Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Fantasy Favourite

Rate this topic


DragonMaci

Favourite Fantasy Author  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. What fantasy author from this list do you prefer?

    • Terry Goodkind
      18
    • David and Leigh Eddings
      1
    • Terry Pratchett
      4
    • Robert Jorden
      2
    • David Gemmel
      0
    • Katherine Kerr
      0
    • Terry Brooks
      2
    • JRR Tolkien
      14


Recommended Posts

I am a huge Terry Pratchett fan; although his books are comic, they deal with serious ideological issues and they deal with them up-front, as affecting daily life. Can't get better than that.

I learned recently that the weird mysticism of Discworld is actually a spoof on the way some people think about THIS reality, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a huge Terry Pratchett fan; although his books are comic, they deal with serious ideological issues and they deal with them up-front, as affecting daily life. Can't get better than that.

I learned recently that the weird mysticism of Discworld is actually a spoof on the way some people think about THIS reality, too.

I was wondering if anyone would vote for Terry Pratchett (the Terrys, Goodkind and Pratchett currently have 80% of the votes). I too quite like Pratchett, for [pretty much] the same reasons you do. Because he deals with serious issues, in an amusing way.

I love how he trivalises mans ability to use magic in a magical universe, I mean look at his wizards, they have about as much ability to use serious magic as a toothbrush...

Science of Discworld I is my favorite, because it deals with sceintific matters, while at the same time making fun of it! Even though I am a scientist at heart, I think this is a nice idea. I also enjoyed how they poked at more dubious ideas such as quantum mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Chris Paolini keeps up the good ideology stuff he hinted at in Eldest, he may turn into my favorite non-comic fantasy author.

Other than me, I mean. ;)

Well if you actually become a published author (ie, a real author), I would love to read some of your stuff, Im a sure that at least would have a theme and ALSO be an interesting tale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I learned recently that the weird mysticism of Discworld is actually a spoof on the way some people think about THIS reality, too.

Well that is pretty obvious really.

My favourite character is Vimes. Largely because he is so practical and a confirmed atheist which is hard to be in a world like Discworld.

If Chris Paolini keeps up the good ideology stuff he hinted at in Eldest, he may turn into my favorite non-comic fantasy author.

Other than me, I mean. :)

Opps I forgot to put him on the list. Though I disagree with most of the philosophy in Eragon. Eldest has better philosophy though. The elves in that have a good philosophy and belief system. Most of their philosophy reverses much of the poor philosophy in Eragon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, I hate Pro Wrestling, so WoT has to fill in.

Of the authors on the list, I prefer Tolkein. His work has a depth and texture that none of the others listed can match. I fully expect Tolkein will still be read and enjoyed a century from now. I doubt any of the other writers on the list will be remembered by that time.

Two other solid fantasy writers not on the list are George R. R. Martin ("A Song of Ice and Fire") and Steven Erikson ("The Malazan Book of the Fallen"). They both tilt a bit towards the naturalistic, and their worlds are characterized by very complex plotting between a number of factions none of which are purely good or purely evil. (Well, so far anyhow.) This may not be the preference of many readers on this board, but I like them.

People might also consider looking into the Everness duology by John C. Wright. He's another writer who shows clear Objectivist influence. Consider, for example, this description of a mysterious character who appears in the second volume:

The man in black said, "I was hoping you could tell me. Back when I was in the real world, I was a rather important figure. You would not believe how important. There just aren't that many inventors and engineers who are also attorneys, financiers, and who own their own newspapers. Without my consent, I had become sort of a political figure, a standard-bearer, a focal point for those who wanted to work hard, be free, and keep the money they earned for themselves. My editorials made quite a stir; but they also brought me to the attention of Azrael.

"Let me tell you something of my past: My greatest joy in life was solving problems; I made quite a bit of money solving other people's problems for them. Then the government regulators did their best to take away as much of that money as possible; people who did not know my business tried to tell me how to run my business, whom I could hire, when, where, how, and why. That was why I became a lawyer, you know; I wanted to be able to defend the wealth my inventions had brought me. But when the people vote in unfair laws, knowing those laws does not help; the only way to defend yourself then, is by molding public opinion. I bought a newspaper. I made it successful. I hired private detectives for some of my staff to help me track down a conspiracy I had noticed in the halls of power. Politicians, media bosses, criminals were showing a peculiar degree of cooperation. I tried to find out why, tried to find out how to solve the problem.

"They found me first.

"Azrael's people approached me with an ultimatum: join them or else. They said they could strip away my family, my wealth, my position, all my accomplishments, my fame, everything -- make it as if I had never existed. They showed me clear evidence of their supernatural power. Naturally, I defied them."

"And Azrael cursed you."

"Yes. This was four and a half years before he came to Earth."

"What?!"

"Azrael's scheme has been long in formulating. He has been communicating with his recruits here for years, in their sleep. His coming to this world was the culmination, not the first step, of long-laid plans."

"And the curse?"

"I admit it was difficult, at first, to have all one's accomplishments and life stripped away and forgotten. But my mind, my discipline and dedication, are what created those accomplishments, and nothing and no one can strip me of them. So I keep telling myself."

What's not to like about that? I also can't resist throwing in this bit from the end of the book, after the forces of evil have been cast down, and a government operative tries to get this guy (Pendrake) to assume leadership of the country:

"Colonel Van Dam, you have missed the whole point of what's happened, haven't you? A warlock from our past, from the age of monarchy, slew the man he thought was our monarch, and he killed and replaced what he took to be his ministers and barons, our Congress, with his creatures. Yet, somehow, this country did not fall. And why is that?"

"Now you are being ridiculous, Mr. Pendrake! I am offering you power, power over your fellow men, and all you are talking about is how to dissolve and abolish that power. It was not the common people who saved this country, it was a hero. You, yourself, acting alone. The citizens had nothing to do with it... Without strong leadership now, we will have anarchy..."

Pendrake now understood what Van Dam feared.

He smiled a cold smile. "So that is it. Azrael actually convinced you, did he? A dead doctrine, long ago forgotten, that one man can be anointed by supernatural mumbo jumbo to rule his ordained subjects. He told you that some men are born with spurs on their heels, and others born with saddles on their backs. Azrael told you Heaven appointed me to lead, didn't he?"

"You've been leading. All I ask is that you continue. It's your duty. The common citizens are not able to govern themselves, not able to save this country, not able to drive back archangels. No one else has a magic sword..."

Pendrake threw back his head and laughed. "Am I not a citizen? Am I not a common man, of rank no higher than any other? I will ask you what I was asked: 'What's it to be then? A monarchy or a republic?' I've already made my choice, Colonel Van Dam; and I am not tempted at all by yours. As for you, you should turn yourself in before the investigators come to arrest you for your part in this. The court may be lenient."

Van Dam, sullen, slunk back into the shadows. Pendrake, head erect, footstep firm, walked out into the sunlight, out into the wreckage of the streets. And, everywhere he looked, he saw the opportunity to rebuild.

There's also this immortal exchange, which gives a good sense of the mixture of fantasy and modernity that characterizes the Everness books:

Lemuel said, "The planetarium upstairs can tell us where any awakened magic in the world is centered. We can find Azrael's chariot wherever it goes on Earth. But why do we want to know from what part of the sea Acheron will appear?"

Pendrake smiled. "Maybe these supernatural beings are pretty tough. Let's see how the magic of modern science stands up to them. I have the presidential emergency launch device in my car, and can code in new targets. The bad guys foolishly disabled their own ability to override the launch signal. I can hit any spot on the planet. Let's nuke Acheron."

The resulting battle between the supernatural forces of evil and a United States Navy carrier group is pretty impressive.

The Everness duology isn't as Objectivist as, say, Goodkind's work. Pendrake is just one of many characters (indeed he doesn't even show up until the second book), and the others all have their own perspectives. But the Objectivist influence is palpable, and the books are a lot of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The resulting battle between the supernatural forces of evil and a United States Navy carrier group is pretty impressive.

The Everness duology isn't as Objectivist as, say, Goodkind's work. Pendrake is just one of many characters (indeed he doesn't even show up until the second book), and the others all have their own perspectives. But the Objectivist influence is palpable, and the books are a lot of fun.

I actually suspect that Terry Goodkind will be remembered a long time from now, quite possibly a hundred years from now. You see, his books are not just fantasy novels, but 'philsophical introductions', in that they are give introductory insights into aspects of the most brillant philosophy yet known (Objectivism). There will still be people whom like fantasy and will be interested in reading a fantasy novel of depth a hundred years from now.

Im not really that big a fan of Tolkiens work myself anymore. Sure, his novels have some depth, but many of the messages he tries to get across seemed flawed, such as his beleif instrustialisation is a bad thing (as the Urag-hai and the Saraman plot suggest for instance).

Of course, there are and will be plenty of people whom nonetheless enjoy Tolkien, I mean look at how many fans people like Robert Jordan has, and his stuff is bascially meaningless!

From the bits you quote, I will say that I will try and find a copy of this series you mention, I think it would be a good read, not as good as Terry, but still quite possibly a worthwhile read, thanks for the tip :D:huh: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked Tolkien when I was young and I had lots of patience for plot points that had no connection to the story (Tom Bombadil, anyone?) but I'm not really interested in him now. I prefer Terry Pratchett because you can pick up any ONE of his books, read it, know what's going on, and every single element he introduces ties back to the plot and resolution somehow. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked Tolkien when I was young and I had lots of patience for plot points that had no connection to the story (Tom Bombadil, anyone?) but I'm not really interested in him now. I prefer Terry Pratchett because you can pick up any ONE of his books, read it, know what's going on, and every single element he introduces ties back to the plot and resolution somehow. :huh:

I still like Tolkein a lot as an adult. I was in the middle of rereading The Lord of the Rings on 9/11, and a great deal of what he wrote resonated. "It takes but one to make a war, and the women of this country learned long ago that those without swords may yet die upon them." There are a lot of people in the modern Democratic party who could benefit from pondering that sentence. Then again I've also read The Silmarillion cover to cover, twice, so I may not be the typical fantasy afficionado.

I tried Terry Pratchett years ago and found his stuff mildly amusing but no more. It is worth noting that I read the first 3 or 4 Discworld novels and I've heard that the series changed substantially since its early days. Is there a later Pratchett you'd recommend as a better exemplar of what's good in his work?

Prometheus: If you're going on a book hunt, you might also check out Wright's "The Golden Age" trilogy. It's far-future science fiction, also worth reading if you're into that kind of thing. As for me, I'm going to go chew on Erikson's Deadhouse Gates for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried Terry Pratchett years ago and found his stuff mildly amusing but no more. It is worth noting that I read the first 3 or 4 Discworld novels and I've heard that the series changed substantially since its early days. Is there a later Pratchett you'd recommend as a better exemplar of what's good in his work?

If you read the first 3 or 4, you read . . . The Light Fantastic, The Colour of Magic . . . maybe Equal Rites? The first two are the WORST ones, they are a silly travelogue that pokes fun at some fantasy conventions. I am not thrilled with any of his books that have Rincewind in them; they tend to be commentary on the ridiculous facets of specific cultures without any deeper meaning.

If you want to read some of his better stuff, hit the Witches, Death, and City Guard books:

Witches: Equal Rites (which is mediocre, but improving), Wyrd Sisters (a good one), Witches Abroad (very good), Lords and Ladies, Maskerade, and Carpe Jugulum

Death: Mort (getting there), Reaper Man (the best one), Soul Music (a lot of people I know thought this one was silly, but I loved it, because I DO feel that way about art, and I didn't know where some of the silly references came from), Hogfather , and Thief of Time

City Guards: Guards! Guards!, Men at Arms, Feet of Clay, Jingo, The Fifth Elephant, Night Watch, and Thud!

Although Sam Vimes and Granny Weatherwax are my favorite characters, my absolute favorite book was definitely Small Gods, which does not share characters with any of the other books. That's the best one to read if you just want to check out whether any of Pratchett's stuff is worthwhile. The Truth is also another good one. I also recommend reading Good Omens, by both Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett.

Neil Gaiman's works aren't particularly philosophical, but he is a MASTER of conveying images and grandeur. Stardust is my favorite of his books by far, although I've also read American Gods. I wasn't thrilled with the latter, although it was quite enjoyable. Part of my lethargy may have been contributed by the fact that I was trying to read it during a very uncomfortable cross-country flight when I was half asleep. I think the other reason I didn't like it was that he perverted his talent of description into describing alleyways, prostitutes, and slum apartments; the contrast was so surreal that I felt as though I were taking leave of my connection with reality altogether when I was reading the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the first 3 or 4, you read . . . The Light Fantastic, The Colour of Magic . . . maybe Equal Rites? The first two are the WORST ones, they are a silly travelogue that pokes fun at some fantasy conventions.

Looking at my bookshelf, it seems I've read 5 books by Pratchett: The Light Fantastic, The Colour of Magic, Sourcery, Mort and Reaper Man.

Although Sam Vimes and Granny Weatherwax are my favorite characters, my absolute favorite book was definitely Small Gods, which does not share characters with any of the other books. That's the best one to read if you just want to check out whether any of Pratchett's stuff is worthwhile. The Truth is also another good one. I also recommend reading Good Omens, by both Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett.

I may check out one of the stand-alones. It sounds like I've already read enough of the "Death" books to get a sense of what Pratchett is doing there.

I've already read Good Omens and enjoyed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like any novel that has a clear, non-contradictory message that the author isn't trying to hide.

To that end Terry Goodkind is excellent and keeps getting better! I can't wait for him to start work on his fictional novel that is not fantasy that he keeps mentioning in his chats. We'll finally have a writer of the level of Rand writing a novel that has the reach of Atlas...

Terry Brooks is one of those authors who says it, but very subtly. I wish he would speak it more clearly and bring it to the fore more often, but all the same, it's there and there is a message and it's a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like any novel that has a clear, non-contradictory message that the author isn't trying to hide.

I like books that have a strong thematic integration. Books like that tend to make their point without being didactic about it. Didacticism is the kiss of death.

Putting the point another way, I don't read fiction to get a message. I read fiction because I like strong, coherent, integrated and interesting stories. It is a derivative fact that such stories usually wind up making a point.

I've enjoyed a few of Terry Brooks' novels, particularly Magic Kingdom For Sale and Elfstones of Shannara.

Has anybody here tried R. Scott Bakker ("The Prince of Nothing")?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually suspect that Terry Goodkind will be remembered a long time from now, quite possibly a hundred years from now. You see, his books are not just fantasy novels, but 'philsophical introductions', in that they are give introductory insights into aspects of the most brillant philosophy yet known (Objectivism). There will still be people whom like fantasy and will be interested in reading a fantasy novel of depth a hundred years from now.

Im not really that big a fan of Tolkiens work myself anymore. Sure, his novels have some depth, but many of the messages he tries to get across seemed flawed, such as his beleif instrustialisation is a bad thing (as the Urag-hai and the Saraman plot suggest for instance).

Of course, there are and will be plenty of people whom nonetheless enjoy Tolkien, I mean look at how many fans people like Robert Jordan has, and his stuff is bascially meaningless!

From the bits you quote, I will say that I will try and find a copy of this series you mention, I think it would be a good read, not as good as Terry, but still quite possibly a worthwhile read, thanks for the tip :)<_< .

Firstly I doubt he will last that long. I doubt even Tolkien will last a total of 100 years.

Secondly Tolkein once said he never tried to put any of his philosophies in his stories, though he did say that he learned from his experiences in writing them that no author can totally escape some of his philosophy being in his books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly I doubt he will last that long. I doubt even Tolkien will last a total of 100 years.

Secondly Tolkein once said he never tried to put any of his philosophies in his stories, though he did say that he learned from his experiences in writing them that no author can totally escape some of his philosophy being in his books.

Quite frankly it shows that Tolkein didn't try to put any philosophy in his books. They're plodding and relatively pointless other than as bedtime stories for his kids, which was the original point of course. They made good movies because of the imagry that he portrayed (ad nosium), but have very little substance compared to most of those that came after him. (Brooks, and Goodkind to name a few)

Tolkein will definately be around though in 100 years, as will JK Rowlings and JK Rowlings is better writting. They'll be there only because of the marketing campeign that has cemented them in the heads of this current generations. In 100 years they will be "classics" regardless of the quality of the writting or value to society (much like Charles Dickens) simply because we're told their good, and nostalgia will make them better than they were (exactly like Great Expectations, possibly the most boring and pedantic book ever written second only to anything written by Margarette Atwood).

Rand, and Goodkind are on a different level. They stand as philosophical works along the lines of Locke, and Aristotle. They will endure. Especially if Goodkind comes out with his mass market fiction and even more especially if Wizard's First Rule ever gets made into a movie of the epic proportions of Lord of the Rings which it has in spades if done by people with vision, which from my brief interactions with Terry Goodkind online when he's doing chats, it is definately a pre-requisite that they be done right with people that "get it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried Terry Pratchett years ago and found his stuff mildly amusing but no more. It is worth noting that I read the first 3 or 4 Discworld novels and I've heard that the series changed substantially since its early days. Is there a later Pratchett you'd recommend as a better exemplar of what's good in his work?

The first two werent that great. Since then the series has changed a lot as has pratchett's style. By the time he introduced the city watch he moved onto making fun of modern things which made the series better by far. I quite like the inventions (the clacks(or internet)).

Here are my favourite Disvworld books (arranged in their sub-series and in a one-offs category and miscelleaneous):

Watch: Night Watch, Thud!, Jingo, The Fifth Elephant, Feet of Clay, Men At Arms, Guards! Guards!

One-Offs: The Truth, Going Postal, Monstrous Regiment.

Rincewind: The Last Continent.

Death: Hogfather, Soul Music, Mort.

Witches: Lords and Ladies.

Miscellaneous: The Last Hero, Science of Discworld, The Discworld Companion.

Those categories are in order of best as far as I'm concerned, as are the listing.

I like the Watch sub-series so much largely because of Vimes and Carrot, my two favourite Discworld characters. Those two have no limits who they try to arrest.

Examples:

- Vimes tried to arrest a dragon.

- Vimes arrested the commanders of two armies while Carrot arrested their armies. Earlier in Jingo Vimes had arrested Vettenari (my third favourite Discworld character).

- Vimes decided to arrest deep down dwarves.

The main thing about Vimes is that he thinks the law is the Law no matter where you are, even if you are miles below the city (Thud!), quite a bit above it (the dragon), or on foreign soil (Jingo, The Fifth Elephant, Monstrous Regiment, Thud!).

Also even the best of the Assassain's Guild failed to kill Vime's, which is quite saying something. Only Vettenari can say the same, though someone once came close.

I like any novel that has a clear, non-contradictory message that the author isn't trying to hide.

To that end Terry Goodkind is excellent and keeps getting better! I can't wait for him to start work on his fictional novel that is not fantasy that he keeps mentioning in his chats. We'll finally have a writer of the level of Rand writing a novel that has the reach of Atlas...

Terry Brooks is one of those authors who says it, but very subtly. I wish he would speak it more clearly and bring it to the fore more often, but all the same, it's there and there is a message and it's a good one.

I hate contradictions myself so I don't like to see it in stories, which is why Terry Goodkind is so good. The Wizard's Ninth Rule (contradictions cannot exist in reality, not in part or in whole) is my second favourite (Wizard's Sixth Rule being my favourite).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tolkein will definately be around though in 100 years, as will JK Rowlings and JK Rowlings is better writting.

Ugh! I hate TK Rowling's style! But oh well... each to their own...

Rand, and Goodkind are on a different level. They stand as philosophical works along the lines of Locke, and Aristotle.

I will agree with Terry, but Ann is too slow for my liking. She takes too many words to say things for my liking. She just drones on and on too much.

They will endure. Especially if Goodkind comes out with his mass market fiction and even more especially if Wizard's First Rule ever gets made into a movie of the epic proportions of Lord of the Rings which it has in spades if done by people with vision, which from my brief interactions with Terry Goodkind online when he's doing chats, it is definately a pre-requisite that they be done right with people that "get it".

Well I doubt there will be any Sword of Truth movies... I think Sowrd of Truth and Wheel of Time have gone the way of being too long a series for them to become movies. I mean no one wants to watch a movie series that goes for ten or more movies, especially if they aren't resolved until the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...