Re: OT: good fantasy books
 

I agree, but I think you'll have that problem no matter *where* you start. There are things in Memories of Ice (book 3) that you won't fully appreciate until you've read Midnight Tides (book 5). (The series definitely benefits from rereads.) If you can accept that you're coming into a story in medias res, Memories of Ice has a nice theme about compassion and gives you a good grounding on the background of the Malazan universe that will help you understand Gardens of the Moon and Deadhouse Gates (books 1 and 2). If you start with Gardens of the Moon, you may feel like you're starting in the middle of the series anyway.

YMMV.

-Max

P.S. I think that's why I dislike Gardens of the Moon--I still can't figure out what it's ABOUT. Erikson started out as a painter, and he says the title and theme of the book come to him first. Memories of Ice is about compassion and redemption, House of Chains is about different responses to failure, Deadhouse Gates is about... I'm not sure, but I like Coltaine's story enough that maybe his theme carried me through the other, more puzzling parts. (I don't know what Fiddler's and Cutter's story was about.) I have no idea what Gardens of the Moon is supposed to be about, or why it has that title. If someone could explain that to me my attitude towards GotM might improve.

Re: OT: good fantasy books
 

I have to disagree on Steven King's Dark Tower. While I am a fan of some of his work, with The Shining being on my alltime top 25 list, I did not enjoy the gunslinger.

He was not my idea of a hero, he let a kid die for no real reason. I sort of have to identify with the character, and care what happens to him, for me to have an interest in the book.

In martin's series, the only characters i care about, jon snow and bran(crippled kid) were not even included in his last book.

Re: OT: good fantasy books
 

Few additions that weren't mentioned:
David Coe. "Winds of the Forelands" serie.
That's a pretty good serie and the books don't detiorate as the serie progresses (at least not first 4 I've read). Combination of original political system and well-balanced http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif magic system create rather interesting world. Few characters are "too white" or "too black", but the bulk of the cast is somewhere in between. Strategy and tactics (oops, I meant plot) are very good, maybe not at Martin's level, but well above average.
David Coe. "The LonTobyn chronicle". This earlier (first by the author) trilogy is fantasy with a bit of SF mixed-in. Magic world competes with industrial world. Quite good, maybe a bit weaker than "Winds of the Forelands".

Robert Silverberg's "Majipoor" books. Technically a science fiction, but stylistically it's a fantasy. Unusually peaceful for the fantasy book, well-written characters and good epic atmosphere without pages after pages with no events (common plague of genre).

George Martin's other books: "Sandkings", "The hedge knight", "Fevre Dream", "Windhaven", "Dying of the light". They vary from SF to gothic to fantasy, but all are very good. None of them have the stuff from "A song of ice and fire" Edi was unhappy about http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Btw, I agree with Edi about 4th book and with Teraswaerto about the first 3.

Re: OT: good fantasy books
 

Yes, yes, yes.

Re: OT: good fantasy books
 

Another Yes, Yes, yes.

Re: OT: good fantasy books
 

Michael Scott Rohan's Winter of the World trilogy is great. It's built on a mix of Finnish and Celtic mythology and quite a few original ideas on the author's part.

Re: OT: good fantasy books
 

Harry Turtledove is mostly known for his alternative histories, but some of his early work is low fantasy. The Empire of Videssos series, particularly the Lost Legion books, drop a Republican period Roman Legion down in a fictional empire which is in the late Empire stage. As a professional historian, his writing is informed with quite some depth.

That said, I find his newer work is not as good as his early work, much like Raymond Feist. I suspect first books are often really worked on for a long time, as there is no publisher. Later books get pushed through quickly as publishing contacts and so forth dominate the author’s time. Could be wrong, just my impression. In any case, Turtledove’s newer works are all alternative history and not fantasy, so outside the bounds of this discussion.

Several writers really need aggressive editors. Terry Goodkind stands out as does Tad Williams who wrote Memory, Sorrow and Thorn guy. Far too much verbiage and not enough plot. War of the Flowers is Williams’ best book by far and it is a single fat book. Sometimes a trilogy is far too much. I also think Stephen King could do with some heavy editing, though I can not argue that his commercial success suggests I am wrong.

I recently re-read Zelazny’s Amber books, twenty years after the first reading. Still good books, but not really up to my adult expectations. There is one passage where he is discussing the recruiting of troops and finding impressionable, high school types. The author then speaks directly to the reader for a moment and apologizes, as if his expectation was that most readers were male high school students. He was right the first time, but as I aged, I found his books less satisfying. I think that is one reason I like Martin’s books, they are adult through and through. One poster noted they would not have their kids read Martin. I fully agree and think that is one of the strengths of these books. If we were to list kids fantasy books, we would have a very different list than the one we have here and still have some excellent writing.

As for Conan… Yes, it was great fun back in high school, but it has aged even worse than Zelazny. What was the term used earlier? Adolescent wet dreams? It is pulp fiction, the Jon Carter of Mars for the fantasy readers. Influential and fun, but nothing more.

Re: OT: good fantasy books
 

If Conan is too aged for you, but you want to read some Sword and Sorcery, look up C.L. Moore. Her Jirel short stories, though written in the 1930s like Conan, have a distinctly different feel to them.

I already mentioned Moorcock, but he is worth mentioning again. Slightly more modern, but still within the Sword and Sorcery tradition, and everyone should read at least the Elric saga.

Re: OT: good fantasy books
 

Moorcock was my favourite when I was young. The compelling thing about his books are the many subtle secrets and interlocks between the different books, giving new insights whenever you read one of the books again.

However, today I would say that more modern works like Song of ice and Fire and Nightwatch/Daywatch are more refined... it's a bit like evolution in writing.

Re: OT: good fantasy books
 

I am fairly deep in the JV Jones 1st book of the sword of shadow trilogy. I decided to skip the 1st series, for now, and go right in to the sos trilogy. It is extremely well written, with one glaring exception.

Maybe because the author is a woman, did not play rugby, box, wrestle, or play American football, but there is no way Reif could have taken a near death beating by 5 or 6 healthy men, who hated him with a passion, over the course of days, and then be in any shape to travel over a brutally cold frozen tundra a week later. He would needs many weeks of good care to recover.

Ignoring the fact that none of his wounds got infected in a filthy environment, and even allowing for youth healing quicker, the fact that he is relatively fit, and suffered no
broken bones that required months to heal, there is no way he can travel that soon after taking that kind of beating.

If some form of magical healing was done, ok, but none was.
Maybe his affinity with the old blood lets him heal at an much faster rate? Was that part of the 1st series that i skipped?