# TIME's 100 Best Fantasy Books of All Time



## Deset Gled (Oct 21, 2020)

Thought this might be fun to argue about:








						The 100 Best Fantasy Books of All Time
					

With a panel of leading fantasy authors, TIME presents the 100 most engaging, inventive and influential works of fantasy fiction




					time.com
				




Note that they are placed in chronological order.

My thoughts:
The Phantom Tollbooth doesn't deserve to be on here.
Glad to see that Peter S. Beagle is represented.
Harry Potter 3?  I get 6 being on the list, but I think 1 should be been here instead of 3.
I expected Bradbury, Ellisson, and Kafka to appear.  I think they're getting type cast and deserve a place here.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Oct 21, 2020)

What is Dragonflight doing here? It is SF. (Yeah, I know its really fantasy, but it was published as sf, so shouldn't count.)


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Oct 21, 2020)

Thanks for posting that - added a bunch to my to-read list from it.

Can't say I have too many kvetches. The inclusion of multiple works in the same series seems a little inconsistent in spots. Not including Beowulf is about the only thing that I might really complain about.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 21, 2020)

Ed_Laprade said:


> What is Dragonflight doing here? It is SF. (Yeah, I know its really fantasy, but it was published as sf, so shouldn't count.)




It is all under 813 in the Dewey Decimal system.  And it has dragons in it.  Why bother with the distinction?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 21, 2020)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Not including Beowulf is about the only thing that I might really complain about.



Well.. it isnt' a book.  The original is one poem in a codex, along with several other pieces.  So, technically...


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 21, 2020)

Ed_Laprade said:


> What is Dragonflight doing here? It is SF. (Yeah, I know its really fantasy, but it was published as sf, so shouldn't count.)



I have the same problem with the Madeleine L'engle novels.  I know they're largely considered to be fantasy, but they always felt pretty darn sci fi to me.  To much math and physics in the tesseract to claim it's magic.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Oct 21, 2020)

I am looking forward to the new translation by Maria Dahvana Headley, though Seamus Heaney's is currently my gold standard.



Umbran said:


> Well.. it isnt' a book.  The original is one poem in a codex, along with several other pieces.  So, technically...


----------



## Gradine (Oct 21, 2020)

Thoughts on the list and comments in thread:

The distinction between Fantasy & Science Fiction has always been a little wibbly-wobbly. L'Engle's stuff is definitely far more fantastical than sci-fi, honestly.
_Outlander_ is traaaaaaash
I get that everyone loves Rothfuss but I wonder if history will be way less kind to _The Name of the Wind_ which was tedious as all get out.
_Philosopher's Stone_ is iconic Harry Potter but also kind of bland in retrospect. _Prisoner of Azkaban _is a much better book, especially after book 2 suuuuccckkked. Also JK Rowling can take a short walk off a long pier
Kind of shocked _Mistborn_ is Sanderson's only entry on the list. It's the one to pick but I would have expected _The Way of Kings _also.
Speaking of shocked, but pleasantly so, nice to see _Six of Crows _on this list. Might've expected _Shadow and Bone_ but 6oC is definitely way better. Also, I would've expected to see the _Lies of Locke Lamora _repping the fantasy heist genre on here instead as well; I thought tons of people of loved that one.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 21, 2020)

This list makes a mockery of the fantasy tradition, and should be considered a joke to anyone with a decent knowledge of its history.

For one, 45 of the 100 books were published within the last 12 years.

Secondly, if they care at all about influence, they excluded tons of authors and books that have had a significant lasting impact. No RE Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, ER Eddison, Lord Dunsany, Michael Moorcock, Patricia McKillip, Stephen Donaldson, CJ Cherryh, Steven Erikson, and many others.

Thirdly, all of the panelists have at least one entry, some three. Couple that with the fact above. Imagine being OK with having a second or third book over _The Riddle-master of Hed _or _Stormbringer._

Fourthly, the list was clearly compiled with a certain ideological bias and resulting agenda. Nothing wrong with that, but at least be honest about it and call the list what it really is. This was not an attempt at the impossible (and inherently subjective) task of creating a list of the 100 best fantasy novels of all time, but making a list of books and authors that the panelists and whoever oversaw it at TIME want to see gain greater exposure. 

I enjoy reading lists by famous authors of their influences, and I'd love to see lists of various demographics. But to mash it all together under the guise of the "best of all time" is absurd.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 21, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> Thirdly, all of the panelists have at least one entry, some three. Couple that with the fact above. Imagine being OK with having a second or third book over _The Riddle-master of Hed _or _Stormbringer._




The panel and Time staff nominated a total of 250 books, none there own, and then rated them.  The time Editors just used those ratings as one factor along with their opinion to make the final 100.   

It would be interesting to see what the top 100 as rated by just the panel were.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 21, 2020)

Cadence said:


> The panel and Time staff nominated a total of 250 books, none there own, and then rated them.  The time Editors just used those ratings as one factor along with their opinion to make the final 100.
> 
> It would be interesting to see what the top 100 as rated by just the panel were.



Yeah, I skimmed the process. Still, I'd feel at least a little sheepish if I was one of them.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 21, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> Yeah, I skimmed the process. Still, I'd feel at least a little sheepish if I was one of them.




Sure.  But if you were building the panel of authors to pick them, would you want it to have  people you thought were great writers of fantasy... which means they might have at least one on the list (assuming anyone alive did)?


----------



## Gradine (Oct 21, 2020)

The list is definitely a product of its own time (that time being now); obviously a list compiled in the 80's, for instance, would almost certainly not have excluded, say, Howard. So there's a recency bias, as well as all of the accompanying second-taking of works that don't hold up as well as they used to for one reason or another. Lord knows what another couple of decades will tell in the fashioning of a list like this. I imagine you'll see several fall of with the passage of time; _Harry Potter _and _The Name of the Wind _would be my first guesses, maybe _Night Circus. _And who knows what legacy of _A Song of Fire and Ice _will end up being.

One curious omission for me, upon further reflection, is Terry Brooks. I cut my teeth on Brooks (and David Eddings, whose omission I am _not _surprised by, as much as I enjoyed his books) as a kid. I guess there's the issue of "which book to choose" (_Sword of Shannara _being a not particularly good LotR ripoff) and probably the tanking of the recent Shannara tv show weighing it down; for my money _Druid of Shannara _is one his best early works.

Maybe _The Black Cauldron _would be on here too if not for the association with the barely related Disney movie.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 21, 2020)

Cadence said:


> Sure.  But if you were building the panel of authors to pick them, would you want it to have  people you thought were great writers of fantasy... which means they might have at least one on the list (assuming anyone alive did)?



I don't have a problem with the authors being on the list. Jemisin and Martin are great and deserving, Gaiman obviously too. Can't speak to the others as I haven't read them (although have been eyeing the James book, and possibly Adeyemi).

A charitable view on the list is that it just wasn't thought out all that well, not unlike asking a bunch of folks, "What are your favorite films?" and then changing that to a list of the greatest films of all time. The films will inherently be skewed to generational demographics, and thus also fall into recency bias, as Gradine pointed out. 

Furthermore, there's the problem of expertise and knowledge. I'm guessing that the staff of TIME is probably not only on the younger side, but generally without a huge amount of knowledge or reading of older fantasy works. 

If we really wanted a "best fantasy of all time" list with any credence to influence and originality, those involved should probably have a solid grasp of the tradition. I'd love to see such a list compiled by a panel that is more balanced, with experts like John Clute and Farrah Mendelsohn, as well as well-established and knowledgeable writers.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 21, 2020)

Needs more Guy Gavriel Kay!


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 22, 2020)

Zaukrie said:


> Needs more Guy Gavriel Kay!



Kay is one of my favorite authors, so he'd have a bunch of books on my top 100. But I do like the idea of only one book (or series) per author on such a list. For me it would be _Lions of Al-Rassan, _even though it had almost no fantastical elements.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 22, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> Kay is one of my favorite authors, so he'd have a bunch of books on my top 100. But I do like the idea of only one book (or series) per author on such a list. For me it would be _Lions of Al-Rassan, _even though it had almost no fantastical elements.



Most of his stuff has almost no fantasy.....what genre is it, really?

Also, if it was about influence more, you'd have to have Cook or Moorcock, wouldn't you?


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 22, 2020)

Zaukrie said:


> Most of his stuff has almost no fantasy.....what genre is it, really?
> 
> Also, if it was about influence more, you'd have to have Cook or Moorcock, wouldn't you?



I mentioned Moorcock but forgot about Cook - definitely. Robin Hobb, too.

Kay is interesting because he isn't easy to categorize. He seems to exist somewhere between fantasy and historical fiction.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 22, 2020)

Deset Gled said:


> Harry Potter 3?  I get 6 being on the list, but I think 1 should be been here instead of 3.



It's pretty much my favourite of the novels. It's outgrown the worst of the initial wish-fulfilment aspects of the series, and hasn't succumbed to the bloat of later entries.

I was glad to see Good Omens in the list. It's my favourite in the 'urban divinity' genre.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 22, 2020)

No Eddings, Feist, Katherine Kerr, Terry Brooks either.


----------



## MNblockhead (Oct 22, 2020)

Okay for those of you who think Name of the Wind doesn't deserve to be on this list or will fall off the list in the future, what would you recommend that I read which is better.  

_Name of the Wind _is among my top favorite fantasy books and one of the best books I've read in past few years. It is one of the few fantasy books that I frequently recommend to people who otherwise discount the genre. It is beautifully written. 

_The Wise Mans Fear _was not on the same level, but I still enjoyed it. 

_Slow Regard of Silent Things... _I read maybe a quarter of the book before putting it down and not picking it up again. 

Anyway, I'll look over this list to find books to add to my to-read list.


----------



## Ulfgeir (Oct 22, 2020)

Well, I can agree that Feist should be there, but definitively not Eddings. And I am sceptical of Brooks  as well.

I would add Jim Butcher to the list.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 22, 2020)

I am delighted to see Roald Dahl on that list.


----------



## Davies (Oct 22, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> No Eddings, Feist, Katherine Kerr, Terry Brooks either.



I like three of those authors (haven't read Feist) but I still wouldn't put any of their works in my list of the best 100 fantasy novels.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 22, 2020)

The only Feist book I've ever read is Magician (probably one of his most notable books), and I thought it was awful.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 22, 2020)

One that I'd have liked to see on the list is Lois McMaster Bujold's The Curse of Chalion.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 22, 2020)

This is a good and thorough critique of the problems with the list:









						Out of Time, or Why is the "100 Best Fantasy Books of All Time" list so incoherent?
					

A publication has unveiled a list called “ The 100 Best Fantasy Books of All Time .” Predictably, it has been published to howls of complain...




					thewertzone.blogspot.com


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 22, 2020)

MNblockhead said:


> Okay for those of you who think Name of the Wind doesn't deserve to be on this list or will fall off the list in the future, what would you recommend that I read which is better.
> 
> _Name of the Wind _is among my top favorite fantasy books and one of the best books I've read in past few years. It is one of the few fantasy books that I frequently recommend to people who otherwise discount the genre. It is beautifully written.
> 
> ...



Did you see this?









						'Kingkiller Chronicle' Editor Believes Author Hasn't Written in Years
					

The editor of the "Kingkiller Chronicle" series recently shared her belief that author Patrick Rothfuss hasn't made much progress on Book 3, "The Doors of Stone," in recent years.




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 22, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> Did you see this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd put the odds we'll ever see Doors of Stone at maybe 20%.  And even if we do, every plot point or decision made in the book someone doesn't like is going to carry the undercurrent of "Well, he never really knew what to do with this book, and he had to put out something, so that's why this is like this."  The ideal of what Doors of Stone could have been if written by a hungry, inspired Rothfuss is going to be one of the great "what-ifs" of fantasy fiction.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 22, 2020)

Gradine said:


> The distinction between Fantasy & Science Fiction has always been a little wibbly-wobbly. L'Engle's stuff is definitely far more fantastical than sci-fi, honestly.




[Minor spoilers]  A Wrinkle in Time is about a girl whose scientist father disappears when an experiment goes wrong.  Three aliens come and take her to explore new planets and cultures so she can train to save her father.  She learns to travel through space by controlling the technology in her father's experiment, and saves her dad and brother from a planet that's a remake of 1984.  Doesn't get much more sci-fi than that.



Mercurius said:


> 'Kingkiller Chronicle' Editor Believes Author Hasn't Written in Years
> 
> 
> The editor of the "Kingkiller Chronicle" series recently shared her belief that author Patrick Rothfuss hasn't made much progress on Book 3, "The Doors of Stone," in recent years.
> ...




One of the reasons I still haven't read The Name of the Wind is that I find it hard to start a trilogy before the last book is published.  Stuff like this is exactly why I don't do that (often).


----------



## Sacrosanct (Oct 22, 2020)

Deset Gled said:


> My thoughts:
> The Phantom Tollbooth doesn't deserve to be on here.



Why not?  It's iconic, extremely popular (especially for the time), and was quite enjoyable.


Zardnaar said:


> No Eddings, Feist, Katherine Kerr, Terry Brooks either.




This list is clearly garbage then.  There's a reason some of those authors are not only extremely highly regarded, but people gobbled up their books when they were written. 

Coincidentally, the final book in the Shannara series arrived two days ago after starting in 1977.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 22, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> Why not?  It's iconic, extremely popular (especially for the time), and was quite enjoyable.
> 
> 
> This list is clearly garbage then.  There's a reason some of those authors are not only extremely highly regarded, but people gobbled up their books when they were written.
> ...



 Shannara was a bit hit and miss but Wishsong or Elf Queen were quite good. 

 Eddings a bit repetitive if you read him a lot but one if the Sparhawk books perhaps?

 Tad Williams I don't recall any of his either or Mercedes Lackey.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Oct 22, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> This is a good and thorough critique of the problems with the list:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Indeed.

"_Time_’s editors based on key factors: originality, ambition, artistry, critical and popular reception, and “influence on the fantasy genre and literature more broadly.”

Now let's ignore those books and authors that has arguably the most influential works and/or were received the best among the population...


----------



## Sacrosanct (Oct 22, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Tad Williams I don't recall any of his either or Mercedes Lackey.




If you haven't read Tad Williams, you're missing out.  Starting with Dragonbone Chair, that series is a very good series IMO.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 22, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> If you haven't read Tad Williams, you're missing out.  Starting with Dragonbone Chair, that series is a very good series IMO.




 I've read them I don't recall seeing it on the list.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Oct 22, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> I've read them I don't recall seeing it on the list.



Oh, sorry.  I misunderstood what you were saying.  My bad.  In that case, the list is even worse lol


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 22, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I'd put the odds we'll ever see Doors of Stone at maybe 20%.  And even if we do, every plot point or decision made in the book someone doesn't like is going to carry the undercurrent of "Well, he never really knew what to do with this book, and he had to put out something, so that's why this is like this."  The ideal of what Doors of Stone could have been if written by a hungry, inspired Rothfuss is going to be one of the great "what-ifs" of fantasy fiction.



20% may be a bit low, especially when there's so much money involved. But the whole thing is a bit of a mystery. From browsing a few online threads, it seems that the consensus is roughly split between two camps: those that think it will never come out, and those that think it has become so long that it will be split into two or three books.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 22, 2020)

Deset Gled said:


> One of the reasons I still haven't read The Name of the Wind is that I find it hard to start a trilogy before the last book is published.  Stuff like this is exactly why I don't do that (often).




I loved the first one... and then the second had some things that I wasn't as much of a fan of. There are several authors out there where I think the first, personal, small scale book comes out well... but then they move on to the bigger cosmology and it can be hit or miss. And some are good at writing some aspects of interpersonal relationships, and not others. :-/ 

I think Name of the Wind would be well worth reading from an inspirational persepctive, even if one never read the second one, or the third never comes out.   (And I really liked the Slow Regard of Silent Things which ties in).


----------



## Cadence (Oct 22, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> 20% may be a bit low, especially when there's so much money involved. But the whole thing is a bit of a mystery. From browsing a few online threads, it seems that the consensus is roughly split between two camps: those that think it will never come out, and those that think it has become so long that it will be split into two or three books.



I think it's easy for me as a consumer to forget how hard artistic ventures can be.  No one is surprised when a band is a one (or two) hit wonder, or if they only have one good album.  A lot of poets will have some really good poems in anthologies... but trying to read through a collection of just their stuff is hard.   And all comic book fans are more than aware that almost all good runs come to an unceremonious end no matter how legendary the writer.   What if musicians promised x good songs or albums well in advance, or poets x good poems, or comic writers x good issues.   And then the threads got lost and it wasn't up to what you wanted.   :-/


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 22, 2020)

Cadence said:


> I think it's easy for me as a consumer to forget how hard artistic ventures can be.  No one is surprised when a band is a one (or two) hit wonder, or if they only have one good album.  A lot of poets will have some really good poems in anthologies... but trying to read through a collection of just their stuff is hard.   And all comic book fans are more than aware that almost all good runs come to an unceremonious end no matter how legendary the writer.   What if musicians promised x good songs or albums well in advance, or poets x good poems, or comic writers x good issues.   And then the threads got lost and it wasn't up to what you wanted.   :-/




No doubt. I'm sitting on a 220k novel that I haven't even tried to get published, and that took me about 15 years to write (mostly fiddling and procrastination). I can only imagine when deadlines, expectations and money gets involved.

Ultimately we don't know why Rothfuss hasn't finished it. Life is complex and messy. But I can also understand why his diehard fans and his publisher are frustrated, especially when the original plan was to publish the three books in concurrent years from 2007-09.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 22, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> Why not?  It's iconic, extremely popular (especially for the time), and was quite enjoyable.



When I first picked it up I was somewhere around 4th or 5th grade, and was a child who actually enjoyed learning (and science, etc). It completely failed to connect with me, and I gave it up after a few chapters.  I remember feeling there were no likable characters; Milo starts off as an insufferable twat and everyone he meets is a jerk.  Also, I found it altogether preachy and shallow, and even as a kid I remember finding errors in the logic and math that they were trying to teach as the "right" way.

I tried it out again somewhere around 20 and finished it.  As a (barely) adult, I understood the purpose of Milo's growth and journey, and had a better grasp of the overarching message it was trying to teach.  But it still felt just as shallow and preachy.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 22, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> 20% may be a bit low, especially when there's so much money involved. But the whole thing is a bit of a mystery. From browsing a few online threads, it seems that the consensus is roughly split between two camps: those that think it will never come out, and those that think it has become so long that it will be split into two or three books.



I would say a core problem is that the framing device (of Kvothe relating his story to Chronicler in the inn) sort of demands tight plotting, and Rothfuss likes doing a lot of tangential digression (and those tangents are what make the story so intriguing.)  Ideally, he needs to break the framing device and then just write as much as he wants for both the backstory and the present story.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 22, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I would say a core problem is that the framing device (of Kvothe relating his story to Chronicler in the inn) sort of demands tight plotting, and Rothfuss likes doing a lot of tangential digression (and those tangents are what make the story so intriguing.)  Ideally, he needs to break the framing device and then just write as much as he wants for both the backstory and the present story.



To be honest, I only made it about 150 pages into NotW (although should probably give it another go), so my knowledge of his writing is limited. But one thing that came to mind is that he could make DoS more focused, and then do a fourth book of "out-takes" for all of those digressions.

I also think his framing of each book being a day of storytelling is clever, but is a bit contrived in practice - especially when the audiobooks run 40ish hours. Long day, I guess.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 22, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> To be honest, I only made it about 150 pages into NotW (although should probably give it another go), so my knowledge of his writing is limited. But one thing that came to mind is that he could make DoS more focused, and then do a fourth book of "out-takes" for all of those digressions.
> 
> I also think his framing of each book being a day of storytelling is clever, but is a bit contrived in practice - especially when the audiobooks run 40ish hours. Long day, I guess.



The framing device adds a lot to the story, but it's also causing the problem of trying to shove a 6 book series into a trilogy.  

Personally, I'm fine either way; I love both Name of the Wind and Wise Man's Fear, and they were worth reading even if he never finishes.  I'll be totally happy if book 3 comes out, but I'm still happy with the series if it doesn't.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 22, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> This is a good and thorough critique of the problems with the list:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Somehow I glossed over the Lord of the Rings books all being there, and not the Hobbit (which is a much better book).


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 22, 2020)

Zaukrie said:


> Somehow I glossed over the Lord of the Rings books all being there, and not the Hobbit (which is a much better book).



While I agree that the Hobbit should be on any top 100 fantasy list, I much prefer LotR (and the Silmarillion, for that matter). But opinions differ, obviously ;-)


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Oct 22, 2020)

That, that paints a bleak picture indeed. I love Name of the Wind, but I think the gorgeous language covers for some of the first-time author narrative flaws.



Mercurius said:


> Did you see this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




One thing that I think is important to keep in mind with these lists is that there is a difference between a book that is a legitimate great in the genre, and a book a person likes. While there will always be a subjective aspect to these lists, I like to think that they at least attempt to get at the heart of a universal greatness. Robert Asprin's "Myth" series has been a favorite of mine for long years, but there is categorically a difference between the adventures of Skeeve and, say, The King of Elfland's Daughter or The Fifth Season.

I'm reminded of a many time years ago when a coworker wondered why Arnold Schwarzenegger had never gotten an Academy Award. He was not joking.


----------



## ART! (Oct 22, 2020)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> View attachment 127696
> 
> I am looking forward to the new translation by Maria Dahvana Headley, though Seamus Heaney's is currently my gold standard.



I'm reading it now, and having read Heaney's and others', this one is as good as any of them.


Gradine said:


> Thoughts on the list and comments in thread:
> 
> _Outlander_ is traaaaaaash



I think it's _John Carter of Mars_ but sort of reversed, liberated, and with cool medical and historical details. So basically it's good pulp historical romance.


Mercurius said:


> This list makes a mockery of the fantasy tradition, and should be considered a joke to anyone with a decent knowledge of its history.
> 
> For one, 45 of the 100 books were published within the last 12 years.
> 
> ...



These kinds of lists are almost always weighted toward recent successes, which is annoying. It seems sort of lazy. 

And there's so many ways to rate this: best _written,_ most influential, most diverse, etc. Any list is going to have some bias.

I'm okay if some good, recent, more-diverse stuff squeezes out some historical landmarks whose influence could maybe be represented by something "just as good or better" that's still included.

I was wondering what the best-_selling_ fantasy books/series of all time were, and found this. Even this, though, includes things which I think a lot of us would not put in the same genre as LOTR, for instance. Also, some of these are very long series, so it doesn't seem fair to rank them with works that have only one volume...but then of course _The Hobbit_ is #2, so...

From best-selling to less-best-selling, by # of copies sold:
Harry Potter series
LOTR
The Hobbit
The Little Prince
Narnia 
Twilight
Vampire Chronicles
Wheel of Time 
Discworld 
ASoI&F 
Watership Down
Shadowhunter 
Inheritance 
The Dark Tower
The Wind in the Willows
Outlander
Sword of Truth 
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Artemis Fowl 
Shannara 

Looking for some other best-of fantasy lists online, they all seem skewed in their own ways, and many of them include science fiction. None that I looked at included Conan or Elric stuff.


----------



## TheSword (Oct 23, 2020)

Surprised David Eddings wasn’t on the list and didn’t see any Pratchett!!!!!


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 23, 2020)

TheSword said:


> Surprised David Eddings wasn’t on the list and didn’t see any Pratchett!!!!!




 Yeah it's not that good a list.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Oct 23, 2020)

Sir Terry appears with The Wee Free Men. A good choice, though I would've also included a main Discworld volume. Granted, picking out one in particular wouldn't have been an easy choice. Were I stuck with the luckless job of picking just one, I might go with Men At Arms, if nothing else for the Vimes' Boots theory. But I do think Wee Free Men's inclusion is entirely warranted.



TheSword said:


> Surprised David Eddings wasn’t on the list and didn’t see any Pratchett!!!!!


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 23, 2020)

TheSword said:


> Surprised David Eddings wasn’t on the list and didn’t see any Pratchett!!!!!



Good Omens is there.  Honestly not my cup of tea, but I think it deserves its spot.


----------



## jerryrice4949 (Oct 23, 2020)

Gradine said:


> Thoughts on the list and comments in thread:
> 
> The distinction between Fantasy & Science Fiction has always been a little wibbly-wobbly. L'Engle's stuff is definitely far more fantastical than sci-fi, honestly.
> _Outlander_ is traaaaaaash
> ...



Name of the Wind is awesome.  Now if you said A Wise Man’s Fear, which was good, was also tedious at points I would totally agree.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 24, 2020)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> That, that paints a bleak picture indeed. I love Name of the Wind, but I think the gorgeous language covers for some of the first-time author narrative flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, very true. The TIME list has actually gotten me interested in creating a list of the 100 greatest fantasy books, but with an attempt to completely weed out my own preferences. Meaning, "greatest" within the tradition itself through influence and to what degree it expanded and added to the tradition. A lot of my favorites wouldn't be on that list. If I get it to a point that I feel happy with I'll post it in this forum.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 24, 2020)

Gradine said:


> Thoughts on the list and comments in thread:
> 
> 
> Kind of shocked _Mistborn_ is Sanderson's only entry on the list. It's the one to pick but I would have expected _The Way of Kings _also.



Sanderson is an interesting case, because he's certainly prolific, and his books are of solid quality, with a ton of great ideas. But none of them feel like "great" books to me. So while I agree that he should be considered, it would be hard for me to justify him holding more than one place, and it seems that Mistborn is his most highly regarded work, even if I personally preferred the world-building of Stormlight.


----------



## GreyLord (Oct 24, 2020)

This list is just problematic...

The list itself has books I have never even heard of, much less read.  I'm a pretty broad reader of fantasy these days and have my own library of thousands of books (one of the largest library collections of fantasy books in the area from what I can tell).  That doesn't really qualify me, as it is more of a local thing, but many of these books were not even considered to be in my library.  They were not considered to be important enough to be in the public libraries around here (so good luck at even borrowing it in the local library system, they'd have to go out and request it from outside the local network)...

This list shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone I think.

It isn't THAT hard to make a list of the 100 most influential fantasy books today and have most of the books as something most would recognize, or one that those in the hobby would recognize almost every book as being an important facet in the hobby.

Here's one that seems a LOT MORE relevant and actually knows more about what it's talking about.

Top 100 Fantasy Books

Still not that great or perfect by any shot, but more on spot than Time's I think.  Still many problems, but at least the top looks like what I'd think a list of this sort would start looking like.


----------



## Gradine (Oct 24, 2020)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Sir Terry appears with The Wee Free Men. A good choice, though I would've also included a main Discworld volume. Granted, picking out one in particular wouldn't have been an easy choice. Were I stuck with the luckless job of picking just one, I might go with Men At Arms, if nothing else for the Vimes' Boots theory. But I do think Wee Free Men's inclusion is entirely warranted.



Vimes' Boots Theory should be taught in basically high school economics class. Genius, but then, it's to be expected. 

Eddings again is not someone I would ever expect on a list like this. He's kind of a hack, but that's also sort of his shtick, and it's when he really leans into it that he's at his most fun. Basically anything set in the Belgariad universe, for a start.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 24, 2020)

GreyLord said:


> This list is just problematic...
> 
> The list itself has books I have never even heard of, much less read.  I'm a pretty broad reader of fantasy these days and have my own library of thousands of books (one of the largest library collections of fantasy books in the area from what I can tell).  That doesn't really qualify me, as it is more of a local thing, but many of these books were not even considered to be in my library.  They were not considered to be important enough to be in the public libraries around here (so good luck at even borrowing it in the local library system, they'd have to go out and request it from outside the local network)...
> 
> ...



Hardly better and just as random. Eragon at #10? Must be a popularity context.


----------



## MNblockhead (Oct 24, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> Did you see this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No. I don't usually follow news about authors or participate in fan discussion groups. 

I think Rothfuss may have too many distractions, growing family, the TV adaption of his show, and other books he's published in the mean time. We may have a situation like Game of Thrones, where the TV show overtakes the books. 

As a fan, I don't care. I would rather not have a third book than a disappointing third book. If he is stuck in writers block, I would rather him wait until he has inspiration to write a great book. 

I know it is different for the publishers. If it were me and if I had other sources of income, I would avoid entering a contract for the book before it was done.  It would also avoid a situation like this, where he may be stuck with an editor who is disparaging him publicly. I found Wollheim's actions here very unprofessional and I would not want to continue working with someone who acted like this. Perhaps she is so good that he feels the need to keep working with her, maybe contractually he has to, but if it were me, I would want to find someone else.


----------



## MNblockhead (Oct 24, 2020)

Cadence said:


> <snip>
> 
> I think Name of the Wind would be well worth reading from an inspirational persepctive, even if one never read the second one, or the third never comes out.   (And I really liked the Slow Regard of Silent Things which ties in).



I think I may need to give Slow Regard of Silent Things another chance. I just couldn't get into it. 

But I agree that Name of the Wind is well worth reading even if you never read another book in the series. The second book was entertaining but was not nearly as good as Name of the Wind.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 24, 2020)

MNblockhead said:


> No. I don't usually follow news about authors or participate in fan discussion groups.
> 
> I think Rothfuss may have too many distractions, growing family, the TV adaption of his show, and other books he's published in the mean time. We may have a situation like Game of Thrones, where the TV show overtakes the books.
> 
> ...




I believe the tv series and movies were cancelled, or at least post-poned.


----------



## Haffrung (Oct 24, 2020)

GreyLord said:


> It isn't THAT hard to make a list of the 100 most influential fantasy books today and have most of the books as something most would recognize, or one that those in the hobby would recognize almost every book as being an important facet in the hobby.



It's pretty clear that the intent of the Time list is to present the fantasy genre as it ought to be, rather than the genre as it has been. I'd hazard several of the panelists have not read any fantasy novels written between 1950 and 1990, and many of the authors and works that fans would expect to see on the list were omitted due to being 'problematic' from the perspective of the enlightened intelligentsia of 2020.

The fact there's not a single sword and sorcery work, or any action-oriented fantasy by hugely popular and influential authors like Gemmell, Erikson, Abercrombie, and Lawrence, reveals the bias at work here.

Imagine if Time put together a list of 100 greatest films of all time, and almost half of them were from the last 15 years and fewer than a quarter were films from the 1950s through the 80s. The list would be ridiculed by film critics and Time readers alike.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 24, 2020)

Haffrung said:


> It's pretty clear that the intent of the Time list is to present the fantasy genre as it ought to be, rather than the genre as it has been. I'd hazard several of the panelists have not read any fantasy novels written between 1950 and 1990, and many of the authors and works that fans would expect to see on the list were omitted due to being 'problematic' from the perspective of the enlightened intelligentsia of 2020.
> 
> Imagine if Time put together a list of 100 greatest films of all time, and almost half of them were from the last 15 years and fewer than a quarter were films from the 1950s through the 80s. It would be ridiculed by film critics and Time readers alike.
> 
> Probably owing the youth of many of the readers and authors, the Fantasy genre seems peculiarly vulnerable to these sorts of contemporary trends and biases.




In some cases to me it does feel like part of it might be them being problematic. 

I wonder for some others how much of it is the balance between influential, great for its time, and viewed as great now.   Elric is influential, but the first two books seem awful in terms of writing.  Would the Harold Shea novels be published today?  (In the last few anthologies of short stories I've picked up, it feels like they'd be in the bottom few).  

For the list of 100 Best Novels they made in 2005, they restricted themselves to starting in 1923 (when Time was first published). That list had 16 from 1923 to 1935, 11 from 1936 to 1945, 20 from 1946 to 1955, 21 from 1956 to 1965, 13 from 1966 to 1975, 6 from 1976 to 1985, 6 from 1986 to 1995, and 7 from 1996 to 2005. That one looked like it was just made up byt the two authors!? The top 100 movies list was also made up by just two authors. 

I guess that makes this fantasy one stand out for having the authors help.  But I wonder if (like using sportswriters to help judge athletes) if they would have benefited from some critics in the pool for this one.


----------



## Haffrung (Oct 24, 2020)

Cadence said:


> In some cases to me it does feel like part of it might be them being problematic.
> 
> I wonder for some others how much of it is the balance between influential, great for its time, and viewed as great now.



Authors like Mervyn Peake and Gene Wolfe have never stopped being regarded as influential and great. And few of the works on the list published in the last decade have had enough impact to be regarded as great, and they certainly haven't had time to be regarded as influential.



Cadence said:


> Elric is influential, but the first two books seem awful in terms of writing.  Would the Harold Shea novels be published today?  (In the last few anthologies of short stories I've picked up, it feels like they'd be in the bottom few).



Brandon Sanderson's books are awful in terms of writing - that didn't stop Mistborn from making the list. J.K. Rowling and Cassandra Clare aren't exactly master prose stylists either. A lot of popular fantasy is poorly written. And if the quality of prose was a major criteria, the absence of Peake, Wolfe, Patricia McKillip, and Robin Hobb is even more baffling.



Cadence said:


> For the list of 100 Best Novels they made in 2005, they restricted themselves to starting in 1923 (when Time was first published). That list had 16 from 1923 to 1935, 11 from 1936 to 1945, 20 from 1946 to 1955, 21 from 1956 to 1965, 13 from 1966 to 1975, 6 from 1976 to 1985, 6 from 1986 to 1995, and 7 from 1996 to 2005. That one looked like it was just made up byt the two authors!? The top 100 movies list was also made up by just two authors.
> 
> I guess that makes this fantasy one stand out for having the authors help.  But I wonder if (like using sportswriters to help judge athletes) if they would have benefited from some critics in the pool for this one.



Agreed that critics tend to have a better sense of the history of a genre or medium that most authors do. But still, I think if you tasked several contemporary film directors with drawing up a list of the greatest films of all time, they would demonstrate far greater appreciation of the history and breadth of film than this panel demonstrated for fantasy. You wouldn't see entire genres of film excluded the way this list excludes entire genres of fantasy.

This Time list is a deliberate 'corrective' of popular and critical opinion on the history of the Fantasy genre. It's essentially a political statement.


----------



## Eltab (Oct 24, 2020)

Haffrung said:


> Imagine if Time put together a list of 100 greatest films of all time ...



I suspect that the current staff of _Time_ would - deliberately or not - adopt the unofficial unwritten rule the Oscars have been using for the last few years: the great films are those that never get a large audience.  (Whether because the films are released on only a small scale, or because the first people who saw the film told their friends not to go see it too.)


----------



## Cadence (Oct 26, 2020)

<deleted by poster>


----------



## Gradine (Oct 26, 2020)

Some additional thoughts I've had on this list:

*Recency Bias*
I'll come right out and say it: I'm actually quite impressed with the recency bias in this list. Often when you look at a Top whatever list of whatever you'll find that the list has been dominated by the views of the elitist of the elite critics (old, white dudes, primarily) and the lists look like they were made by somebody who firmly believes "All the best _____ was written before ______" and list contains only the most well-trodden and storied creators.

Then you've got this list come out, and say "you know what, actually there is a ton of amazing fantasy fiction being written right now by people you've probably never heard of. We're serious, it's really really good stuff". I actually like that. We could imagine a Top 100 Fantasy Novels list written in, say, 1979, and every grog is probably going to come up with a relatively similar list with the same familiar names that used to dominate the genre.

What this list says is that Fantasy, truly _great _Fantasy, is more accessible than ever, both as a reader and as a writer. That's pretty awesome, frankly. It says that Fantasy, both as a genre of fiction and its audience, is exploding, in far more directions than we ever thought possible.

*Curious Omissions*
The list neatfully steps over the Sword & Sorcery subgenre for what one could assume to be any number of reasons. I'm sure the most controversial (and probably most true) reason is that a lot of its simply doesn't hold up anymore. The un-stated goal of any list like this is to send eyes to more books, and I'm sure the list's author-creators (or its Time editors) didn't want to send modern readers to be puzzled over some celebrated work filled with racist and sexist caricatures which, like or not, tended to dominate the subgenre from its heyday. You try finding a well-written, well-regarded work of S&S that wouldn't raise a single eyebrow from the average modern day fantasy reader (which, if we were to go by the mode, would probably be a 16-year-old girl who either already has or has given significant thought towards dying their hair a non-standard color).

There's the other issue, sidestepped: the dominant delivery mode for fantasy at the time; we can read collections these days but a lot of the best S&S of the time was serialized. _The Witcher _no doubt suffers here as well; the first "novel" being both the most well-known and rather more a collection of short stories than a traditional "novel". 

I'll stand by that at least one early Shannara novel should've seen this list (maybe _Wishsong_?) as well as Lloyd Alexander's _The Black Cauldron_; I still think these probably got less attention due to some underwhelming adaptations. Maybe this is what hurt _The Hobbit _too? You'd think Tolkien would get a pass at the very least. Then again, _City of Glass _still made the list, so who knows.

*Curious Entries*
I'll begrudge that Harry Potter belongs on this list; its influence on both the genre at large and on its readers is undeniable. You don't get to where Harry Potter is and has been without some measure of greatness. But the books themselves are... not spectacularly well written? Still, one should be on here, and that one is almost certainly _The Half-Blood Prince. Prisoner of Azkaban _might have the best written (which is no mean feat, considering it's the one with time travel in it) but _The Half-Blood Prince _was the moment when HP briefly became good, daresay great, adult fantasy. The problem, as has been discussed ad nauseum over the decades, is that HP is rubbish at grand scale worldbuilding; but kept within the confines of Hogwarts there's a lot there that constantly delights the youthful soul. That said, there's probably (hopefully) some distant future that treats Rowling with the same kind 10-foot-pole we keep Lovecraft at now, so we'll see how long this last.

Yes, _The Name of the Wind _is widely loved and probably deserves a spot just for that, but dear lord is it an excruciatingly painful read. Terrible pacing, insufferable protagonist, and enough cringy faux "feminism" to fill at least two _Wheel of Time _novels, which is _really _saying something. Rothfuss seems like a chill dude and he does some stuff _really well _but I will never understand the fascination people have with this book.

_City of Glass _and _The Night Circus _are also well-beloved novels in certain circles, for... some reason. _City _is boilerplate YA fantasy as far as these things go; not exactly an exceptional example of the craft.

Which reminds me...

*YA Fiction*
Some of the best fantasy fiction being written right now and in at least the past decade and a half would be classified as "YA". If you read fantasy and you don't read YA... get off your . To quote Nick Hornby: “I see now that dismissing YA books because you’re not a young adult is a little bit like refusing to watch thrillers on the grounds that you’re not a policeman or a dangerous criminal, and as a consequence, I’ve discovered a previously ignored room at the back of the bookstore that’s filled with masterpieces I’ve never heard of.” He was speaking generally but it's absolutely true within fantasy as well. It's neither a mistake nor an accident that many of the books on are YA, and many of the older works on the list would've been classified that way in the first. I mean, while we're all complaining about _The Hobbit _not being on the list.


----------



## ART! (Oct 27, 2020)

At the risk of tangenting things: what's the _best_ sword & sorcery out there, old or new? - with (like the Time list) a bias toward diversity/representation, and therefore probably newer stuff.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Oct 27, 2020)

Based on that criteria, the recently deceased Charles Saunders' Imaro (and other works) springs to mind. As does the Thieves World series, though whether it's properly Sword & Sorcery or dark fantasy, that's up for debate.



ART! said:


> At the risk of tangenting things: what's the _best_ sword & sorcery out there, old or new? - with a bias toward diversity/representation, and therefore probably newer stuff.


----------



## Gradine (Oct 27, 2020)

ART! said:


> At the risk of tangenting things: what's the _best_ sword & sorcery out there, old or new? - with a bias toward diversity/representation, and therefore probably newer stuff.



The thing is- is that the best _inclusive _S&S stuff is similar in nature to the best S&S stuff in general - it's all anthologies of short stories and novellas rather than the types of novels that would show up on a list like this.

The _Sword and Sorceress _series is the example that tends to come up the most, being primarily female led S&S stories that attempt to subvert the more classically sexist tropes found in a lot of older S&S. Then again, that series' editor, Marion Zimmer Bradley, turned out to have been a horrific monster in her own right (you'll note her very well-acclaimed novel _The Mists of Avalon _also don't appear on Time's list either). I'm sure there are better recommendations elsewhere.


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 27, 2020)

Does Joe Abercrombie count as S&S? Or perhaps Scott Lynch, although that's more Wits & Sorcery.

There's also an argument to be made for Conan: he dislikes everyone equally, regardless of sex or race, until they prove their worth and gain his respect. (Note that this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and that yes, I do understand how Conan is problematic.)


----------



## Eltab (Oct 27, 2020)

Gradine said:


> The thing is- is that the best _inclusive _S&S stuff is similar in nature to the best S&S stuff in general - it's all anthologies of short stories and novellas rather than the types of novels that would show up on a list like this.
> 
> The _Sword and Sorceress _series is the example that tends to come up the most, being primarily female led S&S stories that attempt to subvert the more classically sexist tropes found in a lot of older S&S. Then again, that series' editor, Marion Zimmer Bradley, turned out to have been a horrific monster in her own right (you'll note her very well-acclaimed novel _The Mists of Avalon _also don't appear on Time's list either). I'm sure there are better recommendations elsewhere.



i was following MZB's earlier Darkover novels.  Her Darkover editor-collections were entertaining, until something happened in her personal life and she put out a whole book of "I hate men" stories.  Being a college student at the time, I concluded she did not wish me as a reader or purchaser ... so I stopped. 
I later found her "Darkover: The Next Generation" novels (my description) but it seemed like the heart had gone out of her writing.  It's been almost 25 years since then; maybe another look is in order.


----------



## Gradine (Oct 27, 2020)

Dioltach said:


> Does Joe Abercrombie count as S&S? Or perhaps Scott Lynch, although that's more Wits & Sorcery.
> 
> There's also an argument to be made for Conan: he dislikes everyone equally, regardless of sex or race, until they prove their worth and gain his respect. (Note that this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and that yes, I do understand how Conan is problematic.)



For all of issues involved in Conan (and remember Howard cut his teeth as a Lovecraft fanboy) he was actually fairly progressive among his contemporaries regarding womens' rights. For as much as the stereotypical "strong female character" is a problematic cliche in fantasy literature these days, all clichés start out as subversions and Howard certainly played a role in popularizing it.

This, by the way, is why I think it's a good thing when "best of all time" lists contain more modern entries than you would otherwise expect. Some tropes hold up better than others as our fields of literature and storytelling advance. It's a somewhat sad fact that many of the tropes that tended to define S&S back in its day (male power fantasies, women as damsel/reward, otherized racial caricatures) are... not okay. And it's okay to acknowledge we've moved on.

It would be interesting to see what a modern-day, inclusive take on the S&S genre would look like, and if the end result would still be recognizable as S&S.


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 27, 2020)

Gradine said:


> It would be interesting to see what a modern-day, inclusive take on the S&S genre would look like, and if the end result would still be recognizable as S&S.



I don't see why not. To me, the "male power fantasies, women as damsel/reward, otherized racial caricatures" that you mention are less defining features of the genre, and more a reflection of prevailing attitudes in the heyday of S&S. It's been a while since I read Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, but I don't recall much of those elements.

I think that S&S is defined more by its protagonists and its antagonists. Protagonists are humans, without supernatural powers (or only very limited powers, for example the Grey Mouser's minor magical abilities). The antagonists are supernatural, either inherently or through acquired abilities, and as a result of their supernatural -- and therefore unnatural -- powers are evil. (This definition actually rules out, say, "Beyond the Black River", but strictly speaking that's more of an adventure story than S&S: take out Conan, and it could just as easily take place along the Roman-German frontier.)


----------



## Haffrung (Oct 27, 2020)

Dioltach said:


> I don't see why not. To me, the "male power fantasies, women as damsel/reward, otherized racial caricatures" that you mention are less defining features of the genre, and more a reflection of prevailing attitudes in the heyday of S&S. It's been a while since I read Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, but I don't recall much of those elements.



Yes, S&S was a product of its time, but there's nothing about the genre itself that leaned on retrograde attitudes. You would find those same stereotypes in all popular fiction from the 40s through the 60s.

The decline in prominence of S&S over the last 40 years isn't due to more enlightened attitudes about gender, race, etc. Those elements can be modernized without losing anything essential to S&S. The reason the sub-genre fell out of favour is because it tends to present a jaundiced view of humanity. And the modern audience for fantasy fiction looks for comforting escapism. Most readers today want to live in the setting the authors create. Whereas the worlds depicted by S&S authors are places I wouldn't want to spend 15 minutes in, let alone live.

I think that's where some of the modern criticism of the sensibilities in S&S fiction is misplaced. The authors weren't advocating for the kinds of worlds and people depicted - they just thought they'd make fantastic and exciting vehicles for adventure stories.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 27, 2020)

Haffrung said:


> The reason the sub-genre fell out of favour is because it tends to present a jaundiced view of humanity. And the modern audience for fantasy fiction looks for comforting escapism. Most readers today want to live in the setting the authors create. Whereas the worlds depicted by S&S authors are places I wouldn't want to spend 15 minutes in, let alone live.




That kind of suprises me.  Over the previous two decades, haven't Hunger Games and Divergent and similar books been really popular as far as grim and non-comforting settings, and a lot of the monster-urban horror fiction been popular in terms of non-heroic main characters?


----------



## Gradine (Oct 28, 2020)

Cadence said:


> That kind of suprises me.  Over the previous two decades, haven't Hunger Games and Divergent and similar books been really popular as far as grim and non-comforting settings, and a lot of the monster-urban horror fiction been popular in terms of non-heroic main characters?



These are still somewhat aspirational, especially when we're talking about YA dystopian fiction. The idea is to crystallize the unease younger readers feel within our modern world and magnify it to literal apocalyptic proportions, then present reader-insert heroes and heroines who go about fighting for and then building a better world.

Whereas Sword & Sorcery is sort of primarily about the power fantasy; a larger-than-life powerful figure who can exist in and dominate a dying and unforgiving world. There's an exploration-of-the-unknown feel there also which I imagine garners less demand among today's readers (what with the constant barrage of cable and internet history & travel series taking the mystery out of "exotic" locales the world over). It's more about survival than building a better world.

But then that basically just describes one of the primary differences between heroic fantasy and S&S.


----------



## Haffrung (Oct 28, 2020)

ART! said:


> At the risk of tangenting things: what's the _best_ sword & sorcery out there, old or new? - with (like the Time list) a bias toward diversity/representation, and therefore probably newer stuff.



_The Gate of Ivrel_ by CJ Cherryh qualifies as sword and sorcery in my eyes (though it's technically science fiction). It's definitely not 'white dude saves damsel in distress.' 

Two classics of the genre (and personal favourites of mine) are _The Broken Sword_ by Poul Anderson, and _The Swords Trilogy_ by Michael Moorcock. If you overlook the cheesy 70s cover art, there's nothing retrograde or crude about either. In both cases, humans are the bad guys.


----------



## Haffrung (Oct 28, 2020)

Cadence said:


> That kind of suprises me.  Over the previous two decades, haven't Hunger Games and Divergent and similar books been really popular as far as grim and non-comforting settings, and a lot of the monster-urban horror fiction been popular in terms of non-heroic main characters?



But in YA dystopias like the Hunger Games, the protagonists are striving to overthrow the oppressive regimes and restore freedom. In S&S stories, pretty much all civilizations are decadent by their very nature. The protagonists don't overthrow oppressive regimes, except incidentally in pursuit of their own goals. I can't speak to monster-urban horror fiction.


----------



## Haffrung (Oct 28, 2020)

Gradine said:


> Whereas Sword & Sorcery is sort of primarily about the power fantasy; a larger-than-life powerful figure who can exist in and dominate a dying and unforgiving world. There's an exploration-of-the-unknown feel there also which I imagine garners less demand among today's readers (what with the constant barrage of cable and internet history & travel series taking the mystery out of "exotic" locales the world over). It's more about survival than building a better world.



The move away from fiction about exploring exotic realms is strange to me. Even Star Trek - whose entire premise was about exploring 'strange new worlds' - has abandoned exploration. For reasons I don't quite understand, it doesn't appeal to younger audiences.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 28, 2020)

Gradine said:


> These are still somewhat aspirational, especially when we're talking about YA dystopian fiction. The idea is to crystallize the unease younger readers feel within our modern world and magnify it to literal apocalyptic proportions, then present reader-insert heroes and heroines who go about fighting for and then building a better world.
> 
> Whereas Sword & Sorcery is sort of primarily about the power fantasy; a larger-than-life powerful figure who can exist in and dominate a dying and unforgiving world. There's an exploration-of-the-unknown feel there also which I imagine garners less demand among today's readers (what with the constant barrage of cable and internet history & travel series taking the mystery out of "exotic" locales the world over). It's more about survival than building a better world.
> 
> But then that basically just describes one of the primary differences between heroic fantasy and S&S.




That sounds like its almost all about the heroes being heroic than the "readers today want to live in the setting the authors create".

I can buy that heroes that do hero things are more popular with more people than simply having protagonists that do awesome but meaningless things.

In detective/crime/police fiction, it almost feels like what is popular now are reasonably-goodish-but-with-definite-dark sides going after monsters.  (The crimes in the Prey series, for example are horrific and the protagonist probably doesn't look nearly as good after the past summer).


----------



## Gradine (Oct 28, 2020)

Haffrung said:


> The move away from fiction about exploring exotic realms is strange to me. Even Star Trek - whose entire premise was about exploring 'strange new worlds' - has abandoned exploration. For reasons I don't quite understand, it doesn't appeal to younger audiences.



There's not really any terrestrial unknowns to explore any more. All the "exotic" wilds have been demystified (for the better, imo). The real unknown is shrinking and increasingly inaccessible. Exploration is no longer romanticized nor aspirational.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 28, 2020)

Gradine said:


> There's not really any terrestrial unknowns to explore any more. All the "exotic" wilds have been demystified (for the better, imo). The real unknown is shrinking and increasingly inaccessible. Exploration is no longer romanticized nor aspirational.



I know you specified "terrestrial" but this isn't exactly true, except geographically. The "exotic wilds" are always beyond the edges of what is known, whether terrestrial, extra-terrestrial, or internal. Even as the known expands outward, we live in a vast universe. So there are the "outer wilds" beyond the world, but there are also the "inner wilds" of the mind - the depths of human consciousness which we still do not understand, and may never understand fully. And of course there are plenty of unknowns about our world, and new secrets to discover: the depths of the oceans, both in terms of unknown forms of life and the many likely ruins of lost settlements, even civilizations, that were flooded as sea levels rose 10-50,000 years ago. There's underneath the antarctic ice, and all that we don't know about our past. We are constantly discovering new things and prehistory is still largely unknown, except in broad sketches.


----------



## Eltab (Oct 28, 2020)

Gradine said:


> There's not really any terrestrial unknowns to explore any more. All the "exotic" wilds have been demystified (for the better, imo). The real unknown is shrinking and increasingly inaccessible. Exploration is no longer romanticized nor aspirational.



Writing a story inspired by the Voyager / Galileo discoveries at Jupiter gets classified as sci-fi - outside the scope of the list.


----------



## Gradine (Oct 28, 2020)

That's kind of my point... the last great frontiers for exploration are outer space and deep under the oceans, both of which are very very inaccessible compared to, say, that "uncharted" jungle or island. That and, by the nature of their accessibility, they tend to get lumped into science fiction.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 29, 2020)

That Scott Lynch isn't on either of those lists is a rather severe disappointment.  That The Hobbit isn't on the TIME list is a travesty.

I love Eddings' books but agree he (or they; most of the books were co-written by David and Leigh though Leigh didn't start getting credit until later) doesn't belong on a top-100 list.

Katherine Kurtz, however, might; for the Deryni series as a whole.  Ditto Jack Whyte for the whole 'A Dream of Eagles' saga.

The TIME list would have done better to batch trilogies/series together (e.g. treat Lord of the Rings as one work, the Harry Potter series as one work, etc.), both to allow for greater variety and to avoid having to rank different books within the same series.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 29, 2020)

Gradine said:


> That's kind of my point... the last great frontiers for exploration are outer space and deep under the oceans, both of which are very very inaccessible compared to, say, that "uncharted" jungle or island. That and, by the nature of their accessibility, they tend to get lumped into science fiction.



I agree, although would add "inner space." Human consciousness and the imaginal realm has been explored by shamans and mystics for thousands of years, but not in a widespread way.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 29, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> That Scott Lynch isn't on either of those lists is a rather severe disappointment.  That The Hobbit isn't on the TIME list is a travesty.
> 
> I love Eddings' books but agree he (or they; most of the books were co-written by David and Leigh though Leigh didn't start getting credit until later) doesn't belong on a top-100 list.
> 
> ...



The way I look at it is that the TIME list is so bad that it shouldn't be taken seriously, and thus no need for disappointment.


----------

