[Wrana]

Time to return to this dope...

HoneyBadger:
I can give you a very accurate list of the finest fantasy writers in the past 100 years, but I'm sad to say that not every one of them, at every given instance, is enormously readable. They're profound, deep, compelling, etc. but sometimes, yes, one just wants to escape, and not think all that terribly hard, while being taken on a tour of a world unlike our own ...
even enjoyed Jordan. They aren't they best thing that ever came down the pike, but on a given day they occupied my brain in ways beneficial.

Well, that's too bad. As I've said probably, I consider some books usually included in classics to be overrated - or having had their popularity based on situation in society at the time and not on their literary value...
And I also have read trash fantasy aplenty, but the 3 you mentioned are just too crappy for my palate. Maybe I'm spoiled for choice by having relatively much Russian trash fantasy at hand - many of which are of generally better quality, but unfortunately weren't (and won't be I think) translated into English. Also, there is always Robert Ervin Howard - and not only his fantasy, which I think isn't the best among his works...

And even if people are reading crappy fantasy, they're still reading, and it's still fantasy, and that's a good thing in my book.

I'm not so sure that it is much better than reading nothing - especially as you somehow consider a fantasy better in some obscure way than, say, SF. I don't know whether you have read "Silver Eggheads" by Fritz Leiber which was a warning against brain-munching reading, besides being a very funny and well-written book of its own. But if you didn't, look for it (if yes, just remember how he calls such products and how he descibes procedures used to craft and sell them).

Edi:
After the first book of Serpentwar, Feist's writing started to get seriously stale. I loved the original Riftwar saga and the Empire trilogy he cowrote with Janny Wurts (who is one of my favorite authors, though she can be pretty wordy sometimes).

I don't know, I've just seen very bland language, with any characters speaking the same. And it wasn't particularly original either... Don't remember which of the books this was - I just understood that he's generally not worth reading unless I have absolutely no other choice... Thank you for mentioning other authors - I'll probably make some sort of list from this discussion to look up those that might be interesting.

Xietor:
But I do take issue with your condemnation of Feist. Some of his work is not good(talonhawk stuff), but Jimmy the Hand was one of my favorite characters.

Maybe you take this issue further by arguing for him? Something like originality, quality of text-work, storyline-work... It would be appreciated. Understand, I'm not completely against "dice-rolling" fantasy - there are times when my brain won't absorb much , but even among these, Feist doesn't look particularly good.

Endoperez:
Tolkien helped make fantasy popular. He was one of the first. That means he made many mistakes that he would have been critized about had he not been one of the first popular ones. I think LotR could be written much better.

Agree. I also dislike his attitude on some questions. And you will probably agree that even in his times, many elements could be made better... actually I think that as a writer R.E. Howard was better - or would be if he lived to Prof. Tolkien's years.

It could be written worse, as well. Unfortunately, someone decided to prove it true and wrote LotR, worse. Warning: bad fantasy ahead!

Another example is Terry Brooks. He's not quite so obnoxious at it as he uses less copy-paste... but it remains copy-paste nonetheless, though he didn't repeat it all.

HoneyBadger : I like to call it "fantasy accounting"

Well, there is virtue in such. Just remember Asprin's MYTH Inc. series - though I prefer earlier ones which are more conventional fantasy... Another example is Lawrence Watt-Evans. It's just that Feist can't make it interesting...

Aezeal:
seriously in most your post I only see things you don't like except the black company and hobb and tolkien it seems..

You are wrong. I don't particularly like Tolkien.

I don't see why hobb is so much better than most writers you don't like.. I don't even see why it his books are "for those who like fantasy dark".

Well, what you don't see isn't my problem, is it? And Robin Hobb is a woman, by the way.

I can see why you'd like Tolkien better than some writers that where mentioned (Martin) but I just disagree.. on so many points Martin is better.

Such as?

and if you dont'read the books I recommended it's your loss not mine..

Well, actually it's my gain - I see who recommends which books and choose to not spend my time on those. I should probably thank you!

nordlys :
Kate Novak. Along with Jeff Grubb.

Thank you. Though I probably won't seek it out now anyways, but still thank you. Do you remember someone else from those T$R slaves actually worth some time?

Most people mistakenly treat gaming fiction as literature. It was never supposed to be one. Gaming fiction = in-character gaming accessory. Embrace this fact, and TSR novels become highly enjoyable, no matter how boring the stories, bland the characters and mediocre the writing are.

Well, it actually depends on what your palate can stand. And I personally am not interested in descriptions of the world badly thought out (read: Forgotten Realms ). And what interest can they really have? If they have all those "merits" you mentioned, the only thing which can be interesting are fantasy countries/cultures. But by the virtue of his/her talent (or lack thereof) your average storyhack just can't do juistice for them too! Also, a quality of "in-character gaming accessory" can also vary widely. Just compare those of T$R authors with, say, short stitches in WarHammer Army books (wholly resulting from Games Workshop having enough sense to pay real writers!) - or flavor texts in Dominions units/countries/spells!