[Giles]

Just because noones mentioned it yet

Twelve by Jasper Kent is a great book that i thoroughly enjoyed set around 1812 in Russia its sort of an alternate history telling of events. The sequel Thriteen Years Later is also good but id say it probably isnt quite as strong as the first book.

Also definitely have to agree with the Watch books.

[Soulessdreamer]

The best Hickman book IMO is his solo standalone novel The Imortals

TTFN

[Ain't_It_Just_]

 Abyss, on 25 June 2010 - 03:11 PM, said:

 Ain, on 25 June 2010 - 10:13 AM, said:

 MTS, on 25 June 2010 - 09:44 AM, said:

I recently read Grave Peril (just finished Dead Beat) and I personally didn't find it all that thrilling. ...

I personally liked Grave Peril. The addition of Michael was great, and Bianca's party was pretty interesting. But yeah, the previous 2 were better.

fair enough, in fact i'd say on second thought that #4 SUMMER NIGHT is where Butcher REALLY raises his game, but Grave Peril starts with Dresden and Michael, a genuine Knight of God, driving a beat-to-crap VW in a race to save babies from a homicidal ghost before sunset and features dialogue like...

""Oh hell, we are truly fucked now."
"You know i don't like it when you swear."
"Sorry. Oh heck, we are truly fucked now."

and

"Oh Jesus Christ, can this get any worse!?!"
"He didn't mean it, Lord!"

...and sort of sets the standard for the wild and crazy starts of most of the books, so i feel love.

 MTS, on 25 June 2010 - 12:45 PM, said:

I think it's possible to hate Cook if you like SE. ...

Hate is a strong word but i'm comfortable saying that while i liked Black Co. well enough, it was nowhere near SE for me and the latter half of the series has been resting in my TRP for a while now.


For sheer 'this is different' i'd suggest Bakker's PRINCE OF NOTHING series. Not everyone's cup of hallucinogen-laced-blood but damn if it isn't original and i for one really enjoyed it. In terms of scope and style Bakker is the closest i've found to SE.

Or:

"Holy shit, hellhounds."
"Harry, you know I don't like it when you swear."
"You're right, sorry. Holy shit, heckhounds."

[Ribald]

Does everyone think it too obvious or shouldn't Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings be on this list? Apologies if someone listed it, I didn't see it when I was reading through.
It is one of the few fantasy trilogies that I think is a true 'must read'.
Many of the other suggestions are certainly on my list of fantasy you should read or that you will enjoy reading, but Tolkien's work seems to be the one fantasy book that every fantasy fan 'must read'. While there are many fantasy novels people like more, or enjoy more, or are cleverer, it is the one work that almost single handedly created the genre.

Of course Howard's Conan, Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, White's The Once and Future King and Holdstock's Mythago Wood are all books that I would recommend that are both great reads as well as 'must reads' in terms of fantasy.

Moorcock's Elric, Gemmell's Drenai, LeGuin's Earthsea, Hobb's Assassin and more importantly Liveship trilogies, Feist and Wurts Empire Trilogy, Feist's Magician, Jordan's Wheel of Time and Cook's Black Company are all interesting and important books (IMHO) in the fantasy genre.

There are some really enjoyable reads out there but these are the books that I think are 'must reads' within fantasy.

[MTS]

I would recommend The Silmarillion before The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, truth be told (well, at least for adults in the latter). I find it's a much more enjoyable book to read. Plus Melkor was a way cooler villain. Sauron was pretty much his bitch. But I may be in the minority, as it is a tough read.

[Furion]

 MTS, on 28 June 2010 - 10:00 PM, said:

I would recommend The Silmarillion before The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, truth be told (well, at least for adults in the latter). I find it's a much more enjoyable book to read. Plus Melkor was a way cooler villain. Sauron was pretty much his bitch. But I may be in the minority, as it is a tough read.

I gotta say, you probably are in the minority. Reading the Silmarillion felt like reading The Bible. Very very dry.

[HoosierDaddy]

Reading Tom Bombadil felt like reading The Sound of Music, though.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

I spent the whole fucking trilogy waiting for Bombadil to reappear and do something, so that that sequence wouldnt be a complete waste. But no. Painful and pointless.

[worry]

Oh yah, I forgot Gulliver's Travels. It's hilarious. And the two Alice books are really clever. The Wizard of Oz and The Phantom Tollbooth are both more YA-oriented, but still probably should appear in a "Must Read" thread. Maybe the Narnia books and A Wrinkle In Time too, and certainly the Prydain books...the latter I think is pretty ageless.

[Mentalist]

 Furion, on 24 June 2010 - 05:41 PM, said:

Regarding Dragonlance, I already read most of the books, only skipping the minotaur stuff. I loved it at the time, but after being exposed to Martin and Erikson, I don't think I could go back.

But wow, I'm going to be playing catchup as far as reading goes, all year. Thanks for all the feedback so far. I'll be bookmarking this thread and I'll keep checking back to see any new posts.

though I haven't read the later "MInotaur trilogy", I actually found Richard A. Knaak to be the best "other" writer fro Dragonlance. I mean, "The Legend of Huma" was really a classic.

and I'll admit to really enjoying the War of the Souls trilogy. sure, the ending was ridiculous and felt like a copout, but the journey itself, to get to that ending was pretty good.

Mentalist, will still buy Volume 3 of the Taladas trilogy....someday...

[Abyss]

 Ribald, on 28 June 2010 - 09:52 PM, said:

Does everyone think it too obvious or shouldn't Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings be on this list? ...it is the one work that almost single handedly created the genre.

Imnsho that's giving JRRT a wee bit too much credit. Rob Howard, Moorcock, Lewis and various others were cruising along just fine without LotR, but it IS a classic and worth the read. Tho it tookme three tries and the movies before i could actually motivate myself to finish it, notwithstanding that i had already read The Hobbit thrice by then.

Quote

Of course Howard's Conan, Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, ...Moorcock's Elric, Gemmell's Drenai, ..., Feist and Wurts Empire Trilogy, Feist's Magician, Jordan's Wheel of Time and Cook's Black Company are all interesting and important books (IMHO) in the fantasy genre.

Agreed on those and in the Weis/Hickman vein i'd add The Deathgate Cycle.

 Furion, on 28 June 2010 - 11:49 PM, said:

 MTS, on 28 June 2010 - 10:00 PM, said:

I would recommend The Silmarillion before The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, truth be told (well, at least for adults in the latter). I find it's a much more enjoyable book to read. Plus Melkor was a way cooler villain. Sauron was pretty much his bitch. But I may be in the minority, as it is a tough read.

I gotta say, you probably are in the minority. Reading the Silmarillion felt like reading The Bible. Very very dry.

And reading the Silmarathingy before reading LotR is like reading a patch of rock in a desert at noon dry.


Other classics... I'll say GGK's various works fit in there, altho we could argue for days about which are classics and which aren't. I'd stick LIONS, SARANTINE and FIONAVAR TAPESTRY in that category myself. Inevitably someone is going to chime in w TIGANA, tho i didn't like it.


If we want to go olde skoole Lloyd Alexander's PRYDAIN books fit the bill. They hover around YA but are sufficiently high fantasy and dark at times to fit the bill.

Also Susan Cooper's THE DARK IS RISING series. Same again re YA but really quite deep and well written (ignore the SEEKER movie - it could not have resembled the books less).

Donaldson's original THOMAS COVENANT THE UNBELIEVER trilogies... by far not everyone's cup of grog but for what they are and when they were written i think they fit the 'classic' category and mess with more than a few tropes in the process.

[D'rek]

This thread is now 50 posts and most of them have a handful of novels being proclaimed as MUST READs. Which, IMO, is a heck of a lot. Anyone else think maybe we should run a little playoff tournament to see just how MUST READ they are in comparison to each other??

[HoosierDaddy]

That... is an interesting concept. Seeding is important though.

[ObsoleteResolve]

One the subject of best use of prose, I must agree with the assessment of Gene Wolfe-- I've got a collection of his short fiction right now that I'm reading, as well as having read the New Sun series and the Wizard-Knight duology.

My only problem with Wolfe is that some of his stuff makes my brain hurt. The collection of his books I got has the Fifth Head of Cerberus-- which I also own separately, having bought it years ago off of Amazon, which has the title story, V.R.T. and ""A Story," by John V. Marsch". And jesus god, my brain hurts.

One of the best things I've found to keep in mind when reading Gene Wolfe: what perspective is he telling the story from? First? The fucker's lying to you, don't trust anything he has to say. Severian? A completely broken, borderline autistic nut-job. Able? Another broken, broken character who's completely damned untrustworthy. Not to even begin mentioning the stuff in the Fifth Head...

Further on the subject, I have much, much love for M. John Harrisons' Viriconium novels, and everything else of his that I've gotten my grubby little hands on.



On foriegn authors, Andrzej Sapkowski is excellent, as is Lukyanenk mentioned above.

[MTS]

 D, on 29 June 2010 - 07:06 PM, said:

This thread is now 50 posts and most of them have a handful of novels being proclaimed as MUST READs. Which, IMO, is a heck of a lot. Anyone else think maybe we should run a little playoff tournament to see just how MUST READ they are in comparison to each other??

I think there's been two types of recommendations in this thread. 1) the staples of the genre that have made fantasy the way it is today (Donaldson, Wolfe etc.); and 2) the 'holy crap this book is so awesome you have to read it like NOW' sort (Butcher, Abercrombie etc.) Since as you say there aren't that many staple series that 'define' fantasy, it was inevitable that the thread would move from recommending 1-type books to recommending 2-type books fairly quickly. If that made sense.

[maro]

The sequel to 12 is now out - 13.

Very good. A different take on Vampires.

Apt - it's a bit weird that you needed the films to finish LOTR. Mind you, I read the Silmarillion when I was 9. It's an excellent book.

[Abyss]

 maro, on 30 June 2010 - 12:47 PM, said:

...Apt - it's a bit weird that you needed the films to finish LOTR. Mind you, I read the Silmarillion when I was 9. It's an excellent book.

I assume you mean me... remember, Apt is the sub-quality imaged personality node that i just allow to wander around a cause trouble because re-formatting his entire pseudo being will take at least 20 minutes and i just can't be bothered right now.

To be clear, knowing the films were coming out, i went and read the books. And while i enjoyed the read well enough, i remain minoritarily underwhelmed with everything except The Hobbit.

- Abyss, notes that singing elves make his ears bleed...

[Aptorian]

ಠ_ಠ

[stone monkey]

Yeah, Wolfe does love his Unreliable Narrators...

Which is part of the fun. I mean, reading a book where you always have to think "Why is he telling me that?" adds a whole new level to the experience...

[Salt-Man Z]

Seven American Nights is absolutely crazy in its unreliability. I mean, it's mostly straightforward until the very end, and then it's all, HOLY CRAP GENE WOLFE WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO ME?