# Is "A Song of Ice and Fire" the best epic fantasy since "The Lord of the Rings"?



## nikolai (Nov 11, 2004)

_A Song of Ice and Fire_ is very highly regarded on these boards, and elsewhere. I'd like to get a feel for how people think it compares with stuff published since _The Lord of the Rings_ redefined the genre. There's obviously room for debate, if you don't think it is the best _epic fantasy_ since _The Lord of the Rings_, what is? And what counts as _epic fantasy_?


----------



## Felonious Ntent (Nov 11, 2004)

I think the best Epic fantasy series is Steven Erikson's Malazan Books of the Fallen.
This is hands down the best fantasy series out there.


----------



## CrusaderX (Nov 11, 2004)

That depends.  Was _The Chronicles of Narnia_ published before or after Tolkien's work?  If before, then yes, I think _A Song of Ice and Fire_ is the best since _The Lord of the Rings_.


----------



## Sarigar (Nov 11, 2004)

I voted yes based on the epic fantasy that I have read, which does not include many of the books I want to read and haven't which may be better.  Most books out there I would not consider "epic" so they don't figure in here although they may be better books.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 11, 2004)

I voted no because it's better than _LotR_ in my view, so the logic becomes shaky when I try to answer "best since." That, and there's a ton of fantasy that I haven't read, including a lot of epic stuff... might have been more honest to simply not answer.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 11, 2004)

I'm not actually sure that SoFaI is epic in the same sense that LotR is either.  Plus I've only read the first book so far.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 11, 2004)

It's really really good.  The most satisfying fantasy I've read in years.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 11, 2004)

No, its not the best.  It seems like an okay series but there are many others I perfer over it.


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 11, 2004)

I voted no purely for subjectivity reasons. That, and while I love the books I still can't forgive him for writing the *Beauty and the Beast *series.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 11, 2004)

Another no here. For some reason I just can't get into the books that much. It seems like the only Fantasy books I can read and enjoy have been LotR...well, and Discworld books, but I'm not sure those count in the same genre with LotR and SoFaI


----------



## drothgery (Nov 11, 2004)

Certainly not. Even if I had a high opinion of the series to date, incomplete, tightly bound series (books you can't reasonably read out of order, and don't really stand on their own) just aren't elligible for "best series of all time" votes.


----------



## Lazybones (Nov 11, 2004)

Felonious Ntent said:
			
		

> I think the best Epic fantasy series is Steven Erikson's Malazan Books of the Fallen.
> This is hands down the best fantasy series out there.



I tried it, I really did, but I could only get about 1/2 way through the first book before it lost me. 

I'm really getting disillusioned about "epic" fantasy series. Jordan self-destructed  well before the crap-fest that was his latest update, and Goodkind, which started out as snuff porn in Book I, evolved into right-wing propaganda by book VI (oooh, communism bad!) and then started throwing out new (and less interesting) characters as he seemed to get tired of kicking Richard in the junk and b-slapping Kahlen with each new novel.  I enjoy the Recluse series by Modesitt, but it wanders so much chronologically it can barely be called that. Ditto with Brooks's Shannara _ad infinitum_: same themes, different characters.  I do like GRRM, although he shows signs of Jordanism; i.e. stretching the story out into book after book of development.  That's what I like about LotR; it's long, but it has a decisive beginning, middle, and ending.

Part of the problem is that it seems to be getting harder to find good short series that have solid endings.


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 11, 2004)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> Part of the problem is that it seems to be getting harder to find good short series that have solid endings.



Tad Williams - Memory Sorrow and Thorn. He wrote 3 and then he was done. Great series.


----------



## Lazybones (Nov 11, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Tad Williams - Memory Sorrow and Thorn. He wrote 3 and then he was done. Great series.



Thanks, I did try that one and just couldn't get into the main character. Maybe read too many "urchin-turned-hero" in a row.


----------



## Dakkareth (Nov 11, 2004)

I voted No, because while the ASoIaF books *are* good, they aren't the best there is. There's for example J.V. Jones Sword of Shadows books, which look like a knock-off from ASoIaF but are on equa footing at least. 

And of course, there's *Steven Erikson's* _A Tale of the Malazan Book of the Fallen_, which are the best fantasy books I've ever read and as epic as it gets. With a vast backdrop of 300k years of history, that comes to light book for book, conflicts spanning over several continents and into the realms of the gods, beings of divine power clashing with mere mortals with the mortals (in some cases) coming out on top and battles deciding over more than just the rise and fall of great empires, it is hard to imagine something that is more epic. But it's more than just George R.R. Martin' SoIaF meets Glen Cook's Black Company. There's a balance between the big picture and the picture of the individual fate. And even if it wasn't for all these factors, Erikson could still write incredibly well.

Granted, the complexity that appeals to some could have the opposite effect on others, but I can't help but praise, when the topic comes up  .


----------



## GSHamster (Nov 11, 2004)

No.  We need to see how it ends.  In many ways the climax is the crucial part of the series, and I really fail to see how we can fairly judge the work without seeing it.

Even without seeing the end, I'm going to lean towards No.  I have the feeling that a lot of what we've spent time on so far will be irrelevant, that disaster will sweep out of the north and pretty much relegate most of the early intriguing to pointlessness.

I also don't think he's really established a deep, resonant theme that echoes throughout the work (I don't think "everyone dies" counts  ).  I think a strong theme is necessary for it to match LotR.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 11, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm not actually sure that SoFaI is epic in the same sense that LotR is either.




I agree here.  SoIaF is darned good, and I love it, but so far it has not been epic in the same sense as LotR is epic.

For "best thing in the same line as Tolkien", I'd vote for Tad Williams' _Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn_.  It was written in three volumes, but new readers should note that in paperback it comes in four volumes.


----------



## ASH (Nov 11, 2004)

I actually did not vote. The series is not done and its very hard to comare it to a series that is done. LotR's best parts are close to then end or the end, as it may be in ASoIaF.  I cant judge it honestly until its done. So far, I like it better than any thing else I have ever read... I would say if it stays on course and stays as good as it has been if not better, yes it will be the best i have read since the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I have not read a lot of fantasy out there, but I find it to be one of the best. Jordan cant hold a candle... And the Chronicals of Narnia are good, but not aimed at me...it being religious and for younger adults... me being somewhat agnostic and in my 20's. That does not mean I did not enjoy them, i did, just not as much as Martin's books.

So, I did not vote, but hypothetically speaking, i would judged yes.


----------



## Faraer (Nov 12, 2004)

Since LotR I don't think anything in this vein has been better than Gene Wolfe's _Book of the New Sun_.


----------



## Wombat (Nov 12, 2004)

I guess it depends on how you define "epic" and "fantasy".

_The Book of the New Sun _ may not fantasy, but it is a far better epic.

_Earthsea _ may not be a true epic, but it is far better fantasy.

Just two contenders from my shelves


----------



## myrdden (Nov 12, 2004)

Felonious Ntent said:
			
		

> I think the best Epic fantasy series is Steven Erikson's Malazan Books of the Fallen.
> This is hands down the best fantasy series out there.




It's definitely the best series I have read since LotR.  Martin's SoFaI is really quite good, but the two series are radically quite different.  

Erikson's story is very much epic, high fantasy with an immensly immersive world dealing with magic, mortal and gods.  Incredible setting with a very detailed plot.

Martn's is not quite as epic (IMO) and definitely not high fantasy (at least not what we've seen so far).  But the characters are so well done it is hard not to get into the story, what the story may lack in the setting it more than makes up for it with its characters.


----------



## shilsen (Nov 12, 2004)

As some have already said, it depends on definition. I think the _Discworld_ series is better than LotR or any other fantasy series, and ranks very highly as far as any kind of literature is concerned, but it is not epic - and arguably not even fantasy.


----------



## KenM (Nov 12, 2004)

IMO Song of Ice and Fire is alot better then LotR. But I also fell that there is much better fantasy novels then LotR. JRRT did not know how to pace the action, plot, he was good with backround and setting stuff up. I love the Peter Jackson movies, the extended edtions are the way to go, but the novels are not that great, IMO. GRRM has the balance between plot, character, action, and backround.


----------



## Pants (Nov 12, 2004)

It's definitely the best 'fantasy' I've read since LotR, but I'm not sure if they're in the same category.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 12, 2004)

Best is subjective, since taste is subjective, and thus the question is inherently flawed.  

My thoughts on the matter is that one series isn't better than another series.  There are authors who are better than others, and while I've only read the first book of his series, George R.R. Martin is right up there, as are (IMO) Tad Williams, Gene Wolfe, and Robin Hobb.  Tolkein and Lewis are up there as well of course, but it's tough to really make a comparison to them since they've transcended "fantasy" and have become classics.

My secret shame is that I haven't read _Earthsea_ yet.  

To Lazybones, there was a thread on shorter stories a short time ago.  Personally my favorite was Tad William's second-to-latest book, _The War of the Flowers_.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Nov 12, 2004)

I don't like _The Lord of the Rings_ very much at all as novels - though I very much admire Tolkien's ability to create a world which strongly reflects his thematic concerns, even if I strongly disagree with the concerns themselves.

However, on that basis, I think I must wait until the end of the series to see if Martin has a similar or surpassing ability. I enjoy his narrative, his language, and his characterisation much more than Tolkien; for me, his books are much more worthwhile, as well, since I enjoy stories filled with dangerously flawed people who can be sympathetic even as the reader condemns them strongly. It's why James Ellroy is one of my favourite writers, for example. Even so, I recognise that certain aspects of literature are immune to filtering through personal tastes, and what I've read of Martin so far fails to measure up to Tolkien's achievements in that regard.

On the other hand, Tolkien's no master; he certainly doesn't rank high when compared to great writers of literature, and I think he stumbles at many hurdles of language and characterisation.

Basically, I suppose I disagree with the question's implication that Tolkien produced the "best" epic fantasy, at least by literary and my personal standards, his achievements being limited to strong implementation of theme and a wonderfully coherent creative spirit.

I haven't, myself, read any great epic fantasy yet - I've read great fantasy, and I've read epic fantasy, but I haven't yet seen the two combined.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Nov 12, 2004)

I enjoyed reading a "Song of Fire and Ice" alot.  I admire GRRM's willigness to buck trends and kill primary characters.  But there are many other authors I prefer over him. 

Tad Williams is one of the few authors I will buy in hardcover, at full price.  Both the "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn" trilgy and the "Otherland" quartet are excellent, and I'm pretty impressed with Volume 1 of "Shadowmarch."

Another author that passes the "Hardcover" test is Janny Wurts.  If you haven't read the "Wars of Light & Shadow" series, do yourself a favor and do so.  It's both epic (in that it deals with a huge cast of characters and world-spanning issues), and intimate (in that the two POV/ primary characters are half-brothers cursed to eternal enmity.)  It's also an incomplete, multi-volume series, but it doesn't feed rushed or drawn-out (unlike GRRM, RJ, and Terry Godkinds' stuff.)

That said, "ASOFIA" is far from being "LotR": Tolkien's work has been, is and will be, the gold standard by which all fantasy fiction will be judged. (There are a host of other seminal fantasy influnces, as well, including luminaries like Robert E. Howard, Frtiz LEiber, and Michael Moorecock.)


----------



## Viking Bastard (Nov 12, 2004)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> It's really really good.  The most satisfying fantasy I've read in years.



It's one of the very few satisfying fantasy I've read, period.


----------



## Lazybones (Nov 12, 2004)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> To Lazybones, there was a thread on shorter stories a short time ago.  Personally my favorite was Tad William's second-to-latest book, _The War of the Flowers_.



Thanks for the link... I filled up a sheet of paper, and I'm going to my library site (we have a great ILL system in Sacramento that will deliver any book you want to your local branch).


----------



## The Other Librarian (Nov 12, 2004)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> It's one of the very few satisfying fantasy I've read, period.




Agreed.  I don't read much "Fantasy", of the swords and sorcery type, but Martin drew me in quickly.  Maybe 'cos it's much less high magic, less about how magic works, less about uber-casting characters and magic as a deus ex device, something LOTR shared.

As far as defining the genre though, I'm not sure.  I think when people are talking about "epic" fantasy, they mean one guy, hopefully of humble origin, and his companions on a quest to save the world, preferably drawn out to at least three volumes.  

Tolkien used Frodo as a protagonist, I think, because he saw Frodo as exemplifying what he thought was the best of the british character; a aristocratic landowner, down to earth, but with hidden reserves of strength.  An epic's main character should be an embody his societies values, at least in the academic formulation of Epic that Tolkien would have been familiar with. 

Many writers coming after him misread this and just focus on the "rural" and "humble" aspects of the protragonists background.  "Epic" just comes "large in scope".  

In Martin, I'm not sure we have one Epic protagonist yet.  I think it could run in any number of directions.  Maybe Jon, maybe Dany, or both.  Maybe the Stark family as a whole is the "epic character".


----------



## Tumbler (Nov 12, 2004)

Sara Douglass's "The Wayfarer Redemption" and the books that followed brought me back to fantasy when I had pretty much dropped everything else.  A beginning, middle, and end.  Interesting cultures with a clear backstory, arthurian themes, a protagonist who is already a huge success (instead of an emotionally screwed up outcast).  Actually, he has to become an emotionally screwed up outcast in order to begin his quest.


----------



## The Other Librarian (Nov 12, 2004)

Double Post


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 12, 2004)

He is less than halfway done and is 8 real years into the writing.  For that reason alone, I say no.  Keeping with the trend there will be 16 years between the sale of the first book and the last book in the series.  IMO, that is way too long.

I enjoy the books, but probably will not read anymore of them until the series is done.  By the time the series is done, I probably won't care.


----------



## Acid_crash (Nov 12, 2004)

I can only speak of my own opinion, but of all the fantasy series I have read, I think that one of the better ones was the first Chronicles trilogy for Dragonlance and the War of the Lance.  I thought that was pretty good storytelling and would make a damn good movies series.

I really like ASoIaF, but I like Wheel of Time more and that is one of my personal favorites.  I think when Martin finishes his books and Jordan finishes his books, I will decide which I like more but I'm not too sure.

It's really hard to say which is best, I mean, Lord of the Rings has what, a 90 year head start (or something close to that) on the rest of these authors, so it's really hard to compare, especially with book series' that aren't finished yet.


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 12, 2004)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> I really like ASoIaF, but I like Wheel of Time more and that is one of my personal favorites. I think when Martin finishes his books and Jordan finishes his books, I will decide which I like more but I'm not too sure.



You first have to assume the Jordan is ever going to finish his series.


----------



## Pants (Nov 13, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> You first have to assume the Jordan is ever going to finish his series.



2 books left he says. 
If you want to believe that...


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 13, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Tad Williams - Memory Sorrow and Thorn. He wrote 3 and then he was done. Great series.




I'm in agreement here....I consider Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn a close second to LotR..

Banshee


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 13, 2004)

I couldn't be bothered finishing Martin's first book. THIS is what passes for good writing nowadays, I guess.

Fantasy is so over-stuffed with people who just can't write solid prose.

Tolkien could. _The Lord of the Rings_ is filled some of the greatest English prose in the 20th century. I'll put Eowyn vs. the Witchking (or even better, Eomer's discovery of his sister's body) up against ANY writer in the last 100 years.

Gene Wolfe can. Ursula K Leguin can. Steven Brust is a great, great master. Steven Erickson is tremendously imaginative. As is Michael Moorcock. And Glen Cook has a gift for fascinating voices.

George Martin is dull. And he's not a very good prose stylist.

You don't want to know what I think about Robert Jordan.


----------



## Squire James (Nov 13, 2004)

Tolkien is certainly #1 in the "most often imitated" category, so I think at least a few people thought he wrote a good set of books!  As for "Song of Fire & Ice", I'm not too eager to crown the baby King before it completely separates from Mother, if you know what I mean.  It has started out well, but - dare I say it? - so did Jordan.

Still, a book can be one of the greatest that was ever written, and it's still okay not to like it.  That's why other books exist, after all!


----------



## Felonious Ntent (Nov 13, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'm in agreement here....I consider Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn a close second to LotR..
> 
> Banshee




I don't know. I realy wish I could remember converstaions between a friend and I years ago when we read the series. we thought it was decent but it realy only amounted to 3 novels about traveling with a bit of plot thrown in. But then as others have said taste is subjective.


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 13, 2004)

Felonious Ntent said:
			
		

> we thought it was decent but it realy only amounted to 3 novels about traveling with a bit of plot thrown in.



_...with a bit of plot thrown in..._

_...with a bit of plot thrown in..._

_...with a bit of plot thrown in..._

_...with a bit of plot thrown in..._


It's echoing in my brain!

No, I don't think you read the books, or at least not the same books I read. Sorry if I may seem confrontational but when the b.s.-o-meter starts ticking I just can't stop meself.


----------



## Felonious Ntent (Nov 13, 2004)

Realy I am serious.
It read like a travel log with a plot thrown in to keep things intersting. But bare in mind this was years ago. I can't recall the conversations exactly but they were to this efect.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Nov 13, 2004)

I'd go with Tad Williams' Sorry, Memory and Thorn and Janny Wurtz' "Wars of Light & Shadow" also.  I like Song of Ice and Fire.  "Best" is really a tough thing, though.  I'd probably also go with Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionovar Tapestry before SoIaF, too, but probably only because I think Kay captures Tolkien's "feel" better for me.


----------



## Pants (Nov 14, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> You don't want to know what I think about Robert Jordan.



No, please... indulge us.


----------



## ajanders (Nov 14, 2004)

*Admission about A Song of Ice and Fire*

I've been told I should like this better than Robert Jordan.
I don't.
I've read A Song of Ice and Fire: I've read the Lord of the Rings, I've read Robert Jordan.
I remember details of the Lord of the Rings well enough I could correct the movies.
I remember details of the Robert Jordan books well enough I don't need the appendices except to start guessing at the meanings of the prophecies.
I haven't looked at either of those series for eighteen months.
I finished A Song of Ice and Fire six months ago.  I remember somebody pushed a little kid off a tower.  I remember there's a Big Black Wall that keeps out the bad stuff.  I remember there's a guy who taught some girl how the Tao of rapier dueling.
The biggest thing I remember is some frickin' moron apparently thought it would be a good idea to put a castle two days above timberline on the fantasy version of Mount Everest.  Like the man says, "Ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for bad thinking."
So I've stopped with Martin.
I'm seeing a lot of good fantasy come out for children and young adults: very little for us older types.
Harry Potter is good fantasy, but it doesn't feel epic.
Ghormengast is epic, but not really fantastic.
I've got to track down the Dark Materials trilogy: I understand that's supposed to be very good.
I'm also finding the works of a man named William Hope Hodgson to be very good: one story of his called The House on the Borderlands is fantastic, but not epic.
Currently I'm going through a different one of his called The Night Land.  This looks both fantastic and epic.


----------



## frandelgearslip (Nov 19, 2004)

I heard so many good things about these books and I tried them out and I have to say that I am seriously dissapointed.  While its cool to kill main characters, his books are only slightly above average.  And thats before I dock points, because he seems at times intent on writing a porno not a science fiction/fantasy series.

Between the incest, pedophilia, and every other kind of sex he has in these books its boring the hell out of me.  I am no prude but after the hundredth time reading about a character thinking about sex, having sex, talking about sex, wanting sex...Its just boring.  My breaking point came when 5+ pages were spent on theon trying to convince some woman to have sex with him.  Thats nothing new about these books thats just where I got tired of it all.  He spends more time on sex than on anything else in the books.  

Maybe if I was thirteen I would love these books, but I got better things to do than to read through scene after scene of the authors perverted fantasies.  The only thing missing was S&M but I guess one can always count on terry goodkind for that.


----------



## SynapsisSynopsis (Nov 22, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> You first have to assume the Jordan is ever going to finish his series.




It being _The Wheel of Time_, maybe it's less a question of when he'll finish and more of when he'll begin.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Fantasy is so over-stuffed with people who just can't write solid prose.
> 
> Tolkien could. _The Lord of the Rings_ is filled some of the greatest English prose in the 20th century. I'll put Eowyn vs. the Witchking (or even better, Eomer's discovery of his sister's body) up against ANY writer in the last 100 years.




I've never heard this one before. I'm sort of tempted to take you up on this, but I think ultimately the argument would evaporate into different notions of what "good" prose is.


----------



## Zweischneid (Nov 22, 2004)

Well, as with Jordan, I think you cannot really judge Martin till he finished his work.

Tad Williams Sorry, Memory and Thorn for example is one series that I think started off strong but got a bit repetitive and weak in the end. 
(For example, Simon tends to get lost in the Underground somewhere, starving and dying with thirst in just about every single book of the series - not good.) 

Likewise, Jordans tale would, I believe have been better with a nice and crisp finish a few books ago. 
Moorcock tale of Elric also got a bit to confusing for my tastes in the final books.

Martin, I'm getting the feeling, is starting to fall for the same bloating and recycling of old concepts. 
The series already gut bumped up by a couple of books a few times and he'll be hard pressed to keep the pace and novelty of the first three books fresh and going in four more of them.

Given all that, I still voted yes. Martin's series has, IMO, the *potential* to be the best out there since Tolkien.  
One has yet to see if he can life up to it though.


----------



## edbonny (Nov 22, 2004)

Definitely a "no" for me. I read about halfway through the first before the plot, the characters and everything else became terribly transparent to me. I knew what each character was going to do next... I knew what was going to happen... which made reading the rest a predictable chore best avoided. I did enjoy the clean writing style.

Among my gaming friends, I am alone in this. They all absolutely loved the  SIF books. 

My picks for far better books are the Chronicles of Narnia and the Shanarra books (which I read long ago but still have warm memories of).

- Ed


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 22, 2004)

> I've got to track down the Dark Materials trilogy: I understand that's supposed to be very good.





I really enjoyed the first two books in this series.  There were some fun characters, lots of interesting facets to the story and many mysteries.  I did not like the conclusion of the series, but that often comes down to personal taste.  I thought the end was too clean, but that is common in books written for the teen audience.


----------



## ShaggySpellsword (Nov 25, 2004)

I don't see how half-way through the first book the plot could possibly be transparent to anyone.  Martin is, above all else, a master at manipulating his reader into thinking things about his characters, and then, whenever he wants to, changing the reader's perception so utterly and completely you begin to pity and even like the most despicable characters in the series.  And he makes it all believable.  Jaime Lannister.

I voted yes, but I admit, I have not read too much of many fantasy series out there.  Most get dull and repetitive (to me) after the first few pages and don't manage to immediately suck me in.  ASoIaF sucked me in.


----------



## Endur (Nov 26, 2004)

George RR Martin's series is great.  It may someday rank as one of the best of modern fantasy, of the second rank of epics released after the Lord of the Rings.  There are many great epic fantasy series that compete with the Song of Ice and Fire, such as Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionvar Tapestry.

BUT

The Lord of the Rings is in the first rank of fantasy epics, the classics.  Alongside the Lord of the Rings, you have The Chronicles of Narnia, The Wizard of Oz (also a series), and similar fantasy stories from the 50's and before.  Conan.  etc.  These are the classics of the fantasy genre.


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 26, 2004)

I really like Martin's books, very entertaining to me, even if some of the decisions by characters are so stupid you doubt they would make them. However, until we get to the end, we can't really judge it. I actually think there are several very good books in the three he's written, but I'm not convinced that he'll finish it before I turn 60 in 20 years.

Even if the end is great in SoFI, Guy Gavriel Kay's books are the best overall. I think the writing is excellent, the stories are always compelling, and his characters are usually smart.

For pure enjoyment, Brust is my top candidate. Kay and Brust are just about the only authors I pay for anymore, though Williams does get my money occasionally.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Nov 27, 2004)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> Jordan self-destructed  well before the crap-fest that was his latest update, and Goodkind, which started out as snuff porn in Book I, evolved into right-wing propaganda by book VI






...care to elaborate?


----------



## Nosfredatu (Nov 30, 2004)

I really love a song on ice and fire, but I wouldn't consecrate it as the best epic fantasy since LotR as yet. First because the serie is not over yet and, with a few books still to go, GRR still has the possibility to destroy or bring perfection to this serie. Second, I would more classify SoIF as the best ever political fantasy than as best epic fantasy, and that's why I love this serie so much.

For the best fantasy (or the one who comes the nearest), I would go with Kay, which some already mentionned. And for dark fantasy I would go with Lovecraft, but that's another story...


----------

