Fantasy (Magic, Wizard...)

[HomeInMyShoes]

And if you're tired of taking magic seriously you can always read the Rincewind books from Discworld that spoof the usual character traits and add a good dose of social satire to the mix.

[Istvan diVega]

Nah, they're too old to be any good. The Colour of Magic was released in 1983....

[Owna]

Well its actually just logic im not saying the books are bad or anything like that dont get me wrong there they are just more evolved into more fantasy? i dont know if that described it better.
@Istvan srsly u didnt understand what i meant ^^ i thought that would happen (i also know what u mean)

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by Istvan diVega

Nah, they're too old to be any good. The Colour of Magic was released in 1983....

I find that comment as myopic and useless as the next one.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by Owna

Well its actually just logic

It is not logical at all
It is true, that Fantasy in a whole is in a much better shape than 20-50 years ago. But that has nothing to do with people "didn't have the same standards as ppl do now you know we know more stuff now and newer kind of thinking creativ and shit", but that it is a much more accepted and liked genre than before. Much more authors were raised reading fantasy and now writing it. Publishers search for Fantasy to publish. A fantasy-like children book has made millions of fans and money, the Lord of the Ring movies earned a fortune.
You will find much more great science-fiction books, that are older, than fantasy, because of the acceptance of it as "Literature".

So, the quantity of "good" fantasy books raises (of course the quantity of "bad" books also, but even comissioned books are often of a better quality now, maybe because of better editing and better authors, because of more money to earn).

But of course good fantasy books have been written before A Game of Thrones. First and foremost "The Lord of the Rings". If you haven't read it, do it! It is THE Book of the genre. In fact, one thing that is often critized about fantasy is the endless repetition of this books plot and structure.

I too like "modern" fantasy in general more, but there are excellent books out there, that were written before the 2000th.

You can't judge a single book by its publish date, even if "may" can say something about a genre/market/field in general, that never translates back to the single item.

[dickloraine]

Now I seei, I haven't given any recommendations
I second the Malazan Books, but with the warning, that they are much more complicated both in plot and style, than anything on your reading list and with the usual caveeat, that the first book in the series is maybe not the best entry, so the second book is recommended)
"The Song of Ice and Fire", would be my second recommendation (but no or very few wizards in here ).
Joe Abercrombie is also excellent, but he too is light on wizards.

Even if you know the movies, read the Harry Potter Books. Your reading list sugests that you will love this books.

Since you seem to be german, I will recommend at least one german author: Walter Moers. He is brilliant. One of the best fantasy or phantatstic writers alive. I know, his comics are debatable, but his books are just genius. I recommend "Rumo", for it is the most "Fantasy-like" book of him. But "The City of dreaming books" ("Die Stadt der träumenden Bücher") is equaly brilliant.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Istvan diVega

Nah, they're too old to be any good. The Colour of Magic was released in 1983....

Terry Pratchett is still writing Discworld books, and has 39 books (with another one coming out this year.)

And to be honest, Pratchett has evolved his writing skills -- The color of Magic is not his best (although still good.)

P.S. I agree that this whole "People long ago (from at least ten years ago) didn't know how to write" thing is a little ridiculous.

If nothing else, even you @Owna must agree that there can and will be exceptions, as with everything.

[Lemurion]

I would definitely go for the foundations:

Lieber's Fafhrd and Mouser books are brilliant, and you can just dip in and out of them as they are primarily collections rather than novels.

Robert E. Howard is someone you may want to stay away from. He did some very strong stuff, but I don't think it fits the tone you're looking for.

Eddings might fit, the Belgariad is a very well-done coming of age story.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Owna

This is kind of hard to explain but ppl didn't have the same standards as ppl do now you know we know more stuff now and newer kind of thinking creativ and shit diffrent possibilities...

Originally Posted by Owna

Well its actually just logic im not saying the books are bad or anything like that dont get me wrong there they are just more evolved into more fantasy? i dont know if that described it better.[...]

These seem like very strange things to read on a thread about fantasy. Maybe you should check out some ancient mythology, or even just take another look at the fairy tales you must have heard as you grew up. Fantasy has been around forever, it's just been called different things.

Writing styles have changed over the generations, and readers grow to have different expectations as to how a story will be told. As a result it can be easier to appreciate a story that is told in a way that has become familiar to you. This doesn't just apply to fantasy, much the same is true for all art forms.

It's tempting to argue that readers have become more credulous, that we are more willing now to accept wild jumps of the imagination, but it's harder to accept such an argument when you look back over some of the stories of the past. What has changed, perhaps, is that we now more readily recognise these things as fantastical, but still we read and enjoy them.

[Istvan diVega]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I find that comment as myopic and useless as the next one.

Poor impulse control is what it was.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

Diane Duane - Young Wizards

I strongly recommend Diane Duane's Young Wizards series. It sounds like you'd prefer her "New Millennium" editions of the series, which have all been updated to have a consistent time-line, the time-line starting about ten years ago.

And they're currently on special offer.

You can get the first eight in the series for $35.24 using the 25% off coupon WARPLUS when you buy both the bundle of 7 and the latest volume.

[Freeshadow]

I'd add trudi canavans books placed in kyralia to the list.
LeGuin's Earthsea too.

Regarding your "older stuff's no good" opinion (which I won't discuss here - too much a topic derail) I disrecommend reading Discworld books.
This not because I classify them as "older"; by ignoring the classics of the genre as you do, you simply lack (or at least have huge gaps in) the common frame of reference. You'd miss so much gags, references and allusions that you might end up asking yourself why people think those books are funny at all.

[HarryT]

I find it inconceivable that anyone could claim to be a fantasy fan and not have read "The Lord of the Rings" - the book which essentially created the fantasy genre. "I've seen the movies" is not a good reason .

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I find it inconceivable that anyone could claim to be a fantasy fan and not have read "The Lord of the Rings" - the book which essentially created the fantasy genre. "I've seen the movies" is not a good reason .

And "essentially created the the fantasy genre" is a bit of a stretch, Harry The success of LotR certainly had a big impact on its modern popularity, but he didn't create it. Tolkien acknowledges influences from William Morris and George MacDonald - both are authors of fiction recognised as fantasy now, even if it may have been called something different at the time (eg: Prose romances). And you can keep going back and back, finding more that - today - would be called fantasy (if they could find a publisher).

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

Regarding your "older stuff's no good" opinion (which I won't discuss here - too much a topic derail) I disrecommend reading Discworld books.
This not because I classify them as "older"; by ignoring the classics of the genre as you do, you simply lack (or at least have huge gaps in) the common frame of reference. You'd miss so much gags, references and allusions that you might end up asking yourself why people think those books are funny at all.

That is true for the older Pratchet books and especialy for the Rincewind books. But Pratchet moved even in his older books away from beeing overly parodistic. So the Rincewind books would be no good recommendation, but something like "Going Postal" or "Klonk" is okay. And to fully understand the excellent witches books, you have to know fairy tales and Shakespeare not Howard or Leiber

I think nearly nobody gets all the references and jokes, how many depends on your knowledge of the referenced material, with is not just fantasy but science, classical literatur, philosophy, history and many more. So even if you lack in one area, there is plenty to be amused anyway. The special cases being books that focus on some source material, like Rincewind on classic Swords&Sorcery and slapstic-movies, the witches as above etc. But many of the references are so common in our culture that you would get even some of them without having read the original (anybody knows King Kong or Tarzan or Dracula, even without having read it or seen a movie)