What other fantasy books do YOU read?

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Glad that someone finally agrees with me about Tolkien. People usually laugh or call me stupid when I say that LOTR is the best book ever written.

You misunderstand me. Tolkien is my favourite author, but I wouldn't call LotR the best book ever written. The reason it's my personal favourite is because of the fairy-tale feeling you get while reading it (though certainly there is no 'fairy-tale' ending!) and because of the beautiful and historically rich world Tolkien created. So yes, no author will ever come close to doing that, but there are people who write better than him. Examples? Victor Hugo, Leo Tolstoy, Mary Ann Evans, Charlotte Brontë etc.

[Nerwen]

I doubt there is a single "best book ever written". You can maybe talk about something being the best in a particular genre, but what criteria would determine what was the best ever?

Mind you, generally people really just mean a certain book is their favourite.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Examples? Victor Hugo, Leo Tolstoy, Mary Ann Evans...

*coughing fit* Galadriel, not to jump on you, but is there any particular reason you can't call her George Eliot, like everyone else?

[Galadriel55]

I was wrong to say that specifically about LOTR. I meant just Tolkien in general, but most peope that I know never heard that name, but they know LOTR from the movies. There are other authors whos books I enjoy very much - sometimes even more than Tolkien. They also go very deep and emotional, but they only show a few certain situations like that, whereas Tolkien has all kinds of sides and circumstances. If I were to choose one author that I like best, I'd name Tolkien, even though others are very good as well.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I doubt there is a single "best book ever written". You can maybe talk about something being the best in a particular genre, but what criteria would determine what was the best ever?

Mind you, generally people really just mean a certain book is their favourite.


*coughing fit* Galadriel, not to jump on you, but is there any particular reason you can't call her George Eliot, like everyone else?

Sorry I just...dislike calling her by her 'male' name. I feel it's a shame she's mostly known as 'George Eliot' instead of her real name. So yes, that is my 'particular' reason. But what's so bad about calling her Mary Ann Evans? It's just her name

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I was wrong to say that specifically about LOTR. I meant just Tolkien in general, but most peope that I know never heard that name, but they know LOTR from the movies. There are other authors whos books I enjoy very much - sometimes even more than Tolkien. They also go very deep and emotional, but they only show a few certain situations like that, whereas Tolkien has all kinds of sides and circumstances. If I were to choose one author that I like best, I'd name Tolkien, even though others are very good as well.

Do you not despise it when people are like 'Wait, LotR is a book??' It makes me want to cry.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Do you not despise it when people are like 'Wait, LotR is a book??' It makes me want to cry.

yes, yes, and definitely YES!!!!!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Sorry I just...dislike calling her by her 'male' name. I feel it's a shame she's mostly known as 'George Eliot' instead of her real name. So yes, that is my 'particular' reason. But what's so bad about calling her Mary Ann Evans? It's just her name

You could always have said "George Eliot (pen-name of Mary Ann Evans)" or "Mary Ann Evans (better known as George Eliot)". You see, when a person is best known by a pseudonym, the normal, and I think very sensible, practice is to refer to him or her by it, at least initially, to avoid confusion. After all, the potential for that is huge– so many people, both now and in the past, have become famous under assumed names. (Just think about it for a moment.)

So– that's what's so bad about it.

[Nerwen]

I suppose I should have put an OT warning on that post, but actually it's pretty relevant to Middle-earth, what with all the aliases people like to employ there.

Seriously, I read a wiki article once where a certain Elf-Lady was referred to as "Nerwen" throughout (presumably on the grounds that it was her "real" name) and even I found it annoying.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

You could always have said "George Eliot (pen-name of Mary Ann Evans)" or "Mary Ann Evans (better known as George Eliot)". You see, when a person is best known by a pseudonym, the normal, and I think very sensible, practice is to refer to him or her by it, at least initially, to avoid confusion. After all, the potential for that is huge– so many people, both now and in the past, have become famous under assumed names. (Just think about it for a moment.)

So– that's what's so bad about it.

Ah. Very well then. I shall refrain from saying 'Mary Ann Evans' and just say 'George Eliot'.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Do you not despise it when people are like 'Wait, LotR is a book??' It makes me want to cry.

I haven't experienced that, but I have run into a lot who mix up the movies and books quite badly, even after reading them. I think that's the way things tend to go, with adaptations in general: the version you encounter first becomes, for you, the "true" one, and it can be hard to accept that certain things weren't part of the original.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I haven't experienced that, but I have run into a lot who mix up the movies and books quite badly, even after reading them. I think that's the way things tend to go, with adaptations in general: the version you encounter first becomes, for you, the "true" one, and it can be hard to accept that certain things weren't part of the original.

True. But for the life of me, the Bakshi film just didn't settle into my brain as a 'true' version
It's just that people like the films /so/ much, sometimes they have difficulty reading the book, because it's much less action-packed, and more like something that has to be savoured.

[Blind Guardian]

I like Terry Goodkind's "Sword Of Truth" series and Tad Willam's "Otherland" and I might read Robert Jordan's "Wheel Of Time".

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Blind Guardian

I like Terry Goodkind's "Sword Of Truth" series and Tad Willam's "Otherland" and I might read Robert Jordan's "Wheel Of Time".

Is 'Sword of Truth' any good? I've been thinking about reading it.

[Thinlómien]

I have almost finished Neil Gaiman's American Gods and I have to say the guy is genius.

[Blind Guardian]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Is 'Sword of Truth' any good? I've been thinking about reading it.

I think it was great, and I'm on the seventh book now GO READ IT!

[Oddwen]

Originally Posted by Blind Guardian

I think it was great, and I'm on the seventh book now GO READ IT!

While I, on the other hand, couldn't choke my way through the second book.

Recently I read two and a half books of Mercedes Lackey's "500 Kingdoms" books, twists off of old fairy tales. The twist? The progatonistas are all quirky, headstrong and always right! Ho ho! Also they were romance novels! I was TRICKED!

[Galadriel55]

I just finished reading a book called Polgara the Sorceress. It is...OK, I guess. Nothing brilliant. I like the philosophy behind the fiction, though.

*I don't know how that book got into my hands. Aparantly it's 12th in a series.*

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Blind Guardian

I think it was great, and I'm on the seventh book now GO READ IT!

Lol oh really? Maybe I'll give it a shot By the way, has anyone read 'Politically Correct Bedtime Stories'? It's a spoof on all the fairytales like Cinderella and Snow White. I think it's hilarious (and so true!).

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I have almost finished Neil Gaiman's American Gods and I have to say the guy is genius.

You do? Then you MUST read 'Good Omens'. It's a collab between Gaiman and Pratchett.

[Kitanna]

I read Games of Thrones by George R.R. Martin recently. At first I liked it...that quickly changed and I refused to stop reading it because I had come too far. I could go on for hours as to why I can't stand Martin or his work, but I'll stick to the fact the man has an interesting idea, but ruins it by having boring characters who are almost all the same in ambitions and personality. I really liked Ned Stark, but for those who have read well... I watched the first two episodes of the show and found it as boring as the book.

So to cleanse my literary palette by reading copious amounts of Terry Pratchett. I got into a few books because of Downs recommendations, but lately I've pretty much solely been living on the Disc. I must thank this site for pointing me in that directions because my life is greatly enhanced with Rincewind, Vimes, and Vetinari in it.

[Nogrod]

Funny to be about on the exact opposite opinion with Kit.

I have only now realised that I have been a waay too busy with all my work that it takes a major operation and the following sick-leave for me to have time to read books again. But I have enjoyed Mr. Martin's A Game of Thrones. Although I do agree with Kit in that many of the main characters seem to have more or less one sided minds in sharing similar ambitions. But I do like it nevertheless.

Terry Pratchett and his Discworld I have found quite yawning reading. It has all the things that could make very fun reading but somehow I'm not impressed (after reading two books years ago). I mean it's like a joke that has gotten way too long. They're kind of witty and hilarious, but then again I do find them failing to be anything else. But surely I can be misguided in here as I have only read the two first ones... from what, fifty?


PS. A reason to love George R. Martin: he is able to kill off his main characters every once in a while thus making the books much more "realistic" and kind of breaking the phantasy genre where every well intending hero against his own will will prevail in the end (or if he dies a martyr his cause will prevail). I just love it how he makes fool of me the reader and reminds me that there are tales much more interesting than fairy-tales...

[Pitchwife]

I sort of see where you're coming from about Pratchett, Nog; he's a bit of an acquired taste, but I've found he gets better with age (as long as he still manages to battle Alzheimer's, at least). You might like to try The Wee Free Men and A Hat Full of Sky, if you haven't yet - there's a poet's heart beating in these. If you like them, anything else with Granny Weatherwax in it - that woman rocks!

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

You might like to try The Wee Free Men and A Hat Full of Sky, if you haven't yet - there's a poet's heart beating in these. If you like them, anything else with Granny Weatherwax in it - that woman rocks!

Thanks for the hint. As this might turn out the "summer of reading" after a long time, I might actually try to get a hold of those to see if my mind changes...

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Thanks for the hint. As this might turn out the "summer of reading" after a long time, I might actually try to get a hold of those to see if my mind changes...

I really didn't like him much at first. I felt like I had been dropped into an inside joke, but I read one of the books regarding the city watch and came to understand things better. I think becoming a fan of Pratchett's depends on what you end up reading first. There are a lot and some books aren't great, but there are others that are. He can be hit or miss for a lot of people so I get why some find him boring to read.

A reason to love George R. Martin: he is able to kill off his main characters every once in a while thus making the books much more "realistic" and kind of breaking the phantasy genre where every well intending hero against his own will will prevail in the end (or if he dies a martyr his cause will prevail). I just love it how he makes fool of me the reader and reminds me that there are tales much more interesting than fairy-tales...

I went into reading Game of Thrones knowing this from my boyfriend and while that's a great way to tell a story I still don't think he does it well. I feel like Martin has a lot of missed opportunities. Characters like Ned and Robert were good, but I felt everyone else, even the young girls, had that same sort of middle-aged man mindset and none were written to reflect age or gender. My boyfriend and my friend has told me what else happens and it's a captivating story, but I don't care for his writing style at all. Sometimes I think I just read way too much into these things.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Kitanna

I went into reading Game of Thrones knowing this from my boyfriend and while that's a great way to tell a story I still don't think he does it well. I feel like Martin has a lot of missed opportunities. Characters like Ned and Robert were good, but I felt everyone else, even the young girls, had that same sort of middle-aged man mindset and none were written to reflect age or gender. My boyfriend and my friend has told me what else happens and it's a captivating story, but I don't care for his writing style at all. Sometimes I think I just read way too much into these things.

Middle-ages man mindset? I really don't think so. Cersei, Catelyn, Sansa, etc. very much behaved their own age and gender. Of course, they're very, very different, and Sansa seemed a bit too delusional in the first couple of books, but other than that I didn't see a problem with Martin's characterisation.

If there's one complaint I have about the series, it's his pessimism about humanity. He portrays everyone as evil or selfish, with no regard for anyone but themselves and/or a couple of others. The only character I thought was free form evil was Brienne. I mean, sure, you get sick of people being black and white, but there is some good in this world, and that's a fact. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the fact that he hasn't done the typical 'good vs evil' cliché, and I think that most of his characters are well thought-out, but give these guys a break, man. At least a few characters should be leaning towards their good side.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

The only character I thought was free form evil was Brienne.

Oh but there are lots of others (spoiler if you don't want to hear who are good guys) at least Ned, Bran, Jon, Samwell, Old Bear, Maester Aemon, Hodor, Meera, Jojen and Davos off the top of my head.

I personally enjoy Martin a lot (up to the point of recently being rather obsessed), and I have to disagree with Kit about the characters - they may start as slightly cardboardy, but they get so much better during the series: in fact so good that it depresses me as an aspiring writer. I really like the slowly revealed depth of characters like Jaime Lannister or Sansa Stark.

[Galadriel]

I finally started on Harry Potter. Not because of the films, but because I've wanted to get into the fandom for a long time, but I kept getting put off by the first few lines in 'The Philosopher's Stone' and by people telling me it was a great work of art I'm around four hundred pages into the fourth book now, and I must say, I'm enjoying it much more than I thought I would. Still, I can't really call myself a 'fan' yet, since I haven't exactly fallen in love with the series the way I did with Lord of the Rings. Oh well, we'll see how it all turns out after I've finished all seven!

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Oh but there are lots of others (spoiler if you don't want to hear who are good guys) at least Ned, Bran, Jon, Samwell, Old Bear, Maester Aemon, Hodor, Meera, Jojen and Davos off the top of my head.

I really like the slowly revealed depth of characters like Jaime Lannister or Sansa Stark.

Oh, but aside from Ned, I didn't find any of them to be 'free' of evil

And I absolutely LOVE the way Jaime turned out!

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I just finished reading a book called Polgara the Sorceress. It is...OK, I guess. Nothing brilliant. I like the philosophy behind the fiction, though.

*I don't know how that book got into my hands. Aparantly it's 12th in a series.*

Ahaha, I liked that book as a kid, Polgara was like my favourite character anywhere ever, or something. It makes a lot more sens though if you read the David Eddings' series it's sort of providing background info for. That being said, I haven't read the book in at least 10 years and I really have to reread now!

Originally Posted by Galadriel

You do? Then you MUST read 'Good Omens'. It's a collab between Gaiman and Pratchett.

If you say so - however, I have to say that while I love Gaiman, I find Pratchett mostly annoying.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Oh, but aside from Ned, I didn't find any of them to be 'free' of evil

And I absolutely LOVE the way Jaime turned out!

But are real people "free of evil" either? And as for Jaime's character development (let's not spoil anybody on this thread) it's awesome. He's surely one of my favourite characters.

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I finally started on Harry Potter. Not because of the films, but because I've wanted to get into the fandom for a long time, but I kept getting put off by the first few lines in 'The Philosopher's Stone' and by people telling me it was a great work of art I'm around four hundred pages into the fourth book now, and I must say, I'm enjoying it much more than I thought I would. Still, I can't really call myself a 'fan' yet, since I haven't exactly fallen in love with the series the way I did with Lord of the Rings. Oh well, we'll see how it all turns out after I've finished all seven!

Harry Potter was really were I started in fantasy...I started reading it in the 5th grade, and fell in love with the first 5 books. When the sixth book came out I went to the midnight release party, which was fun. I fell out of love with the 6th and 7th books though, as I couldn't stand some of the romances...besides, I fell in love with Tolkien in the 7th grade, and never quite went back to HP, though I still read fanfic...

As far as what other fantasy books I read - I'm willing to give most things at least a try...I have The Name of the Wind, Dresdan Files, and a few others waiting to be read. I read a lot of older fantasy too, like George MacDonald's The Princess and the Goblin, and then folklore, mythology, ect...

I tried to reread Narnia in the 7th grade, and hated it...too many religious overtones for me.

[Galadriel55]

@ My Twin Sister: You'll like HP, at least on the first read. It's definitely captvating. Personally, I think that series is addictive because of the tangled intrigue/connections, but it lacks depth. I put off reading it until last year for those very reasons - to prove myself first wrong, and then right again. Then HP also has some plot-based faults, but I won't give spoilers.

This really depends on the reader, because I know many HP fans of various ages. And anyways, I think it is worth reading just to know and to compare, if you get my meaning.

@ Lommy: I was thinking I'm the only one here who read that book. It is rather nice, though, as I said, not brilliant IMO. I definitely agree that reading the entire series would help with the background knowledge (I can talk, I didn't read it... ). Can't say that Polgara is my favourite, especially when it came to the Ontrose part (on my last reread I skipped that whole section). What I liked most was the idea of "good" and "evil" being nothing more than perspective names given to two Purposes. Rather than "I am good and my enemies are bad" it's "some of those who oppose me are doing wrong, so I have to fix that and do right".

@ LadyB: I read Narnia in Grade 5, and at first I was addicted but then I cooled down, because it was too "simple". However, now that I'm a bit older and wiser (...or at least older ) I appreciate the simplicity more...

[McCaber]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I have almost finished Neil Gaiman's American Gods and I have to say the guy is genius.

If you haven't read Sandman yet, you need to. The single best book I've ever read. If you have, Anansi Boys is set in the American Gods universe and I enjoyed it even better than the first one.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by McCaber

If you haven't read Sandman yet, you need to. The single best book I've ever read. If you have, Anansi Boys is set in the American Gods universe and I enjoyed it even better than the first one.

Nice to see you around Cabbie! And I'll have a look at Sandman (been meaning to, for ages) and borrow Anansi Boys from Aganzir.

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

@ LadyB: I read Narnia in Grade 5, and at first I was addicted but then I cooled down, because it was too "simple". However, now that I'm a bit older and wiser (...or at least older ) I appreciate the simplicity more...

If it was just the simplicity of it, I'd still read it and like it, most likely...I, after all, still read Winnie the Pooh and Dr. Suess just for the fun of it at times, as well as Babysitters Club, Nancy Drew, ect... It's more the religious aspects of it that annoy me...if I want religion, I'll read the Bible again.

[Haramu]

Reading and Writing my own Fantasy Book
Should be good enough for me and maybe a few readers as well.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

What I liked most was the idea of "good" and "evil" being nothing more than perspective names given to two Purposes.

There's been a discussion of that on the Downs, if you're interested.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

If it was just the simplicity of it, I'd still read it and like it, most likely...I, after all, still read Winnie the Pooh and Dr. Suess just for the fun of it at times, as well as Babysitters Club, Nancy Drew, ect... It's more the religious aspects of it that annoy me...if I want religion, I'll read the Bible again.

Lol, I still read 'The Tale of Peter Rabbit' Yes, I agree, the religious aspects were a turn-off for me. Tolkien's works have a religious base too, but it's less obvious in my opinion.

A lot of people have read the Bible...anyone around here read the Upanishads?

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

@ My Twin Sister: You'll like HP, at least on the first read. It's definitely captvating. Personally, I think that series is addictive because of the tangled intrigue/connections, but it lacks depth. I put off reading it until last year for those very reasons - to prove myself first wrong, and then right again. Then HP also has some plot-based faults, but I won't give spoilers.

This really depends on the reader, because I know many HP fans of various ages. And anyways, I think it is worth reading just to know and to compare, if you get my meaning.

I love the way you call me your twin sister (UNLESS you are referring somehow to Nerwen Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed the third and fourth books. The first two were a bit childish, and the fifth one is dragging more than it should. For me, it doesn't exactly lack character depth, but it lacks depth in theme and creativity. Sure, Rowling describes Hogwarts and some magical villages really well, but there's very little beyond that. I like a larger world to play around with, but that's my personal preference.

LadyBrooke: I agree. IMO romance kills a book, unless it's in small amounts. I think that is one of the (big) reasons I loved LotR so much. When I reached the end I was like "Yes, yes, yes! Such little romance!" Of course, Jackson simply had to put an unnecessary amount of it in the movies. Poor, dear Glorfindel

Thinlómien: Well, not exactly 'free' of evil, but having much more of a good side to them. God, I need to start being more specific...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I love the way you call me your twin sister (UNLESS you are referring somehow to Nerwen

No, I'm referring to you. And I believe you were the one that first called me that in reply to one of my first posts! (This one, to be percise... took me ages to find! I was such an idiot back then!!!)

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed the third and fourth books. The first two were a bit childish, and the fifth one is dragging more than it should. For me, it doesn't exactly lack character depth, but it lacks depth in theme and creativity. Sure, Rowling describes Hogwarts and some magical villages really well, but there's very little beyond that. I like a larger world to play around with, but that's my personal preference.

Ditto. I also think that she could really use some better vocabulary. Whenever I think of HP I think of "reckon" - she repeats that word waaay too often. I know she wants to imitate British slang, but it just gets on my nerves. As for the 5th book - I only read the 6th one to find out what Harry's OWL results were. I didn't see any other point in reading on.

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

A lot of people have read the Bible...anyone around here read the Upanishads?

Not yet...it's a goal in life, I suppose. I need to read it, the Quran, at least one of the Buddhist texts, ect. Personally, I believe an understanding of all religions is important...

I have, however, read portions of the Epic of Gilgamesh for an essay. It was weird...but I liked it. I like ancient literature...I read the entire Iliad and Odyssey for fun, when we had to read a portion for school...The college I'm going to offers Ancient Greek and Latin, but I doubt I'll have time to take them. So, I guess my knowledge will be limited to what I can learn on my own...

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed the third and fourth books. The first two were a bit childish, and the fifth one is dragging more than it should. For me, it doesn't exactly lack character depth, but it lacks depth in theme and creativity. Sure, Rowling describes Hogwarts and some magical villages really well, but there's very little beyond that. I like a larger world to play around with, but that's my personal preference.

Personally, I hated the way it seemed that Slytherin automatically meant you were evil, with a few exceptions (and those weren't presented well either). What's wrong with ambition? And really, why would three people form a school with some evil guy? I liked parts of the fifth one, but I can't stand how Molly Weasley is presented as some kind of good person by Rowling. I mean, I'm not the largest fan of Sirius, but going into somebody's house and insulting them...her insults to him were worse then Snape's for crying out loud. And the way she jokes about love potions...I don't think that many of the good characters, like Molly and Ginny, were really the saints they're presented as by Rowling. I loved book 3 and 4 though...of course, Remus and Fleur are my favorite characters so....

I agree. IMO romance kills a book, unless it's in small amounts. I think that is one of the (big) reasons I loved LotR so much. When I reached the end I was like "Yes, yes, yes! Such little romance!" Of course, Jackson simply had to put an unnecessary amount of it in the movies. Poor, dear Glorfindel

Romance has it's place, but it's not in a fantasy book set at a school, imo. And if the romances had made sense, I might have not had as large problem...but they didn't, with the exception of one or two, and I had the urge to throw the book at the wall when Hermione and Ron got together or Remus and Tonks...they just don't seem like they're suited for each other (and please, any one who thinks they do, don't bring up the anvil sized hints. They were there, but Ron also insults Hermione in every book, is lazy and unmotivated, and makes fun of Hermione's beliefs.) I completely agree about LotR, though...and why did PJ have to do that? Why?

Ditto. I also think that she could really use some better vocabulary. Whenever I think of HP I think of "reckon" - she repeats that word waaay too often. I know she wants to imitate British slang, but it just gets on my nerves. As for the 5th book - I only read the 6th one to find out what Harry's OWL results were. I didn't see any other point in reading on.

Better then me...I got 20 pages into book 7, realized I hated it, and put it down, in spite of wanting to know what would happen. I just couldn't stand the writing style. So, I only finished it when I found MST of it...