50 Essentiall Epic Fantasies

[treadlightly]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Good Luck.. That would be one huge poll. And you'd still get complaints.

[Geralt]

Here's one more list. Old with new, Zelazny, Vance, Tolkien, Jordan plus Rothfuss, Erikson,Abercrombie and many more. I think its pretty well rounded.
http://bestfantasybooks.com/best-epic-fantasy.html

[WillAdams]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's quite possible none of them have read Vance. Rule three seemed to exclude a lot of works people "expected" to see according to the various blog comments.

Actually it's impossible, one of them explicitly noted choosing a work over Lyonesse, which pretty much blew my impression of that list then and there.

It'd be one thing if it were a list of ``50 Fantasy books people should read, w/ cross-reference to classics'', but Lyonesse is a trilogy where the middle book was awarded World Fantasy Award for Best Novel in 1990, and it's really a travesty that the first book in the trilogy didn't win any awards (anyone know what else was up that year?).

[WillAdams]

Also, I realized another series of books which should be represented --- Ace Books / Terri Windling's ``Fairy Tale'' series.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

Actually it's impossible, one of them explicitly noted choosing a work over Lyonesse, which pretty much blew my impression of that list then and there.

Translation: Their tastes don't match mine, so these lists suck.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

Also, I realized another series of books which should be represented --- Ace Books / Terri Windling's ``Fairy Tale'' series.

You don't quite seem to get how this works, do you? They didn't "miss" anything. There is no "should be represented." There is only, "this is his list," "this is her list, "and this is my list." You're quite free to add your list, if you like, but it won't be any more "correct" than any of the other lists. And yours will also be "missing" important works that someone else won't be able to believe you left out ... I guarantee it.

[WillAdams]

``Essential'' has a connotation of books which should be on _everyone's_ list --- they'd've had room for far better books if their lists hadn't been shoveled full of EFP.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

``Essential'' has a connotation of books which should be on _everyone's_ list --- they'd've had room for far better books if their lists hadn't been shoveled full of EFP.

Sigh.. Have you even read the original post? Because, you know, there were rules of what could be added to each bloggers list. The list had to contain books that they had *actually* read.

Now I'm sure you can put together a list and post it here and we all be glad to tell you what a crappy list it is because you didn't include <favorite book>.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

``Essential'' has a connotation of books which should be on _everyone's_ list

But _everyone_ didn't make a list. Also, using your interpretation of "essential," how is possible that there would then be any variation between ANY "Essential" lists? I mean; if "essential" implies "on everyone's list," doesn't that mean there could only ever really be one true "essential" list? Or millions of copies of the exact same definitive list?

You're taking it too personally. They didn't say that the books you think are essential, that didn't make their lists, suck.

(And what the heck's EFP??)

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

(And what the heck's EFP??)

Good question. First hit on google is Exposively Formed Penetrator which works great for me.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

First hit on google is Exposively Formed Penetrator which works great for me.

That's the first thing I saw, too! Saw no need to delve any deeper.

[DrNefario]

I wouldn't put either of the Vance works on my list either (with the caveat that I've only read the first volume of Lyonesse so far). Not because I don't like them - I do - but because they don't feel right. They are more picaresque than epic.

EFP is Extruded Fantasy Product - it was mentioned earlier in the thread. I'm not sure how it's defined, and how it's distinguished from non-EFP. It seems to be a question-begging matter of the speaker's taste. I would argue that it's the Tolkien-derivative potential EFP candidates that should be making up these lists. That's pretty much what epic fantasy means, to me, and it's what I'd be looking for if I was seeking epic fantasy recommendations.

[DiapDealer]

I guess I just don't really care much about "fantasy" subgenre labels any more. Epic, High, Low, Urban, Paranormal, New Weird, Steampunk, Grimdark, Historical, Magical Realism ... it's all rock 'n' roll to me. I'll read any of it (right up until it comes down with Sprawling Franchiseitis--then I'm out).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

With some duct tape, you can make the Silmarillion, the Hobbit and LotR into one really big epic volume.

But nothing can ever make The Silmarillion actually good. I read it and it was hard going. It was just one of the most dull and boring books I've ever read.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

LeGuin's Earthsea Trilogy

There's another thread about bad fantasy and Le Guin was mentioned as being drek. Granted, I did it because she is.