Fantasy books

[aecardenas]

Originally Posted by maxiart

You may also want to check the Malazan Book of the Falllen. Its a series of ten novels that very much fit what you just mentioned you like. The series is fantastically awesome.

I second that recommendation. It is one of the few fantasy series that is truly EPIC in scope.

[Santos]

Fantasy will always be my number 1 fav, even though I love everything.

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by alucarda

http://bestfantasybooks.com/

Welcome to MobileRead!

I discovered that site a year or two ago and found many great reads through their recommendations.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by aecardenas

I second that recommendation. It is one of the few fantasy series that is truly EPIC in scope.

I think my problem was that it was too epic. it kind of lost its impact because it was so unrelenting. There wasn't enough quiet to make the loud bits seem loud.

I should say I did give up after Gardens of the Moon. I don't tend to stick with things if they're not happening for me.

[Geralt]

Malazan. Noted.

But does anybody have anything else in mind? Something shorter as well?

I much more fond of Eastern European writing, (Russian for example) then anglophone origin. I find it much more suitable to my mentality. (No wonder, since I'm of the same origin xD)

[VaporPunk]

The site mentioned in the OP is quite good, I bookmarked it a while ago. It is especially useful for somebody new to the genre, which nobody seems to be on MR. Y'all read too much, can't keep up!

[Belfaborac]

Another vote for Malazan Book of the Fallen. Best series for a long, long time; possibly ever. I can see the point about it being "too epic" for some, but it's one that everyone who likes gritty fantasy should at least try.

I've never read any Eastern European fantasy I think. Can't say that I know of any such either, although I know it exists.

[HarryT]

Thanks - I'm always interested to discover new fantasy authors, and I hadn't come across Steven Erikson before. I've bought the first book in the series to see what it's like.

[DiapDealer]

I'm of a mind that the word "Epic" has a tendency be misused slightly in the fantasy genre. It seems it's come to simply mean huge word- book-counts, anymore. I like to think there are some stylistic requirements to be met as well. I've read some stand-alone books that felt just as "epic" in scope to me as several of the more massive tome-filled series. Sure... that's probably pretty rare, but still... I just think there should be a distinction between "Epic Fantasy" and "Really Long Fantasy Series Full of Giant Books." *shrugs*

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm of a mind that the word "Epic" has a tendency be misused slightly in the fantasy genre. It seems it's come to simply mean huge word- book-counts, anymore. I like to think there are some stylistic requirements to be met as well. I've read some stand-alone books that felt just as "epic" in scope to me as several of the more massive tome-filled series. Sure... that's probably pretty rare, but still... I just think there should be a distinction between "Epic Fantasy" and "Really Long Fantasy Series Full of Giant Books." *shrugs*

An epic implies a "quest" as the central theme of the story, to my mind. LOTR is an epic - the quest to destroy the Ring.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

An epic implies a "quest" as the central theme of the story, to my mind. LOTR is an epic - the quest to destroy the Ring.

I tend to agree. But it seems that many people use "Epic" to describe any fantasy that has tons of characters, words, books, and sub-plots.

In addition to a central quest, I've always felt a (at least somewhat) central hero is a prerequisite for "Epic Fantasy," too.

It's probably just a personal, semantic thing, though. I certainly don't mean to imply that anyone is "wrong" in how they apply various labels. I'm just always amazed at how much definitions can vary—though I certainly shouldn't be by now.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm of a mind that the word "Epic" has a tendency be misused slightly in the fantasy genre. It seems it's come to simply mean huge word- book-counts, anymore. I like to think there are some stylistic requirements to be met as well. I've read some stand-alone books that felt just as "epic" in scope to me as several of the more massive tome-filled series. Sure... that's probably pretty rare, but still... I just think there should be a distinction between "Epic Fantasy" and "Really Long Fantasy Series Full of Giant Books." *shrugs*

I agree completely, but Malazan Book of the Fallen really is epic. In both the proper meaning of the word, as well as in length. It stretches across an entire world (what's known of it anyway, which is a lot) and across vast gulfs of time. Plots and plans millennia in the making are gradually revealed and come to fruition, as vast armies march, engulfing entire continents and whole races in war.

I really can't think of a series or book which better embodies the term "epic".

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

In addition to a central quest, I've always felt a (at least somewhat) central hero is a prerequisite for "Epic Fantasy," too.

This I can't really relate to though.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Belforac

I agree completely, but Malazan Book of the Fallen really is epic. In both the proper meaning of the word, as well as in length.

Oh, I didn't mean to seem like I was questioning Malazan's proper epic-ness.
Really, it was the phrase "too epic" that caught my attention this time. Does that imply too quest-y, too hero-y, or too big?

Originally Posted by alucarda

But does anybody have anything else in mind? Something shorter as well?

I much more fond of Eastern European writing, (Russian for example) then anglophone origin. I find it much more suitable to my mentality. (No wonder, since I'm of the same origin xD)

Have you tried any of the "Labyrinth of Echo" books by Max Frei (Svetlana Martynchik)?

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Oh, I didn't mean to seem like I was questioning Malazan's proper epic-ness.
Really, it was the phrase "too epic" that caught my attention this time. Does that imply too quest-y, too hero-y, or too big?

"Too epic" sounded a bit peculiar perhaps.... However, I can certainly see how someone might prefer stories which are limited in scope, more "intimate" if you will, over stories which range far and wide, involving multiple nations, continents and millennia. So it's not all that far-fetched I think.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

"Too epic" sounded a bit peculiar perhaps.... However, I can certainly see how someone might prefer stories which are limited in scope, more "intimate" if you will, over stories which range far and wide, involving multiple nations, continents and millennia. So it's not all that far-fetched I think.

Fair enough. Like I said, I just prefer that a story's scale/scope and a story's length/size be considered separate aspects (and to tell the truth, I prefer that they not strive to be in direct proportion to each other).