore's stuff, both Drizzt and original, is a guilty favorite of mine. Like deep fried cheesecake. But there's better, healthier stuff I can and should spend my time digesting.

 

[zanos]

Every writer in the fantasy genre has their strengths and weaknesses. No one is a better writer than anyone else.

 

[redmarvel]

I would also recommend Robert Asprin or Piers Anthony for humorous fantasy

 

[El Bastardo]

Every writer in the fantasy genre has their strengths and weaknesses. No one is a better writer than anyone else.

... Really?

And what, pray tell, makes writing in the fantasy "genre" - that'd be sub-genre, mind you, since the actual genre is the novel, thank you - different from any other piece of writing?

 

[Victarion]

@ Zanos: Go read The Quest for Karn by Robert Wintermute and report back.

 

[zanos]

... Really?

And what, pray tell, makes writing in the fantasy "genre" - that'd be sub-genre, mind you, since the actual genre is the novel, thank you - different from any other piece of writing?

Please clarify your question. If there is a point in there I can't figure it out.

@ Zanos: Go read The Quest for Karn by Robert Wintermute and report back.

No, thanks. The point I was making it is, it's all subjective. Just because alot of people agree that an author is really good doesn't make it true, and vice versa for authors many consider bad.

 

[El Bastardo]

It isn't subjective. It's really quite the opposite. It's objective.

There's a reason there's an entire system of study for this. What do you think people getting English degrees do? Even if they're going into broadcasting, journalism, or some other type of communications, a core of their bachelor's degree nonetheless revolves around studying literature and/or poetry and/or plays and what makes them good. Heck, people pursuing journalism wind up extending that to the field of journalism.

Writing is writing. It's a medium, in which are genres and countless sub-genres. Rules of study, rules of judgment, do not change because a sub-genre is different.

What is subjective is how much one likes something. Just because something is good does not mean one has to like it. On that same note, just because something is bad, or not particularly good, does not mean one has to dislike it.

Taste and judgment are two wholly separate things.

/Englishrant

 

[Victarion]

@El Bastardo: If you've read Salvatore's Demon Wars Saga and the Saga of the First King, which did you prefer, and which novel from that particular series was your favorite?

 

[El Bastardo]

@El Bastardo: If you've read Salvatore's Demon Wars Saga and the Saga of the First King, which did you prefer, and which novel from that particular series was your favorite?

I've never read his original Demon Wars stuff, sad to say.

I have most of the Saga of the First King - I haven't picked up The Bear yet, because I haven't read through all of it.

I did enjoy The Highwayman, though. Holy balls that was a long time ago.

 

[zanos]

It isn't subjective. It's really quite the opposite. It's objective.

There's a reason there's an entire system of study for this. What do you think people getting English degrees do? Even if they're going into broadcasting, journalism, or some other type of communications, a core of their bachelor's degree nonetheless revolves around studying literature and/or poetry and/or plays and what makes them good. Heck, people pursuing journalism wind up extending that to the field of journalism.

Writing is writing. It's a medium, in which are genres and countless sub-genres. Rules of study, rules of judgment, do not change because a sub-genre is different.

What is subjective is how much one likes something. Just because something is good does not mean one has to like it. On that same note, just because something is bad, or not particularly good, does not mean one has to dislike it.

Taste and judgment are two wholly separate things.

/Englishrant

The only aspect of writing which is objective is grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. Everything else is subjective.

 

[El Bastardo]

Yeah, okay. You have fun with that.

 

[Specter313]

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but I personally really loved Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. I don't know if you could call it "light-hearted", but it's got a lot of heart and really has an epic feel to it. The biggest aspect that I love is the emotional connection you develop with a lot of the main characters, particularly the main four of Richard, Kahlen, Cara, and Zedd. I'm sure it's not everyone's cup of tea, but there were many times in several of the books that I just couldn't put them down.

 

[Marvolo]

Every writer in the fantasy genre has their strengths and weaknesses. No one is a better writer than anyone else.

Anyone with an English and/or Literature Major would disagree with you. William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, Issac Asimov, Mark Twain, Rudyard Kipling and many more are objectively better writers than the likes of Stephanie Meyer, Dan Brown, EL James, and the myriad of other ****** writers writing today and throughout history. Its is not subjective whether someone is good at their craft. Their quality of work speaks for itself. There is a standard of quality in any industry.

For example, Shakespeare's body of work is objectively better than the Stephanie Meyers body of work. It has nothing to do with whether I like either of the authors or their work. I can cry out that Meyer is the best writer ever until I'm blue in the face but it will not make it any more true. Objectively and academicallly Shakespeare is a better writer. Charles Dickens, Kipling, Twain etc are objectively better at the craft than other writers. A standard of quality has been established based on years and years of study and evaluation of the many many many books that have been published. This goes for any language and its literature. Some meet that standard, and some do not. Whether you like a piece of literature is subjective. Whether the piece of literature is quality writing is not subjective. It is either quality writing or it isn't. I don't like Shakespeare's body of work, but I can't say that Shakespeare was a ****** writer. He wasn't and that is fact. He pretty much gave birth to the modern English language. No subjective thought can change that.

If you still don't think this is the case there is a simple thing you can do. Go to any University's Literature/English department that is headed by a person with a PHD in the field and ask them about this.

 

[zanos]

Yeah, okay. You have fun with that.

I will, thank you. Immature replies always helps the opposing debater, although I really didn't need the help.

Anyone with an English and/or Literature Major would disagree with you. William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, Issac Asimov, Mark Twain, Rudyard Kipling and many more are objectively better writers than the likes of Stephanie Meyer, Dan Brown, EL James, and the myriad of other ****** writers writing today and throughout history. Its is not subjective whether someone is good at their craft. Their quality of work speaks for itself. There is a standard of quality in any industry.

For example, Shakespeare's body of work is objectively better than the Stephanie Meyers body of work. It has nothing to do with whether I like either of the authors or their work. I can cry out that Meyer is the best writer ever until I'm blue in the face but it will not make it any more true. Objectively and academicallly Shakespeare is a better writer. Charles Dickens, Kipling, Twain etc are objectively better at the craft than other writers. A standard of quality has been established based on years and years of study and evaluation of the many many many books that have been published. This goes for any language and its literature. Some meet that standard, and some do not. Whether you like a piece of literature is subjective. Whether the piece of literature is quality writing is not subjective. It is either quality writing or it isn't. I don't like Shakespeare's body of work, but I can't say that Shakespeare was a ****** writer. He wasn't and that is fact. He pretty much gave birth to the modern English language. No subjective thought can change that.

If you still don't think this is the case there is a simple thing you can do. Go to any University's Literature/English department that is headed by a person with a PHD in the field and ask them about this.

Way to be relevant by comparing William Shakespeare to Stephanie Meyer, LMAO!!

It seems to me that no one here even understands the simple concept of subjectivity and objectivity to be even debating about it.

 

[Victarion]

I have heard Goodkind's work is 50/50. The first book didn't hook me, personally. I've been working on Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson and really enjoying it. If anyone has read novels set in the Forgotten Realms, the world sort of feels like that. Magic isn't rare, as in A Song of Ice and Fire, and there's even a floating city called Moon's Spawn (in the Realms, you have the floating Empire of Shade).

The novel is split between a soldiers' company, an assassin's guild as well as a theif's guild, and the Malazan Empire's forces. I enjoy it because it has a thriller feel to it like A Game of Thrones, but most of the intrigue takes place on the battlefield, rather than behind castle walls.

 

[Two-Face Killer]

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but I personally really loved Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. I don't know if you could call it "light-hearted", but it's got a lot of heart and really has an epic feel to it. The biggest aspect that I love is the emotional connection you develop with a lot of the main characters, particularly the main four of Richard, Kahlen, Cara, and Zedd. I'm sure it's not everyone's cup of tea, but there were many times in several of the books that I just couldn't put them down.

I'm probably in the minority with this opinion but I loved that TV show. I haven't read the books but my dad did and he would always tell me how horrible the show was compared to the books. I'm sure that's true but the show was still fun. Bridget Regan as Kahlen was so hot

 

[Two-Face Killer]

I have heard Goodkind's work is 50/50. The first book didn't hook me, personally. I've been working on Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson and really enjoying it. If anyone has read novels set in the Forgotten Realms, the world sort of feels like that. Magic isn't rare, as in A Song of Ice and Fire, and there's even a floating city called Moon's Spawn (in the Realms, you have the floating Empire of Shade).

The novel is split between a soldiers' company, an assassin's guild as well as a theif's guild, and the Malazan Empire's forces. I enjoy it because it has a thriller feel to it like A Game of Thrones, but most of the intrigue takes place on the battlefield, rather than behind castle walls.

I've been wanting to read that series, I even downloaded it on my Kindle. From what you're saying I should move this series up to the top of my book queue. I enjoy George Martin and Forgotten Realms so it sounds like a logical next step.

I'm currently reading book two of the Brotherhood of the Griffin by Richard Lee Byers. Has anybody else here read this series?

 

[Victarion]

I've been wanting to read that series, I even downloaded it on my Kindle. From what you're saying I should move this series up to the top of my book queue. I enjoy George Martin and Forgotten Realms so it sounds like a logical next step.

I'm currently reading book two of the Brotherhood of the Griffin by Richard Lee Byers. Has anybody else here read this series?

I'd suggest it, but be sure you can dedicate your time to it. The plot is already in motion when you open the book; around page 300 the threads begin to converge.

I'm a fan of Byers' Brotherhood novels as well. I don't play in any campaigns, but Aoth is the sort of spellcaster I'd prefer to play as. A bit of proficiency in magic and swordplay. Tchazzar was a very well-written character, imo. Check out his The Haunted Lands trilogy, which is the series that introduces Aoth.

 

[El Bastardo]

Anyone with an English and/or Literature Major would disagree with you. William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, Issac Asimov, Mark Twain, Rudyard Kipling and many more are objectively better writers than the likes of Stephanie Meyer, Dan Brown, EL James, and the myriad of other ****** writers writing today and throughout history. Its is not subjective whether someone is good at their craft. Their quality of work speaks for itself. There is a standard of quality in any industry.

For example, Shakespeare's body of work is objectively better than the Stephanie Meyers body of work. It has nothing to do with whether I like either of the authors or their work. I can cry out that Meyer is the best writer ever until I'm blue in the face but it will not make it any more true. Objectively and academicallly Shakespeare is a better writer. Charles Dickens, Kipling, Twain etc are objectively better at the craft than other writers. A standard of quality has been established based on years and years of study and evaluation of the many many many books that have been published. This goes for any language and its literature. Some meet that standard, and some do not. Whether you like a piece of literature is subjective. Whether the piece of literature is quality writing is not subjective. It is either quality writing or it isn't. I don't like Shakespeare's body of work, but I can't say that Shakespeare was a ****** writer. He wasn't and that is fact. He pretty much gave birth to the modern English language. No subjective thought can change that.

If you still don't think this is the case there is a simple thing you can do. Go to any University's Literature/English department that is headed by a person with a PHD in the field and ask them about this.

You know, you and I clearly don't know what we're talking about.

I'm pretty sure we're being trollolololololol'd.

I have heard Goodkind's work is 50/50. The first book didn't hook me, personally. I've been working on Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson and really enjoying it. If anyone has read novels set in the Forgotten Realms, the world sort of feels like that. Magic isn't rare, as in A Song of Ice and Fire, and there's even a floating city called Moon's Spawn (in the Realms, you have the floating Empire of Shade).

The novel is split between a soldiers' company, an assassin's guild as well as a theif's guild, and the Malazan Empire's forces. I enjoy it because it has a thriller feel to it like A Game of Thrones, but most of the intrigue takes place on the battlefield, rather than behind castle walls.

Erikson's Malazan series is fantastic, from what I hear, but it's a commitment. It reads best when going straight through all the novels with no interruption.

If you like Malazan and Martin, I highly recommend Paul Kearney - The Monarchies of God series - and Joe Abercrombie - The First Law trilogy, Best Served Cold, and The Heroes.

 

[Victarion]

I have read The Blade Itself. I don't think any book has made me laugh so much as the scene where the characters are in the middle of a fight only to have the old magus pop in, naked, and shouting "What the **** is going on?!". Then he magically tore the baddies to bloodie pieces.

The only negative critique I have is that I could never really get a picture of what the flatheads looked like. Could you help me there, El Bastardo?

 

[Two-Face Killer]

I'd suggest it, but be sure you can dedicate your time to it. The plot is already in motion when you open the book; around page 300 the threads begin to converge.

I'm a fan of Byers' Brotherhood novels as well. I don't play in any campaigns, but Aoth is the sort of spellcaster I'd prefer to play as. A bit of proficiency in magic and swordplay. Tchazzar was a very well-written character, imo. Check out his The Haunted Lands trilogy, which is the series that introduces Aoth.

The Haunted Lands is the series that first got me hooked on Aoth and the gang. My favorite part of that series was the sea battle with the undead sea monsters, good stuff.

I wonder about Tchazzar and how that will all play out. He is starting to lose it at the point in the book I'm currently at so I imagine he will eventually become a major issue for the Brotherhood....

 

[El Bastardo]

I have read The Blade Itself. I don't think any book has made me laugh so much as the scene where the characters are in the middle of a fight only to have the old magus pop in, naked, and shouting "What the **** is going on?!". Then he magically tore the baddies to bloodie pieces.

The only negative critique I have is that I could never really get a picture of what the flatheads looked like. Could you help me there, El Bastardo?

And you never read the rest of the trilogy? For shame!

Flatheads... I don't know. I think there's an exact description somewhere, but it must not be the first book. Probably the second, then, because I don't think they're present at all in Last Argument of Kings.

Even with it - or maybe because of it, because I don't remember it off the top of my head - I always pictured some type of goblin creature, kind of mixed with what early man looked like, and I sort of top it off with a wedge-shaped head. You know, since they're called "flatheads."

 

[Specter313]

I have heard Goodkind's work is 50/50. The first book didn't hook me, personally.

Well, like I said, it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I also felt the second book was even stronger than the first. It started to set up the overarching plots that would play through to the end of the eleventh book and introduce many new characters that would play much bigger roles to come, especially one of my favorites in Cara. But I will also admit the last five aren't his strongest effort either. Books 7 and 8 just don't develop as well and the villains are mostly a waste, and 9 - 11 get a bit tedious feeling in the huge explanations that they go through, more than once too, for some of the more complicated aspects that just really seem overdone and could have used some trimming.

 

[Baramos]

Bah, while I also think there are definitely writers who are better than other writers talking about classic writers from the literary canon (seriously, William Shakespeare?) in a topic about fantasy literature is kind of pedantic, don't you? You should talk about fantasy authors you feel are better than others.

I think for those looking for someone who raises the bar for fantasy as a literary subject, the best bet would be Guy Gavriel Kay who is an amazing author in both quality of writing and his ability to take on major literary themes (feminism, identity, religious conflict, etc.) in the fantasy genre. His best novels are probably Tigana, A Song for Arbonne (probably his most accessible work for new readers), and The Lions of Al-Rassan, although I am partial to most of his other novels as well.

 

[Arc-Light]

The Riftwar Saga (Magician, Silverthorn, A Darkness at Sethanon) by Raymon E. Feist. Great characters, a fair bit of magic, travel between dimensions, dragon riders, awesome books!

This^^^^^.................Feist is such a underrated author, and i have read a lot of fantasy from Tolkien to Jordan...his books are a must read for an fantasy reader.