[Use Of Weapons]

OMG, Hugh Cook! Every book has a title of the form The <word beginning with W> and the <other word beginning with W>. I loved the conceit of the titling, but tried reading them and couldn't get into them.

[Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast]

That would mean he'd have to come up with 120 relevant words beginning with W for all SIXTY of the books in the series.

Some of the last books must have rather obscure titles as he ran out of W-words to use, such as The Webster and the Wayzgoose or The Wurzel and the Weftage or perhaps The Woodwose and the Wormery.

[braders1234]

I love the insane scope of it, can you imagine the pitch to a publisher, "yes, I did say 60, whdaya think?"

[worry]

Hugh Cook? More like Hugh Jballz!

[King Lear]

I read constantly, so when I finished TCG I felt really, really lost. All I wanted to read was more of what I had been reading. Unfortunately since that wasn't possible I started reading an academic textbook about fairytales for uni instead. It fills the void somewhat.

[Ahoy]

I'm definately in the same kinda boat as you all, sadly though I've read tons and tons and tons of Fantasy and Sci-Fi (good character driven sci-fi, not the techy stuff)... and honestly, I'd have to say that its exceedingly rare to find a really good writer who knows how to drag ya into their story. Anyways here are a few of my "keeper" books, one thing they all have in common besides great writing is that they all take place in interesting worlds.

Some Fantasy suggestions...

The Lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch - Not jaw dropping fantastic, but it does get you emotionally involved. The world definately has a distinct feel to it as well.
The Farseer Trilogy and The Tawny Man Trilogy by Robin Hobb - Gotta love the adventures of Fitzchivalry and the fool... and I doubt you'll ever find a more perfect or satisfying end to a fantasy series than Fool's Fate (the last book).
The Deathgate Cycle by Margeret Weis and Tracy Hickman


Some good Galactic Opera's (stole this phrase from Tracy Hickman's Intro for The Lost King)

Star of the Guardians Series by Margeret Weis.
Chung Kuo series by David Wingrove
Dune series by Frank Hebert (The six books he wrote are brilliant)
Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card (Speaker gets me teary eyed everytime i read it)
The Gap Series - by Stephen Donaldson

[Kanese S's]

After finishing TCG... I sorta got up, wiped the tears from my face, and wandered around the house not really knowing what to do with myself. I had a couple other books ready for reading, but I really didn't feel like reading at all for a week. I just felt too drained.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

I haven't read anything since I finished TCG...that was two weeks ago...

[Agraba]

I'm currently on a drought right now. I've been following Wheel of Time, but considering the fact that the last books I read were Robert Jordan's last books, I'm very soured to the prospect. I read WoT before Malazan, and I remember the first time I read the malazan series (Midnight Tides was the latest entry); my copy of Knife of Dreams arrived in the middle of HoC, so I read it before I read Midnight Tides. Having KoD fall between those two books just made it look really bad (and this was supposed to be RJ's big recovery of the series). Following the Crippled God, I'm afraid of how WoT will look to me now.

I hear Sanderson really picks it up, but I don't remember enough of what has been going on and, well, I just can't put myself through books 7-11 again. If I ever pick the series up, I'll probably just use that link given by Unknown Soldier for those books (and likely 6 as well; it's slow for the most part until one insane scene at the end).

But what to read right now - I don't know. I was going to pick up Stonewielder, but now that some people said they actually stopped reading it with 100 pages left is pretty discouraging to be honest. Even though you have the FREAKING CRIPPLED GOD, I still expect a book like Stonewielder to make you super eager to see the ending when you're that far in. I know that if I had 100 pages left of any Malazan main entry, I would absolutely not be able to stop for anything ever in the universe.

[Sinisdar Toste]

Since the Suvudu cage match i've been very entertained by the Mistborn trilogy, working on hero of ages now, and damn, sanderson can write. i mean, i knew he could because he's been blowing RJ out of the water with his two WoT offerings, but his original stuff is amazing as well.

[Daeghrefn]

I wondered what I was going to read after TCG... for about five minutes, until I remembered that I bought all four volumes of Gene Wolfe's Book Of The New Sun at the same time I ordered TCG. Wolfe is far more subtle than Erikson, and he really makes every word count, so even though his books are not massive tomes, they are very dense, and everything has implications. Malazan fans should enjoy them immensely, as I have.

[King-of-Chains]

Even Bakker seemed tame after finishing this masterpiece. And Bakker is heavy on violence and philosophy, though his books lack in size...

So, I decided on a reread. Seemed only fitting. It's been since October that I had started. A lot happened, so yay for a refresher!

[Demon X]

I find that, as a huge fantasy fan, after reading TMBOTF I just cant be satisfied by any other series. It's as if every other series is a counter-fit version... arrrgh. The only thing I could do to ease it was to start writing my own! lol

[Goaswerfraiejen]

The thing you have to remember about WoT is that Jordan did it all first; he's largely responsible for what are now the stereotypes of fantasy literature (which Erikson delights in blowing up), and for popularizing fantasy (even more than Tolkein, although Jordan is obviously rooted in Tolkein). As such, you have to cut WoT a little slack when you're reading it. And actually, what I find the most interesting and complex and well-developed in WoT is what everyone else finds endlessly boring: the interminable politics of preparing for a major, last, worldwide battle. That's something that's largely left out of LOTR, Bakker, and other series with a similar plot point.

As far as other reading goes:

Bernard Cornwell (in particular the trilogy on Arthur, collectively called 'The Warlord Chronicles'. This is the best--and most historical--Arthurian stuff out there period, and probably my three all-time favourite novels)

R. Scott Bakker ('The Prince of Nothing' trilogy, as has been mentioned; props for the most original and interesting system of magic out there, and a really cool development of religion)

Robert Low (if you like historical fiction, particularly the Vikings, this is for you; mad props for seamlessly weaving Old Norse into the dialogue.)

Giles Kristian (the Raven series is like Robert Low's orgy of ultraviolence, but not quite as good--for one thing, he doesn't kill off everyone you come to love)

Simon Scarrow (the Eagle series about Rome; straightforward orgy-of-violence historical fiction. Nothing deep or particularly complex, but perfectly enjoyable)

Guy Gavriel Kay - Excellent author in general.

Terry Pratchett - Yay!

Philip Pullman - The 'His Dark Materials' trilogy is original and quite deep (despite the Hollywood interpretation as a children's story, it's actually far better suited to adults)

John Marco's 'Tyrants and Kings' trilogy (cool fantasy take on naval warfare, very original)

Steven Erikson - The Bauchelain and Korbal Broach novellas, if you haven't read them yet

Ian Cameron Esslemont - Again, if you haven't read them already


EDITS: Forgot three of my favourites. Oops.

This post has been edited by Goaswerfraiejen: 01 June 2011 - 04:10 PM

[mayhem]

Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast, on 18 April 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

That would mean he'd have to come up with 120 relevant words beginning with W for all SIXTY of the books in the series.

Some of the last books must have rather obscure titles as he ran out of W-words to use, such as The Webster and the Wayzgoose or The Wurzel and the Weftage or perhaps The Woodwose and the Wormery.

Ahh, Hugh Cook.
Ambitious, and insane at the same time, with a wonderfully described world. Confusing as anything, since almost every book involves a different main character, frequently one who was a side character in another, and overlaps events again and again. The Walrus and the Warwolf is probably the most accessible, more of a piraty romp than the Big Quest approach of books 1 & 2, and later books definitely get decidedly weird. Great fun though.

I especially liked the way you would see the same events from different views, and he has a delightfully twisted sense of humor. Wikipedia pulled a good quote to illustrate that.

Only occasionally do the plots of the novels interact directly, and when characters cross paths, they perceive events in markedly different fashions, as the following passages illustrate. The first shows the view of a prisoner, Drake Douay, the second that of his jailer, Watashi.

"Watashi's private torture chamber was a soundproof room containing a narrow wooden bench, which bore an ominous number of russet stains, and many ugly implements of iron. Drake did his thinking - and fast. Clearly posing as an innocent peddlar was not going to save him." - The Walrus and the Warwolf, p.352.

"... Douay was gagged and taken to an abandoned store room. Over the last three days, this had been converted into a horror house. Many ugly implements of iron had been gathered together; a torture bench had been installed; and Jarl had slaughtered a chicken in the room to make sure it was suitably blood-bespattered." - The Wicked and the Witless, p. 303.

[Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast]

mayhem, on 31 May 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:

Ahh, Hugh Cook.

At first glance, I read this somewhat differently.

[Sanctume]

I read Drizzt Legends series by Salvatore. Nothing like a classic D&D novel.

[prq]

Goaswerfraiejen, on 30 May 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

The thing you have to remember about WoT is that Jordan did it all first; he's largely responsible for what are now the stereotypes of fantasy literature (which Erikson delights in blowing up), and for popularizing fantasy (even more than Tolkein, although Jordan is obviously rooted in Tolkein).

No. No he didn't. The stereotypes of fantasy literature were set, in a post-Tolkien phase, by Eddings, Weis&Hickman, Brooks and even Salvatore. WoT was published in 1990, with its virtues but definitely not a setter of fantasy stereotypes. I would also seriously debate whether Jordan "popularized" fantasy.

Back to the topic at hand, after finishing tCG (a disappointing book, in my opinion, after how promising TtH was), I picked up Donaldson's latest book from his Thomas Covenant series, "Against all things ending". Abercrombie and Rothfuss are next on the list.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

prq, on 01 June 2011 - 12:37 PM, said:

No. No he didn't. The stereotypes of fantasy literature were set, in a post-Tolkien phase, by Eddings, Weis&Hickman, Brooks and even Salvatore. WoT was published in 1990, with its virtues but definitely not a setter of fantasy stereotypes. I would also seriously debate whether Jordan "popularized" fantasy.

Fair enough WRT the fantasy stereotypes (at least in some respects): Brooks, Feist, Donaldson and Eddings are usually credited with establishing modern epic fantasy. But if we’re being nitpicky about the origins of post-Tolkein fantasy, then we should also be crediting C.S. Lewis (one of the biggest players in high fantasy), Ursula K. Leguin, Piers Anthony, and Tad Williams. I do take issue with Weis & Hickman and Salvatore, however: sure, Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms have enjoyed fair popularity, but how much influence can we properly attribute to them rather than to Dungeons and Dragons, on which the novels are based? Indeed, as far as I’m concerned, they’re all the epitome of bad fantasy writing and clichés anyway (like Eddings’s characters, actually). What I should have said, rather, was that Jordan’s writing in WoT explored a number of avenues that were novel at the time, but have become more commonplace (and oft-criticized) now. His worldbuilding, fairly complex and well-developed system of magic, focus on internecine warfare and world politics, or characterization of the role of women were the kinds of ‘stereotypes’ that I had in mind, and those are probably better listed as influences on subsequent literature instead of stereotype-establishment. So you’re right, things like ‘farmer becomes swashbuckling superhero who saves the world’ are more properly attributed elsewhere (probably D&D, really) instead. So, I guess I misspoke.

As far as popularization goes, however, I don’t think the ‘nay’ side has much of a case. If we just stop to look at the numbers for a moment, I think it becomes obvious that WoT has exercised an enormous amount of influence on the genre and the readership: Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms together (over 226 books) have sold a total of 18 million copies (3 for Dragonlance, 15 for FR—actually, sorry, that’s 15 mil for all of Salvatore’s works [so... 240+ novels, then]). By contrast, WoT’s first 11 books (I don’t know the more recent figure) sold over 44 million copies, and Jordan was the first fantasy author to crack the NYT bestseller list’s top spot (for six books out of 13, three of those before any other fantasy author ever, starting in 1998).

If you look at it historically, WoT’s popularity basically made it feasible for publishers to purchase works that went beyond the whole trilogy mould established by Tolkein, and maintained throughout the works of Brooks, Feist, and others. It’s only after WoT that sprawling series such as TMBOTF, ASOIAF, Harry Potter, and the Sword of Truth drivel (incidentally, Goodkind mines WoT rather liberally, despite his repeated assertions that everything is his own and that it’s not fantasy anyway) became feasible for publishers. And that’s because WoT opened up the market, helped to bring fantasy into more mainstream literature (and away from the ‘gamer’ culture and bad literature of Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms)—in no small part thanks to those NYT #1 bestseller spots. WoT attracted new markets, and introduced far more subtle and complex story arcs, plot points, and politics into the literature (remember wotmania and its massive theory forum, with speculation ranging from the stroyline to the world’s physics and metaphysics). And, as I said, we can clearly see Jordan’s influence in subsequent literature when it comes to worldbuilding (and the heavy influence of real-world anthropology), world politics (of the world that’s built, not the real one), systems of magic, and focus on inter-world conflict (either in addition to the ‘good-vs-evil’ struggle, or even entirely in place of it). These are all very familiar themes of modern fantasy series (epics, I guess), which were made possible by WoT.

[mayhem]

Goaswerfraiejen, on 01 June 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:

prq, on 01 June 2011 - 12:37 PM, said:

No. No he didn't. The stereotypes of fantasy literature were set, in a post-Tolkien phase, by Eddings, Weis&Hickman, Brooks and even Salvatore. WoT was published in 1990, with its virtues but definitely not a setter of fantasy stereotypes. I would also seriously debate whether Jordan "popularized" fantasy.

Fair enough WRT the fantasy stereotypes (at least in some respects): Brooks, Feist, Donaldson and Eddings are usually credited with establishing modern epic fantasy. But if we're being nitpicky about the origins of post-Tolkein fantasy, then we should also be crediting C.S. Lewis (one of the biggest players in high fantasy), Ursula K. Leguin, Piers Anthony, and Tad Williams. I do take issue with Weis & Hickman and Salvatore, however: sure, Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms have enjoyed fair popularity, but how much influence can we properly attribute to them rather than to Dungeons and Dragons, on which the novels are based? Indeed, as far as I'm concerned, they're all the epitome of bad fantasy writing and clichés anyway (like Eddings's characters, actually). What I should have said, rather, was that Jordan's writing in WoT explored a number of avenues that were novel at the time, but have become more commonplace (and oft-criticized) now. His worldbuilding, fairly complex and well-developed system of magic, focus on internecine warfare and world politics, or characterization of the role of women were the kinds of 'stereotypes' that I had in mind, and those are probably better listed as influences on subsequent literature instead of stereotype-establishment. So you're right, things like 'farmer becomes swashbuckling superhero who saves the world' are more properly attributed elsewhere (probably D&D, really) instead. So, I guess I misspoke.

As far as popularization goes, however, I don't think the 'nay' side has much of a case. If we just stop to look at the numbers for a moment, I think it becomes obvious that WoT has exercised an enormous amount of influence on the genre and the readership: Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms together (over 226 books) have sold a total of 18 million copies (3 for Dragonlance, 15 for FR—actually, sorry, that's 15 mil for all of Salvatore's works [so... 240+ novels, then]). By contrast, WoT's first 11 books (I don't know the more recent figure) sold over 44 million copies, and Jordan was the first fantasy author to crack the NYT bestseller list's top spot (for six books out of 13, three of those before any other fantasy author ever, starting in 1998).

If you look at it historically, WoT's popularity basically made it feasible for publishers to purchase works that went beyond the whole trilogy mould established by Tolkein, and maintained throughout the works of Brooks, Feist, and others. It's only after WoT that sprawling series such as TMBOTF, ASOIAF, Harry Potter, and the Sword of Truth drivel (incidentally, Goodkind mines WoT rather liberally, despite his repeated assertions that everything is his own and that it's not fantasy anyway) became feasible for publishers. And that's because WoT opened up the market, helped to bring fantasy into more mainstream literature (and away from the 'gamer' culture and bad literature of Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms)—in no small part thanks to those NYT #1 bestseller spots. WoT attracted new markets, and introduced far more subtle and complex story arcs, plot points, and politics into the literature (remember wotmania and its massive theory forum, with speculation ranging from the stroyline to the world's physics and metaphysics). And, as I said, we can clearly see Jordan's influence in subsequent literature when it comes to worldbuilding (and the heavy influence of real-world anthropology), world politics (of the world that's built, not the real one), systems of magic, and focus on inter-world conflict (either in addition to the 'good-vs-evil' struggle, or even entirely in place of it). These are all very familiar themes of modern fantasy series (epics, I guess), which were made possible by WoT.

It is an interesting argument. I see it more as Jordan was lucky to be in the right place at the right time. Brooks, Feist, Eddings and Williams all bloomed through the 80s and into the 90s, along with Anne McCaffrey and Mercedes Lackey. Together with the various Dragonlance books, Xanth, and the rise of Pratchett, there was a huge blossoming in Fantasy that appealed to a younger generation. Remember that the 60s and 70s were heavy on SF and much lighter on Fantasy.

If anything though,Terry Pratchett is probably the one who really did the most to popularise Fantasy as a genre in the last thirty years, his works are true worldwide bestsellers.
Twilight is more or less the exact same upswell of popular vampires that Anne Rice explored in the 80s with a modern spin.

I agree with you in that the success of the WoT was what helped break the publisher's fears of anything not a trilogy, but then the WoT was originally supposed to be a trilogy, then 6, then creep set in as the story overwhelmed the author. I also agree that he helped to popularise doorstopper fantasy, but remember that the market got a heck of a lot bigger during those decades as well. His sales figures as a proportion of books sold at the time are not so overwhelming when compared with many of the greats of the past, while the true outliers like Twilight or Harry Potter come from tapping into the wider mass market of 'childrens literature' a la Narnia, or Romance.

Where I disagree is in the idea that he was breaking new ground in his work - very little in the WoT is truly original, it all draws from the same myths and roots as most other fantastical literature both before and after.
I could point out dozens of influences from all sides of the genre, but the key is that part of his success was to put his own spin on those influences, rather than following directly from Tolkein a la Brooks. That being said, it did take him a couple of books to hit his stride - tEotW is very derivative, while tDR & tSR were significant steps up in quality. I also suspect that a large amount of his success comes from the relatively simple and direct writing style, his works, like those of Eddings or Brooks are generally not hard to follow, unlike say Stephen King's Dark Tower, or Donaldson's Covenant. It means his work was accessible to a much wider audience.

That being said, when you start to analyse the Series works, the vast majority of the bestselling Fantasy series are those for children - Goosebumps, Redwall, Narnia, HP, Lemony Snicket, etc. It is also apparent that the vast majority that are at the top of the list are more recent works, which reflects the fact that these days, a lot more books are sold than was the case 30 years ago. Still, some older works have stood the test of time, look at Burroughs's Tarzan works, now over 50m.