[Aimless]

Dave Duncan - A Man of His Word

Jennifer Roberson - Chronicles of the Cheysuli

Geraldine Harris - The Seven Citadels

[Macros]

Dont know if its been mentioned.
Empire Trilogy, Janny Wurts and Raymond Feist

[Nyarlathotep]

Oh, I am so gonna get hate mail for this!
Ok, CircleBinder. You've read Tolkien, Erikson and Martin and you're looking for recommendations for traditional fantasy that meets the following criteria; well written, has cool, enjoyable, memorable characters and has an interesting and a well described world.
Well, that rules out Brooks and Eddings straight away. They're both, at best, average writers. The plots are very simplistic. The characters are very cardboard cut out and bland. The worlds are poorly thought out. Practically everything in the books are deus ex machina. Just thrown in for the sake of it cos it sounds cool. If you enjoy the complexities of Erikson or the massive, majestic sweep of Tolkien, you won't find them here. If there are any positives, I would have to say they are very easy reads. Definately disengage brain before reading. Candy floss for the mind. If you like that sort of stuff, and lots of people do, give em a go but I would think that after reading Erikson, you're going to be disappointed.
Good examples of traditional fantasy.
Lyonesse-Jack Vance. The prose recalls traditional fairy stories but there's a dry humour underneath. Vance introduces stereotypical fantasy characters; kings, princesses, knights, fairies then suprises you by avoiding the standard storylines, sometimes resulting in quite tragic consequences.
Memory, Sorrow and Thorn and the Shadowmarch series-Tad Williams. Nothing new here. Fairly standard fantasy stories but I think there's something really enjoyable about these books. I'll put it down to Williams being a better writer, better at characterisation and a better world builder than Brooks or Eddings. Sure, he can be a bit plodding. Nobody's perfect, everyone has flaws including Tolkien and Erikson. I think it's a case of whether the pros outweigh the cons and that's a matter of personel taste.
Empire series-Feist and Wurts. I'm pretty ambivalent about Feist. I don't hate him but I can't say I enjoy him either. Meh is pretty much how I feel about it. Except for the Empire series. Scheming, political families/factions set in a Oriental style world. No Dark Lord. Equal screen time given to the protaginists and antagonists. You will have to read the Riftwar series to get the background though. It's entirely up to you.
Guy Gavriel Kay. I've read Tigana, Under Heaven and the Last Light of the Sun and I thought they were outstanding. Well written, intelligent, adult. This is the guy who helped Christopher Tolkien edit the Silmarillion. But don't expect a rip off here. Haven't read the Fionevar Tapestry but on the strength of these 3, I will. Kay takes real historical settings; Tigana-Renaissance Italy, Under Heaven-ancient China, Last Light of the Sun-England and Wales during the Viking invasions and places them in an alternate world. They can be fantasy lite, in the sense that there's not a huge amount of fantasy ingredients included but there's enough to satisfy. They're also very character driven. The choices the characters make influence the story, not the characters doing such and such just to fit the story. See Brooks and Eddings.
Thomas Covenant-Stephen Donaldson. Not sure if this is traditional. Mainly because of Thomas Covenant. This guy's a git. And not in a badass way. He's just a git. A coward. A self-pitying tosser. And if this isn't bad enough he commits a horrific, deplorable atrocity on a female character. He also has leprosy. D'ye know what. He's is one of the most interesting fantasy characters ever. You don't have to like him but he is interesting. A lot of people won't touch these books because of TC. Some people claim that these books are disgusting and how dare Stephen Donaldson make a rapist the main character. Well, if you want cosy, safe fantasy, go read Brooks and Eddings with their Waltons style characters. Hmmm. Karsa Orlong is a rapist too but that doesn't seem to bother anyone. Some claim he's totally badass, dude! Strange. Oh yeah. Erikson is a fan of Donaldson too.
Just one other thing, Circle Binder.
In all my years of reading fantasy I've never found a writer who has had the same impact on me as Tolkien. Nobody, but nobody out Tolkiens Tolkien! But other writers have had as big an impact although in very different ways. And those writers generally don't do traditional fantasy. If you wanna read traditional fantasy, go for it. I certainly wouldn't claim that just because something is traditional automatically makes it shite. But keep an eye out for the, untraditional, alternate, whatever you wanna call it. The likes of Mieville and Gaiman are every bit as amazing as Tolkien, if very different. Happy reading.
I am now prepared for an all out attack from Brookites and Eddingsians. My wings are like a shield of steel!

[Tsundoku]

Dave Duncan - The Great Game trilogy.

Chris Bunch - Warrior/Seer/Demon King trilogy - great revision of Napoleon.

[worry]

Tolkien's such a hack though! Trolls and orcs and dwarves and elves and land-vikings riding horses all around? Magic rings and swords? Talk about cliche. How can you even defend that?! It's like he put dungeons and dragons in a blender and decided to throw some talking trees in there just to have scary forest scenes for the kids just barely past Hansel & Gretel.

[CircleBinder]

worrywort - You must know that Tolkien wrote his works long before Dungeons and Dragons existed. THE HOBBIT was published in 1937. D&D was first published in 1974. Unoriginal is the one thing that Tolkien is not.

[JLV]

CircleBinder, on 05 February 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

worrywort - You must know that Tolkien wrote his works long before Dungeons and Dragons existed. THE HOBBIT was published in 1937. D&D was first published in 1974. Unoriginal is the one thing that Tolkien is not.

It was satire. Or something.

[polishgenius]

LotR is quite good for the novelisation of a movie. I don't know why they added all them songs and other bits though.

[Morgoth]

CircleBinder, on 05 February 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

worrywort - You must know that Tolkien wrote his works long before Dungeons and Dragons existed. THE HOBBIT was published in 1937. D&D was first published in 1974. Unoriginal is the one thing that Tolkien is not.

I believe the correct respons to this would be: Wooooooooosh

[worry]

JLV, on 05 February 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

CircleBinder, on 05 February 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

worrywort - You must know that Tolkien wrote his works long before Dungeons and Dragons existed. THE HOBBIT was published in 1937. D&D was first published in 1974. Unoriginal is the one thing that Tolkien is not.

It was satire. Or something.

"Or something" is a safe bet.

[Nyarlathotep]

Sorry CircleBinder, Tolkien's not original. He was very heavily influenced by Norse, Finnish, Anglo-Saxon and a smattering of Celtic mythology. Remember Gandalf? Course you do. That old dude with the hat, cloak and staff wandering the landscape, dishing out warnings and advice. That's Odin. And Gandalf's horse, the fastest, noblest steed in the west? That's Odin's horse, Sleipnnir. (I think that's how you spell it.) There's a writer called William Morris who may have been writing as far back as the 19th century and JRR was a fan of his. In one of his books the action takes place in a forest called........Mirkwood! Hmmmm. Of course, this doesn't mean that Tolkien's crap either. Just like everyone else, he's got influences.
Hey Worrywort. I think I should maybe explain that "nobody out Tolkiens Tolkien" part. Here. Google this. Five reasons why Tolkien Rocks (guest blogger China Mieville)
This is coming from the man who once described Tolkien as "the wen on the arse of fantasy". I'm not sure what a wen is but seeing as it's on yer erse, I'm guessing it ain't pretty! It's fair to say he's NOT a fan. Anyway, China's more able than me to explain why Tolkien rocks. Pay especial attention to the part on subcreation. That should clear up why nobody out Tolkiens Tolkien.

[worry]

Is that supposed to convince me? Tolkien's an old man copying ideas from younger iconoclasts, and selling out to boot, I'm never gonna read his lousy books (but 2 B fair his cartoons were at least better than the movies). He's the Hugh Hefner of fantasy and I hope he finally dies already (not 2 B mean but to B put out of his mi$ery). Plus, what the hell, midgets for heroes?! Might as well had the Lollipop Guild fight a dragon. Where's the realism?!

[Mentalist]

@ Nyarlathotep:
Are the Shadowmarch books any good?
I always see them in the bookstore, but when I read the back blurb of the first one it just SCREAMS "ASOAIF ripoff". and I set it down.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 06 February 2012 - 03:17 AM

[CircleBinder]

Nyarlathotep - I understand what you are saying. Of course Tolkien had his influences. Every creation in the history of the world is inevitably influenced by the thousands of creations that have come before it. That is natural and undeniable. Were Hobbits inspired by Gnomes? Almost certainly. Was Gandalf inspired by a Norse god? That appears to be the case. Does 'Stairway to Heaven' have lyrics inspired by LotR? It sure does.

But I suppose I don't believe being inspired by something is the same as being unoriginal. Would you suggest that the Elvish language Tolkien created is 'unoriginal' because there had been thousands of languages that had existed before from which he could draw influences? I wouldn't.

However, I believe you and I are on the same page, more or less. The only thing I took umbrage with was the suggestion that Tolkien unimaginatively copied his ideas from a silly game that wasn't even created until after his death - a game that indeed borrows heavily from his own creations and from other early fantasy authors like him. But after reading that poster's subsequent contributions to this thread, I've realized that for people to take umbrage was his only implication for that post. Thus, I will not afford any more time or thought on this subject.

[worry]

You gotta be folkien kidding me.

[Nyarlathotep]

Hi CircleBinder, you're right. We are on the same page and, yeah, let's move on.

Hey Mentalist, I've never read George Martin so I can't really compare. I have caught a couple of episodes of the tv series. Mysterious, powerful race to the north. Rival kingdoms competing with each other. Maybe? Sorry, really don't know.
Awright Worrywort, ya wind up merchant . Very witty. You rated Memory, Sorrow and Thorn highly. What do you think? Shadowmarch. ASOIAF rip off?

[Macros]

I though morgoths whoosh would have shown worrywort up long ago

[Salt-Man Z]

Don't mind worrywort, he's just our pet troll; we feed him noobs.

[worry]

Look, it's not like I invented trolling...that was iconic fantasy author JRR Tolkien, whose Cave Troll (pictured below) was the first in a long line of joyous, personality-full troll characters who spent their time provoking halfling warriors over Middle-Earth's version of the Internet: large stone clubs.


Tolkien's Cave Troll enjoying his cave, wondering how to decorate it.

[worry]

Also, I haven't read the Shadowmarch books -- the only other Tad Williams I've read to date was that one about the cats. But I do plan to get around to his other stuff eventually -- I kind of doubt he rips off GRRM too much, though I suppose it's possible. What they have in common is that they don't downplay the suffering that naturally should come along with fantasy tropes, though I do think (to my limited knowledge) TW is a bit more of a traditionalist who offers smaller (but still smart and interesting) tweaks to those tropes. He manages to add shades of gray to the landscape, but he didn't cast everything in gray. But if he's gone more in that direction with the later series, even if it's derivative of GRRM, he's still one of the most capable craftsman in the genre so I probably wouldn't mind.