Greatest fantasy writer of our times
Scott Dubin
I'm a huge Neil Gaiman fan, so I'm tempted to answer Neil Gaiman based
on The Sandman, the two Death comics and Stardust. (If you haven't
read these you just haven't read Gaiman, I don't think Coraline or
American Gods were on the same level)However, the truth is I haven't
read a large selection of the fantasy stuff out there.
If the crown doesn't go to Gaiman, who should it go to? Needless to
say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
on multiple levels.
Luna
scott...@yahoo.com (Scott Dubin) wrote:
He is good, isn't he? I think the entire Sandman series, taken as a whole,
is one of the best works of literature of the 20th century, of any genre.
However, for consistently good writing, that works on many levels, my vote
would go to Terry Pratchett. There are some who would argue that he is not
a fantasy writer, that he is a satirist who merely makes fun of the fantasy
genre (and other things as well) but I disagree. His stories are set in a
fantasy universe, just one that has had a good dose of common sense and
logic applied to it.
--
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded.
Michael Alan Chary
Terry Pratchett. He writes well. He's original, imaginative and he doesn't
make me wait for the next fix. Also, he might be the funniest writer since
Menckhen.
>If the crown doesn't go to Gaiman, who should it go to? Needless to
>say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
>on multiple levels.
Roger Zelazny would be a strong candidate if not for the living proviso.
--
"There's only one god / He is the sun god / Ra! - Ra! - Ra!"
--ancient Egyptian religious chant, attrib. to Robert Anton Wilson
The Dell dude was arrested for pot. He should have known better.
Pot's a Gateway drug.
Beowulf Bolt
>
> Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
Guy Kay.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Money
Ray Bradbury
Peter Beagle
Ursula K. Le Guin
Jonathan Carroll
Tim Powers
Just to name a few possibles.
Randy M.
David Bilek
>In article <887734a2.0302...@posting.google.com>,
>Scott Dubin <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
>
>Terry Pratchett. He writes well. He's original, imaginative and he doesn't
>make me wait for the next fix. Also, he might be the funniest writer since
>Menckhen.
>
Bleh. I vote Pratchett as "most overrated writer of our time".
Greatest living fantasist? Depending on the type of fantasy, I'd go
with Beagle, Kay, or Powers.
-David
David Dyer-Bennet
I thought this was settled over the last few years. It's Tolkien of
course. Or else you need to be much more specific about the time
period you're talking about, and may possibly then need to defend why
it's a meaningful period.
I hear Neil's comics are good, but I can't read comics somehow, so I
wouldn't know. Anyway it's another medium, as different as film or
whatever, so it shouldn't be put in the same category. I do think
he's written some really marvelous short stories, and _Good Omens_ is
one of my very favorite fantasies.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
David Dyer-Bennet
None of those would be in the running at all for me. The Bradbury
I've liked was SF, I gave up on LeGuin 25 years ago, and I don't like
the others *at all*.
I'm not primarily a fantasy fan, and I have a particular distaste for
horror and "dark" fantasy (i.e. light horror repackaged as fantasy).
Also the criteria are uncertain. "Of our times" doesn't mean much.
Somebody said Zelazny was out through being dead, but I don't see that
as a given. Do "our times" extend back to 1920, or 1950, or 1980, or
what?
David Bilek
>scott...@yahoo.com (Scott Dubin) writes:
>
>> Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
>>
>> I'm a huge Neil Gaiman fan, so I'm tempted to answer Neil Gaiman based
>> on The Sandman, the two Death comics and Stardust. (If you haven't
>> read these you just haven't read Gaiman, I don't think Coraline or
>> American Gods were on the same level)However, the truth is I haven't
>> read a large selection of the fantasy stuff out there.
>>
>> If the crown doesn't go to Gaiman, who should it go to? Needless to
>> say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
>> on multiple levels.
>
>I thought this was settled over the last few years. It's Tolkien of
>course. Or else you need to be much more specific about the time
>period you're talking about, and may possibly then need to defend why
>it's a meaningful period.
>
Um, he said "living". Tolkien is currently worm farming.
-David
Liz Broadwell
>Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
<snip>
>Needless to
>say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
>on multiple levels.
I'd vote for Diana Wynne Jones or Patricia McKillip.
Peace,
Liz
--
Elizabeth Broadwell (ebroadwe at dept dot english dot upenn dot edu)
at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
"TIP: Ladies, don't try to throw your spear underarm; it looks rubbish."
-- _The Sunday Format_
Randy Money
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Randy Money <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> writes:
>
>
>>Scott Dubin wrote:
>>
>>>Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times? I'm a huge Neil
>>>Gaiman fan, so I'm tempted to answer Neil Gaiman based
>>>on The Sandman, the two Death comics and Stardust. (If you haven't
>>>read these you just haven't read Gaiman, I don't think Coraline or
>>>American Gods were on the same level)However, the truth is I haven't
>>>read a large selection of the fantasy stuff out there.
>>>If the crown doesn't go to Gaiman, who should it go to? Needless to
>>>say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
>>>on multiple levels.
>>
>>Ray Bradbury
>>Peter Beagle
>>Ursula K. Le Guin
>>Jonathan Carroll
>>Tim Powers
>>
>>Just to name a few possibles.
>
>
> None of those would be in the running at all for me.
Wasn't trying to be definitive, just offering some names to compete with
Gaiman.
> The Bradbury I've liked was SF,
He writes SF? ;)
I think his strongest work has been fantasy with the edge of horror --
_The October Country_; _Something Wicked this Way Comes_ (much as I
don't like the ending) -- or marginally SF, like _The Martian
Chronicles_, which has a fantasy flavor for me.
> I gave up on LeGuin 25 years ago, and I don't like
> the others *at all*.
The Earthsea trilogy alone puts LeGuin in the running. Most of the
stories I like best in _The Wind's Twelve Quarters_ were fantasy rather
than sf.
I haven't read enough of Powers to make a call -- again, just offering
names. And I haven't read anything by Beagle that I dislike. He's one
author I keep thinking I should read in bulk sometime soon. I've made
stabs at that with Carroll, and enjoyed most of it so far.
> I'm not primarily a fantasy fan, and I have a particular distaste for
> horror and "dark" fantasy (i.e. light horror repackaged as fantasy).
There's a pretty fine line between fantasy and supernatural horror:
Carroll crosses it regularly and Bradbury does, too, notably in the
Family stories. Certainly LOTR has moments of horror, and much of Robert
E. Howard's, C.L. Moore's and Fritz Leiber's fantasy dips into the
horror trough.
> Also the criteria are uncertain. "Of our times" doesn't mean much.
> Somebody said Zelazny was out through being dead, but I don't see that
> as a given. Do "our times" extend back to 1920, or 1950, or 1980, or
> what?
Hey, at least I didn't say Stephen Donaldson. That would have provoked a
thread that lasted three months and shouldn't be read without a fire
extinguisher near.
Randy M.
Ron Henry
> Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
I'm not much of a fantasy reader, but I'd have to say Gene Wolfe or Tim
Powers.
Ron Henry
Michael Lo
Gene Wolfe continues to put out material that's consistently great though
nothing quite so epic as his Books of the New Sun.
Tanith Lee could have been the contender except that she's no longer
got the same magic that she exhibited in the Flat Earth series and her
re-worked fairy tales.
Is Jack Vance still alive, I think he's dead but I'm not too sure?
CleV
wrote:
>Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
John Crowley
Barry Hughart
Tanith Lee
Mike Schilling
"Michael Lo" <Iwillnev...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:884b7c04.03021...@posting.google.com...
>
> Gene Wolfe continues to put out material that's consistently great though
> nothing quite so epic as his Books of the New Sun.
>
> Tanith Lee could have been the contender except that she's no longer
> got the same magic that she exhibited in the Flat Earth series and her
> re-worked fairy tales.
>
> Is Jack Vance still alive, I think he's dead but I'm not too sure?
Still with us, and rumored to be working on the sequel to _Ports of Call_.
Russell Borogove
> Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
>
> I'm a huge Neil Gaiman fan, so I'm tempted to answer Neil Gaiman based
> on The Sandman, the two Death comics and Stardust. (If you haven't
> read these you just haven't read Gaiman, I don't think Coraline or
> American Gods were on the same level)
As much as I love Gaiman, I think his particular skills are
in making fantasy accessible to those who don't normally go
for fantasy, and in postmodernizing mythology. He's among
the greatest at doing those things, but I am not sure that
qualifies him for "greatest of our times."
Agreed that _American Gods_ isn't as good as his best stuff.
I think his short stories, in particular "Chivalry" and "Murder
Mysteries" to name two, show what he's capable of, but _AG_
didn't sustain the quality over the length of a novel. I
do need to give it a re-read, though. _Coraline_ is a big fish
in a small pond, not that ambitious but perfectly executed.
-Borogove
Konrad Gaertner
>
> mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
> >In article <887734a2.0302...@posting.google.com>,
> >Scott Dubin <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
> >
> >Terry Pratchett. He writes well. He's original, imaginative and he doesn't
> >make me wait for the next fix. Also, he might be the funniest writer since
> >Menckhen.
>
> Bleh. I vote Pratchett as "most overrated writer of our time".
Surely that would be Rowling?
--KG
David Dyer-Bennet
Ah, he tucked "living" down in the second paragraph, where I missed
it. I think it's a silly criterion to include anyway.
David Dyer-Bennet
I think his fantasy is badly polluted by horror, yes. Even his SF is
-- The Martian Chronicles, for example.
> > I gave up on LeGuin 25 years ago, and I don't like
> > the others *at all*.
>
> The Earthsea trilogy alone puts LeGuin in the running. Most of the
> stories I like best in _The Wind's Twelve Quarters_ were fantasy
> rather than sf.
Yes, that's the good LeGuin.
> I haven't read enough of Powers to make a call -- again, just offering
> names. And I haven't read anything by Beagle that I dislike. He's one
> author I keep thinking I should read in bulk sometime soon. I've made
> stabs at that with Carroll, and enjoyed most of it so far.
>
> > I'm not primarily a fantasy fan, and I have a particular distaste for
> > horror and "dark" fantasy (i.e. light horror repackaged as fantasy).
>
> There's a pretty fine line between fantasy and supernatural horror:
> Carroll crosses it regularly and Bradbury does, too, notably in the
> Family stories. Certainly LOTR has moments of horror, and much of
> Robert E. Howard's, C.L. Moore's and Fritz Leiber's fantasy dips into
> the horror trough.
I agree with all of that but LOTR. There are certainly some bad
things happening, even pretty close to monsters jumping out at you by
surprise, but it isn't *handled* as horror material.
> > Also the criteria are uncertain. "Of our times" doesn't mean much.
> > Somebody said Zelazny was out through being dead, but I don't see that
> > as a given. Do "our times" extend back to 1920, or 1950, or 1980, or
> > what?
>
> Hey, at least I didn't say Stephen Donaldson. That would have provoked
> a thread that lasted three months and shouldn't be read without a fire
> extinguisher near.
*avert*
Konrad Gaertner
>
> In article <887734a2.0302...@posting.google.com>,
> scott...@yahoo.com (Scott Dubin) wrote:
>
> > Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
> >
> > say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
> > on multiple levels.
Let's also restrict it to writers who have published fantasy in the
last 3 years and/or are currently working on a fantasy story.
> He is good, isn't he? I think the entire Sandman series, taken as a whole,
> is one of the best works of literature of the 20th century, of any genre.
I agree, but I'm leary about opening the field to comics and graphic
novels.
> However, for consistently good writing, that works on many levels, my vote
> would go to Terry Pratchett.
I agree with this too.
I'll add Steven Brust as another who can balance subtlety and
entertainment.
--KG
Default User
> > Is Jack Vance still alive, I think he's dead but I'm not too sure?
>
> Still with us, and rumored to be working on the sequel to _Ports of Call_.
Lurulu. According to this website, the book is almost done:
http://www.massmedia.com/~mikeb/jvm/
Brian Rodenborn
Joel Baxter
I'm a fairly big fantasy reader, and I'd have to nominate Wolfe too. :-)
It's impossible of course (and not really productive or meaningful) to
objectively nail down who the best fantasy writer is, but it's fun to
talk about the really good ones, so...
Powers has done some very intriguing, original, powerful (no pun
intended) work, but I don't think he's produced enough stuff at the top
of his form to be The Greatest yet. In many of his books it also seems
like he's fighting with his material to some extent -- understandable,
given the outrageous constructions he attempts, but his books would be
even cooler than they are if he could hide the seams better.
I've also seen some convincing support for John Crowley as The Greatest,
but (even setting aside the fact that I continue to bounce off of
_Little, Big_) he writes too slowly. :-)
Wolfe, on the other hand... The Book of the New Sun series, Long Sun,
Short Sun, the Latro novels, Peace, his flood of novellas and short
stories... wow. A rather amazing display of quality and quantity, at
various lengths. It's true that as his works get shorter they display a
greater tendency to run off the rails, but even then he still produces
situations that stick in your head and hang there daring you to believe
that any other writer could have produced them (Powers-like, in that).
Perhaps some would argue that his best and most well-known novels are
science fiction rather than fantasy. But personally I think that's a
fairly spurious distinction, especially for works so "fantastic" in tone
as the various Sun series.
Gaiman is pleasant enough at times but I can't see placing him in the
same sphere. Horses for courses though.
Just for fun I Googled on this topic. I was going to insert a list here
of the names of living authors that resulted -- I was getting some
pretty amusing results -- but as it turns out, just about every fantasy
author has been nominated by someone out there as the greatest (or
perhaps merely "one of the greatest"). So, never mind. :-)
David Bilek
No, because I don't see many people arguing that Rowling is a "great
writer". Popular, sure. Enjoyable, yes. But not writing great
litra'chure.
Pratchett writes vaguely entertaining fluff. Yes, I've read his stuff
(Small Gods, etc). It's fun, which is all I really was hoping for.
-David
John Schilling
David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> writes:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >scott...@yahoo.com (Scott Dubin) writes:
> >
> >> Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
[...]
> >> If the crown doesn't go to Gaiman, who should it go to? Needless to
> >> say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
> >> on multiple levels.
> >I thought this was settled over the last few years. It's Tolkien of
> >course. Or else you need to be much more specific about the time
> >period you're talking about, and may possibly then need to defend why
> >it's a meaningful period.
> Um, he said "living". Tolkien is currently worm farming.
Possibly he means that the worms eating Tolkien's corpse are, by
association, better fantasy writers than any of the current crop.
I think that's a bit extreme, but the case can be made :-)
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >David Bilek wrote:
> >>
> >> mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
> >> >In article <887734a2.0302...@posting.google.com>,
> >> >Scott Dubin <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
> >> >
> >> >Terry Pratchett. He writes well. He's original, imaginative and he doesn't
> >> >make me wait for the next fix. Also, he might be the funniest writer since
> >> >Menckhen.
> >>
> >> Bleh. I vote Pratchett as "most overrated writer of our time".
> >
> >Surely that would be Rowling?
>
> No, because I don't see many people arguing that Rowling is a "great
> writer".
I do. Weren't there a bunch of people who were upset when she
didn't win the Nobel Prize?
--KG
Michael Alan Chary
>
>> > Also the criteria are uncertain. "Of our times" doesn't mean much.
>> > Somebody said Zelazny was out through being dead, but I don't see that
>> > as a given. Do "our times" extend back to 1920, or 1950, or 1980, or
>> > what?
Don't blame me. The guy who started the thread disqualified dead guys.
Scott Dubin
> I hear Neil's comics are good, but I can't read comics somehow, so I
> wouldn't know. Anyway it's another medium, as different as film or
> whatever, so it shouldn't be put in the same category. I do think
> he's written some really marvelous short stories, and _Good Omens_ is
> one of my very favorite fantasies.
Hey, if you can even find a decent film writer who does fantasy, my
inclination would be, feel free to nominate them! Non-adaptation
Hollywood fantasy films tend to be about monsters running around
killing people.
The only really good fantasy screenwriter I'm aware of is Hayao
Miyazaki.
Htn963
>Luna wrote:
>>
>> In article <887734a2.0302...@posting.google.com>,
>> scott...@yahoo.com (Scott Dubin) wrote:
>>
>> > Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
>> >
>> > If the crown doesn't go to Gaiman, who should it go to? Needless to
>> > say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
>> > on multiple levels.
>
>Let's also restrict it to writers who have published fantasy in the
>last 3 years and/or are currently working on a fantasy story.
>
>> He is good, isn't he? I think the entire Sandman series, taken as a whole,
>> is one of the best works of literature of the 20th century, of any genre.
Eh, I found the Sandman series fairly entertaining but wouldn't class it
anywhere near great literature. There were some fresh, nice touches like the
Library of Could-Have-Been books; but -- forgive me for being
uncharacteristically unromantic here -- I find nothing profound or moving
about the main story, which is basically about a fashionably gloomy and spoiled
goth freak godboy who does nasty things like sending his girlfriend to hell,
leaving his son a decapitated head on an island, and then atones for all his
guilt by elaborately arranging his own suicide. And the uneven and atrocious
artwork, especially in _The Kindly Ones_ volume, was enough to bring it down
another notch...well, one volume, the penultimate one, iirc, had some nice art.
Alan Moore's _Watchmen_ would get higher consideration from me for being
great literture, for crystallizing, satirizing, and redefining the concept of
the superhero at the same time. <Caveat> I haven't read that many graphics
novel, so here's the salt shaker.
>I agree, but I'm leary about opening the field to comics and graphic
>novels.
Why? Because the influx of great candidates therein would inundate the
current field of written sf?
>> However, for consistently good writing, that works on many levels, my vote
>> would go to Terry Pratchett.
>
>I agree with this too.
Eh, I disagree again. Pratchett to me is more of a satirist incidentally
using fantasy tropes than a fantasy writer. To consider him for this honor
would be like considering Mad Magazine for the Pulitzer in journalism.
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Htn963
>Eh, I found the Sandman series fairly entertaining but wouldn't class it
>anywhere near great literature.
Oops, probably should have put a <spoiler warning> before the subsequent
lines. Sorry.
Luna
David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
That's so odd. I was going into Pratchett actually expecting lighthearted
fluff. All I'd heard about him was "funny" and "fantasy." Then the books
turned out to be so much deeper than I'd imagined. So, for me, I went into
it with virtually no hype, and I didn't even know he had such a big
following until I'd read about 10 of the books.
--
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded.
D. Gascoyne
"Beowulf Bolt" <beowul...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3E4A8F...@shaw.ca...
> Scott Dubin wrote:
> >
> > Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
>
>
Yes!!!
Debbie
D. Gascoyne
"Scott Dubin" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:887734a2.0302...@posting.google.com...
> Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
>
> on The Sandman, the two Death comics and Stardust. (If you haven't
> read these you just haven't read Gaiman, I don't think Coraline or
> American Gods were on the same level)However, the truth is I haven't
> read a large selection of the fantasy stuff out there.
>
> say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
> on multiple levels.
Guy Gavriel Kay. No contest.
Debbie
Maureen O'Brien
She's just heartbreakingly good at what she does. Her style is
simple, but has power. Her magic can be subtle or obvious, but is
always convincing. Where other writers succumb to the brain eater and
write the same book over and over, she can write radically different
books starting from the same story (Beauty and Rose Daughter). Her
only fault is that she's not more prolific, and Peter Dickinson's
collaborative work with her seems to be making up for that!
Maureen
kaylar
Charles de Lint , Tanith Lee, Robert Holdstock, Jack Vance ....
J.B. Moreno
> Possibly he means that the worms eating Tolkien's corpse are, by
> association, better fantasy writers than any of the current crop.
>
> I think that's a bit extreme, but the case can be made :-)
I wouldn't call it (or her) the greatest book ever, but I really liked
_Curse of Challion_ by LMB.
--
JBM
"Your depression will be added to my own" -- Marvin of Borg
Richard Horton
wrote:
>Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
>
>I'm a huge Neil Gaiman fan, so I'm tempted to answer Neil Gaiman based
>on The Sandman, the two Death comics and Stardust. (If you haven't
>read these you just haven't read Gaiman, I don't think Coraline or
>American Gods were on the same level)However, the truth is I haven't
>read a large selection of the fantasy stuff out there.
>
>If the crown doesn't go to Gaiman, who should it go to? Needless to
>say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
>on multiple levels.
Gene Wolfe.
(Other candidates: Le Guin. Powers.)
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
how...@brazee.net
On 12-Feb-2003, scott...@yahoo.com (Scott Dubin) wrote:
> I'm a huge Neil Gaiman fan, so I'm tempted to answer Neil Gaiman based
> on The Sandman, the two Death comics and Stardust. (If you haven't
> read these you just haven't read Gaiman, I don't think Coraline or
> American Gods were on the same level)However, the truth is I haven't
> read a large selection of the fantasy stuff out there.
Only Stardust is close to the level of Neverwhere, IMHO.
David Friedman
pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote:
> John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> > Possibly he means that the worms eating Tolkien's corpse are, by
> > association, better fantasy writers than any of the current crop.
> >
> > I think that's a bit extreme, but the case can be made :-)
>
> I wouldn't call it (or her) the greatest book ever, but I really liked
> _Curse of Challion_ by LMB.
It was very good. C.J.Cherryh has written some very good fantasy. I
can't think of any living fantasy writer who I think is unambiguously
better than either of them.
Joe Mason
> Hey, if you can even find a decent film writer who does fantasy, my
> inclination would be, feel free to nominate them! Non-adaptation
> Hollywood fantasy films tend to be about monsters running around
> killing people.
>
> The only really good fantasy screenwriter I'm aware of is Hayao
> Miyazaki.
Does Terry Gilliam write his own scripts?
Joe
Joe Mason
> John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>> Possibly he means that the worms eating Tolkien's corpse are, by
>> association, better fantasy writers than any of the current crop.
>>
>> I think that's a bit extreme, but the case can be made :-)
>
> I wouldn't call it (or her) the greatest book ever, but I really liked
> _Curse of Challion_ by LMB.
I actually didn't like it much.
It had some great scenes, and I liked the "magic system" and the main
character, but many of the other characters were faceless and the
writing style felt too contemporary. Bujold's style is great for the
Miles books, and would be great for swashbucklers, but for this book the
characters dropped into modern-sounding dialogue far too often. Also,
the world felt false, mainly because all the names sounded artificial.
Joe
Matt Austern
> I do. Weren't there a bunch of people who were upset when she
> didn't win the Nobel Prize?
No. You're thinking of the Booker prize, but even there it's a little
more complicated. One of the Booker judges threw a mini-tantrum
because Rowling might have been seriously considered for the prize,
and a bunch of people were upset by his seeming lack of respect for
fantasy as a whole.
Me, I'd say that biggest injustices of the Nobel literature prize
are that they failed to give the prize to Borges, Twain, Tolstoy, or
Joyce. Some of the people who got that prize are good writers, but
those omissions are glaring.
Mike Schilling
news:dilisvo...@mattlinux.localdomain...
.
>
> Me, I'd say that biggest injustices of the Nobel literature prize
> are that they failed to give the prize to Borges, Twain, Tolstoy, or
> Joyce. Some of the people who got that prize are good writers, but
> those omissions are glaring.
What? You thnk any of them are more deserving than Pearl Buck? :-)
Helgi Briem
Dubin) wrote:
>Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
Terry Pratchett.
Tim Powers.
China Mieville.
George RR Martin.
--
Regards, Helgi Briem
helgi AT decode DOT is
Randy Money
[...]
>>I think his strongest work has been fantasy with the edge of horror --
>>_The October Country_; _Something Wicked this Way Comes_ (much as I
>>don't like the ending) -- or marginally SF, like _The Martian
>>Chronicles_, which has a fantasy flavor for me.
>
>
> I think his fantasy is badly polluted by horror, yes. Even his SF is
> -- The Martian Chronicles, for example.
>
Ah, there's the core of it: "badly polluted by," I would instead phrase
as "delicately flavored with." In his best work, for me, under the
Bradburian sunshine is a Gothic sensibility that reminds us not all is
sunshine; mortality lurks nearby. And that's probably a philosophical
difference you and I can't resolve.
Randy M.
David Tate
> Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
> say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
> on multiple levels.
Living nominees:
Ursula Le Guin
Jack Vance
Gene Wolfe
(I abstain on Kay, Crowley, and other authors I'm not personally
familiar enough with.)
Recently deceased nominees:
Jorge Luis Borges
J R R Tolkien
Roger Zelazny
Avram Davidson
--
David Tate
Beowulf Bolt
>
I think he's probably out of consideration for having retired from the
field some ten years ago or thereabouts. Good suggestion, though.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Ruff
> Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
I'd vote for John Crowley.
-- M. Ruff
Christopher L. Taylor
I don't know, other than _The_Blue_Sword_ and _The_Hero_and_the_Crown_,
I've never been too attracted to her work. It seems like a lot of it
is retelling of fairy tales, something that I'm not in to, generally.
-- Chris Taylor
J.B. Moreno
> J.B. Moreno wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't call it (or her) the greatest book ever, but I really liked
> > _Curse of Challion_ by LMB.
>
> I actually didn't like it much.
>
> It had some great scenes, and I liked the "magic system" and the main
> character, but many of the other characters were faceless and the
> writing style felt too contemporary. Bujold's style is great for the
> Miles books, and would be great for swashbucklers, but for this book the
> characters dropped into modern-sounding dialogue far too often. Also,
> the world felt false, mainly because all the names sounded artificial.
Hmn, I didn't notice any wooden dialog, but YMMV. As for the names -- I
did notice that, but only because someone had mentioned it here,
otherwise they sounded real enough to me. Not the normal Tom, Lucy and
Danni but realistic enough.
John Schilling
>Me, I'd say that biggest injustices of the Nobel literature prize
>are that they failed to give the prize to Borges, Twain, Tolstoy, or
>Joyce. Some of the people who got that prize are good writers, but
>those omissions are glaring.
They don't give out Grand Master Nobels, and most of Twain's great work
precedes the establishment of the prizes by a decade or more. I don't,
offhand, know of an 20th-century Twain that would be worthy, though I
could be forgetting something.
I suppose they could have pulled an Einstein and given Twain a Nobel
for whatever his best work of 19XX was, with a nod and a wink as to
what he was really being recognized for.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Michael S. Schiffer
news:b2grca$ll1$1...@spock.usc.edu:
> Matt Austern <aus...@well.com> writes:
>
>>Me, I'd say that biggest injustices of the Nobel literature
>>prize are that they failed to give the prize to Borges, Twain,
>>Tolstoy, or Joyce. Some of the people who got that prize are
>>good writers, but those omissions are glaring.
> They don't give out Grand Master Nobels, and most of Twain's
> great work precedes the establishment of the prizes by a decade
> or more. I don't, offhand, know of an 20th-century Twain that
> would be worthy, though I could be forgetting something.
I hadn't thought that the literature Nobels had any sort of time
limit in practice, though. The original terms of Nobel's will
specify "in the previous year", but they seem to be ignoring this
AFAICT. The science Nobels seem routinely to be given for work a
decade or more in the past. I don't know when that started,
though, and it may not have been established during Twain's
lifetime.
I haven't heard of any of the literature Nobel laureates from the
first decade of the century other than Kipling. Whether that
bespeaks my ignorance or their lack of staying power, I'll leave to
others to determine. (After Kipling in 1907, the first I've heard
of is Anatole France in 1921. Half of the laureates of the 20's
are reasonably familiar names, though.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Randy Money
> Matt Austern <aus...@well.com> writes:
>
>
>>Me, I'd say that biggest injustices of the Nobel literature prize
>>are that they failed to give the prize to Borges, Twain, Tolstoy, or
>>Joyce. Some of the people who got that prize are good writers, but
>>those omissions are glaring.
>
>
> They don't give out Grand Master Nobels, and most of Twain's great work
> precedes the establishment of the prizes by a decade or more. I don't,
> offhand, know of an 20th-century Twain that would be worthy, though I
> could be forgetting something.
>
> I suppose they could have pulled an Einstein and given Twain a Nobel
> for whatever his best work of 19XX was, with a nod and a wink as to
> what he was really being recognized for.
Bookers, Pulitzers and others are for individual works, but the way the
Nobels are handed out, they appear to be more for a body of work than
for a single work.
Randy M.
Doom & Gloom Dave
>
> on The Sandman, the two Death comics and Stardust. (If you haven't
> read these you just haven't read Gaiman, I don't think Coraline or
> American Gods were on the same level)However, the truth is I haven't
> read a large selection of the fantasy stuff out there.
>
> say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
> on multiple levels.
Unbelievably, all the modern greats have not yet been mentioned in this
thread. Maybe messages aren't making it here.
Terry Brooks-A triple threat master showing he is equally a master of epic
fantasy with the Shannara series, light fantasy with the Landover series and
urban fantasy with his Knight of the Word trilogy.
David Eddings-If the definitive version of the "hero's call to adventure"
story presented in the Belgariad was not enough, he delights us with a
clever meta-fantasy series by making the Mallorean a copy of the Belgariad.
Not to mention the same jest applied for the Eleniad and the Tamuli.
Piers Anthony-What can we say about Xanth, so many books but each one still
fresh and unique. High brow social criticism disguised amongst puns and
panties.
Robert Jordan-Can acres of clear-cut forests be wrong? I don't think so. An
epic sweeping story that weighs as much as I do peppered with compelling day
to day minutia such as 3 chapter baths and clothing descriptions.
Terry Goodkind-Robert Jordan but with just enough tasteful S&M to notch it
up to the next level of enjoyment, or pain if you're on the M side. Either
way something for everyone.
Sadly he might be dead and is sadly not published anymore but John
Norman-The most fantastical, unbelievable fantasies of all.
or
Me-for this message.
John Schilling
The rules say a Nobel has to be for work done in the previous year, which
presumably extends to work conducted over many years but published in the
past year. Yes, in a lot of cases it is clear that a body of work is
being honored, or a single older work that was missed the first time
around, but there has to be something recent to point to in case the
lawyers complain.
Looking at Twain's bibliography, there's nothing post-1901 that I would
be willing to point at and say, "I'm voting him a Nobel for that". But
I'm not a Twain compleatist.
erilar
Gascoyne" <chuml...@netscape.net> wrote:
Well, there's one that's pretty good.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
erilar
<dwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Not one on the list I find better than journeyman rank. Hopefully the
thread will improve as I work my way along it.
erilar
Schilling) wrote:
> Possibly he means that the worms eating Tolkien's corpse are, by
> association, better fantasy writers than any of the current crop.
>
> I think that's a bit extreme, but the case can be made :-)
>
Actually, a fairly good case...8-)
erilar
> I'll add Steven Brust as another who can balance subtlety and
> entertainment.
Brust is another I'd rate higher than most of the living nominees I've
seen suggested.
Beowulf Bolt
>
> In article <b2h1d2$ogm$1...@news1.usf.edu>, "Doom & Gloom Dave"
> <dwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Eddings, Piers Anthony, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind and lastly, John
Norman.]
>
> Not one on the list I find better than journeyman rank. Hopefully the
> thread will improve as I work my way along it.
Methinks your sarcasm detector needs recalibration...
HTH,
erilar
<rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote:
> Hey, at least I didn't say Stephen Donaldson. That would have provoked a
> thread that lasted three months and shouldn't be read without a fire
> extinguisher near.
Not really a favorite of mine, but once I start one of his books, it
won't let go of me. Better than some nominees I've seen here.
David Bilek
>In article <b2h1d2$ogm$1...@news1.usf.edu>, "Doom & Gloom Dave"
><dwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
*snip Brooks, Eddings, Jordan, Goodkind*
>
>Not one on the list I find better than journeyman rank. Hopefully the
>thread will improve as I work my way along it.
I think you missed the sarcasm. At least I hope it was sarcasm.
-David
Joel Baxter
> erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>>Not one on the list I find better than journeyman rank. Hopefully the
>>thread will improve as I work my way along it.
>
>
> I think you missed the sarcasm. At least I hope it was sarcasm.
The only way it could have been more obvious would have been if it
sported a large, bright red SARCASM stamp across the text. Especially
considering the last line. :-)
David Bilek
I must admit I didn't read the whole post. I skimmed it, saw the
words "Brooks," "Eddings," "Jordan," and "Goodkind," and said "oh,
sarcasm" to myself and stopped reading.
That's why I included the "I hope" part.
-David
Michael Alan Chary
David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>David Bilek wrote:
>>>
>>> mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
>>> >In article <887734a2.0302...@posting.google.com>,
>>> >>Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
>>> >
>>> >make me wait for the next fix. Also, he might be the funniest writer since
>>> >Menckhen.
>>>
>>> Bleh. I vote Pratchett as "most overrated writer of our time".
>>
>>Surely that would be Rowling?
>>
>
>No, because I don't see many people arguing that Rowling is a "great
>writer". Popular, sure. Enjoyable, yes. But not writing great
>litra'chure.
>
>Pratchett writes vaguely entertaining fluff. Yes, I've read his stuff
>(Small Gods, etc). It's fun, which is all I really was hoping for.
If it were fluff, it would extremely entertaining fluff, but it is not
fluff. It's layered and profoundand humorous. It's not necessarily epic,
but it comments on themodern world in a way that mostliterature of any
type can't touch. He is certainly better than Tim Powers on any
reasonable scale of judgement except individual taste. (I happen to like
Tim Powers's writing, but he's directly comparable to several other
writers. )
--
"There's only one god / He is the sun god / Ra! - Ra! - Ra!"
--ancient Egyptian religious chant, attrib. to Robert Anton Wilson
The Dell dude was arrested for pot. He should have known better.
Pot's a Gateway drug.
David Bilek
>In article <jull4voca4i46davg...@4ax.com>,
>David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>Pratchett writes vaguely entertaining fluff. Yes, I've read his stuff
>>(Small Gods, etc). It's fun, which is all I really was hoping for.
>
>If it were fluff, it would extremely entertaining fluff, but it is not
>fluff. It's layered and profoundand humorous. It's not necessarily epic,
>but it comments on themodern world in a way that mostliterature of any
>type can't touch. He is certainly better than Tim Powers on any
>reasonable scale of judgement except individual taste. (I happen to like
>Tim Powers's writing, but he's directly comparable to several other
>writers. )
See, I disagree completely.
And I dispute your claim that Tim Powers is better on any "reasonable
scale of judgment". On what basis do you make that statement?
It also seems content free, as you can write my (or any other)
disagreement off to "individual taste". So far as I can judge, Powers
is quite a bit better on almost any criteria I can come up with.
-David
Ethan Merritt
Hard to tell, when people in adjacent messages are seriously
suggesting Pratchett and Gaiman.
My $0.02:
Peter Beagle
Ursula Le Guin
then a bit of a gap, followed by
Patricia McKillip
Guy Kay
--
Ethan A Merritt
Lawrence Watt-Evans
> Sadly he might be dead and is sadly not published anymore but John
> Norman-The most fantastical, unbelievable fantasies of all.
I will merely note that he's alive and well.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 11/18/02
My latest novel is ITHANALIN'S RESTORATION, published by Tor.
Joseph Michael Bay
>mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
>>He is certainly better than Tim Powers on any
>>reasonable scale of judgement except individual taste.
>See, I disagree completely.
>And I dispute your claim that Tim Powers is better on any "reasonable
>scale of judgment".
Well what we got here is a failure to communicate.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ DO NOT PRESS
When encryption is outlawed, om;u h$g9!ap k#-j tv*d$]p.
David Bilek
>David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> writes:
>
>>mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
>
>>>He is certainly better than Tim Powers on any
>>>reasonable scale of judgement except individual taste.
>
>>See, I disagree completely.
>
>>And I dispute your claim that Tim Powers is better on any "reasonable
>>scale of judgment".
>
>Well what we got here is a failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
-David
Michael Alan Chary
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <b2h1d2$ogm$1...@news1.usf.edu>, "Doom & Gloom Dave"
><dwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sadly he might be dead and is sadly not published anymore but John
>> Norman-The most fantastical, unbelievable fantasies of all.
>
>I will merely note that he's alive and well.
>
That's what he wants you to think.
Michael Alan Chary
David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
>>In article <jull4voca4i46davg...@4ax.com>,
>>David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Pratchett writes vaguely entertaining fluff. Yes, I've read his stuff
>>>(Small Gods, etc). It's fun, which is all I really was hoping for.
>>
>>If it were fluff, it would extremely entertaining fluff, but it is not
>>fluff. It's layered and profoundand humorous. It's not necessarily epic,
>>but it comments on themodern world in a way that mostliterature of any
>>type can't touch. He is certainly better than Tim Powers on any
>>reasonable scale of judgement except individual taste. (I happen to like
>>Tim Powers's writing, but he's directly comparable to several other
>>writers. )
>
>See, I disagree completely.
>
>And I dispute your claim that Tim Powers is better on any "reasonable
>scale of judgment". On what basis do you make that statement?
I did not claim that. I claimed the opposite.
>It also seems content free, as you can write my (or any other)
>disagreement off to "individual taste". So far as I can judge, Powers
>is quite a bit better on almost any criteria I can come up with.
Well, unless you are willing to just grant that Pratchett is funnier...
Okay:
I'll let you pick, what objective criteria would you like to use?
Mike Schilling
"John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:b2grca$ll1$1...@spock.usc.edu...
> Matt Austern <aus...@well.com> writes:
>
> >Me, I'd say that biggest injustices of the Nobel literature prize
> >are that they failed to give the prize to Borges, Twain, Tolstoy, or
> >Joyce. Some of the people who got that prize are good writers, but
> >those omissions are glaring.
>
> They don't give out Grand Master Nobels, and most of Twain's great work
> precedes the establishment of the prizes by a decade or more. I don't,
> offhand, know of an 20th-century Twain that would be worthy, though I
> could be forgetting something.
>
> I suppose they could have pulled an Einstein and given Twain a Nobel
> for whatever his best work of 19XX was, with a nod and a wink as to
> what he was really being recognized for.
That's no sillier than Steinbeck getting his in 1962, as if it were for
_Travels with Charley_ and not books like _The Grapes of Wrath_ (1939) and
_The Moon is Down_ (1942). (I don't think of the latter as one of his best,
but it's about the quiet heroism of the people of occupied Norway, and was
very popular in Scandinavia.)
abe...@toshiba.panix.com
My vote goes to Michael Moorcock for his Elric series of novels.
I'm reading Gaiman's "American Gods" right now. So far, I'm finding it an
enjoyable read, but I wouldn't rank it up there with the "classics."
-- anthony
David Bilek
>In article <tmfo4vs0goemk0sov...@4ax.com>,
>David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>And I dispute your claim that Tim Powers is better on any "reasonable
>>scale of judgment". On what basis do you make that statement?
>
>I did not claim that. I claimed the opposite.
Yeah, I know. I made a brain-o (as is obvious from the following
paragraph)..
>
>>It also seems content free, as you can write my (or any other)
>>disagreement off to "individual taste". So far as I can judge, Powers
>>is quite a bit better on almost any criteria I can come up with.
>
>Well, unless you are willing to just grant that Pratchett is funnier...
>
Pratchett does write funnier books. I am, however, unwilling to grant
that Powers isn't capable of writing something as humorous as
Pratchett because I haven't seen Powers attempt one yet.
>Okay:
>
>I'll let you pick, what objective criteria would you like to use?
You didn't say "objective", you said "reasonable". There are no truly
objective criteria beyond stuff like "length expressed in # of
alpha-numeric characters". But as a "reasonable scale" I'd put
forward prose style. Powers is a much better stylist than Pratchett.
-David
David Bilek
>Scott Dubin <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
>>
>
>My vote goes to Michael Moorcock for his Elric series of novels.
>
Buh... buh...
<gibber>
I'll be over in the corner weeping.
-David
Htn963
And Hemingway got it for _The Old Man and the Sea_ because it happened to
be a favorite of another old man sitting on the Nobel prize committtee who was
about to retire. Not that I'm claiming that Hemingway deserves it at all.
And over the arguably sfnal side we are at least represented by Gabriel
Garcia Marquez and Italo Calvino.
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Richard Horton
wrote:
>Looking at Twain's bibliography, there's nothing post-1901 that I would
>be willing to point at and say, "I'm voting him a Nobel for that". But
>I'm not a Twain compleatist.
The Kipling Nobel was in 1907, but surely was given for work done no
later than 1904 (_Traffics and Discoveries_), and more likely for
_Kim_ (1901). And really for his body of work. (Though much of his
very greatest, and most unjustly ignored, work comes still later, in
the magnificent late collections such as _A Diversity of Creatures_,
_Debits and Credits_, and _Limits and Renewals_.)
I think Twain, while alive, still suffered from lingering
anti-American prejudice in the worldwide literary establishment.
Though I agree that the lack of significant work from him even as
recent as 1901 was a factor.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Luna
David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
I'm not familiar with Powers, but I think Pratchett's style is dead on, so
if there's someone you think is actually better, I may have to try it.
--
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded.
Doom & Gloom Dave
"Beowulf Bolt" <beowul...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3E4C32...@shaw.ca...
> erilar wrote:
> >
> > In article <b2h1d2$ogm$1...@news1.usf.edu>, "Doom & Gloom Dave"
> > <dwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> [...snip list & 'reasoning' which nominated Terry Brooks, David
> Eddings, Piers Anthony, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind and lastly, John
> Norman.]
>
> >
> > Not one on the list I find better than journeyman rank. Hopefully the
> > thread will improve as I work my way along it.
>
> Methinks your sarcasm detector needs recalibration...
>
> HTH,
> Biff
>
no doubt. Or maybe she's playing along.
Peter Krynicki
> "Mike Schilling" wrote:
>
>
> And Hemingway got it for _The Old Man and the Sea_ because it happened to
> be a favorite of another old man sitting on the Nobel prize committtee who was
> about to retire. Not that I'm claiming that Hemingway deserves it at all.
>
Hemingway received the Pulitzer Prize for Old Man and the Sea. His
Noble Prize in literature was for a lifetime of achievement and for
his influence on prose style.
hth
Pjk
Sten Thaning
> "Mike Schilling" wrote:
> >That's no sillier than Steinbeck getting his in 1962, as if it were for
> >_Travels with Charley_ and not books like _The Grapes of Wrath_ (1939) and
> >_The Moon is Down_ (1942).
> And Hemingway got it for _The Old Man and the Sea_ because it happened to
> be a favorite of another old man sitting on the Nobel prize committtee who was
> about to retire.
No, he didn't. The litterature price is explicitly awarded for a body
of work, not for a single book.
The Nobel committee did give _The Old Man and the Sea_ as an example
of Hemingway's writings:
"for his mastery of the art of narrative, most recently demonstrated
in The Old Man and the Sea, and for the influence that he has exerted
on contemporary style", but that seem to be an exception.
The latest winner, Imre Kertész, got the price "for writing that
upholds the fragile experience of the individual against the barbaric
arbitrariness of history". No story mentioned.
- Sten
wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu
> "John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
> news:b2grca$ll1$1...@spock.usc.edu...
[Nobel prizes]
> >
> > I suppose they could have pulled an Einstein and given Twain a Nobel
> > for whatever his best work of 19XX was, with a nod and a wink as to
> > what he was really being recognized for.
>
> That's no sillier than Steinbeck getting his in 1962, as if it were for
> _Travels with Charley_ and not books like _The Grapes of Wrath_ (1939) and
> _The Moon is Down_ (1942).
If memories from distant high school days are accurate,
the Nobel committee specifically mentioned Steinbeck's
"The Winter of our Discontent" (1961)
which was a return to previous form (or almost so).
But the community recognized that despite the nod
to "winter", it was really for earlier work.
(I don't think of the latter as one of his best,
> but it's about the quiet heroism of the people of occupied Norway, and was
> very popular in Scandinavia.)
A book set in occupied Europe in which Our Hero *doesn't*
trash an entire nazi battalion with a toothpick?
It goes on my "to read" list.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
erilar
<dwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Beowulf Bolt" <beowul...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:3E4C32...@shaw.ca...
> > erilar wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <b2h1d2$ogm$1...@news1.usf.edu>, "Doom & Gloom Dave"
> > > <dwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > [...snip list & 'reasoning' which nominated Terry Brooks, David
> > Eddings, Piers Anthony, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind and lastly, John
> > Norman.]
> >
> > >
> > > Not one on the list I find better than journeyman rank. Hopefully the
> > > thread will improve as I work my way along it.
> >
> > Methinks your sarcasm detector needs recalibration...
> >
> > HTH,
> > Biff
> >
> I thought if it weren't obvious enough, that including myself would
> leave
> no doubt. Or maybe she's playing along.
>
>
That particular post was before I had read the rest of the thread,
though the way the server scrambles them en route get really odd at
times. I have seen such abysmal taste evidenced in this group from time
to time that it's difficult to be sure of sarcasm 8-)
erilar
<dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
I hope the same.
It's interesting how my comments, all made at the same sitting as I ran
through the thread yesterday, are totally jumbled by the time they make
it to the server 8-)
OK, I don't know offhand who's alive and who's dead, so I'll just point
out that my standard of epic fantasy is Tolkien, dead or alive. I read
LOTR when it first came out in paperback(yes, I actually have the Ace
edition), so all the inheritors, etc., came later in my reading as it
did in their writing--and I could see the influence.
For fantastic adventure/sword and sorcery, I started with Edgar Rice
Burroughs. I believe someone mentioned Norman? And there are all the
Conan types, etc. Again, I could see the influence.
I devour both sf and fantasy, and have read lots of good, bad, and
indifferent examples of both. One of the things that impresses me is
originality(combined with good characterization and plot), whether in
creating a new kind of magic, a new society, or a new world.
So I enjoy Modesitt. I enjoy Kay. I enjoy Brust. I enjoy Jennifer
Roberson's Cheysuli books as well as her Sword this&that books(which
latter I find less inventive, but fun). I enjoy Hambly most of the time.
Robin McKinley has done some neat things.
Greatest fantasy writer of our times? No, I'm not offering a lone
nomination of anyone.
But most of the nominees I've seen in this thread do NOT impress me as
even "great", much less "greatest."
@hotmail.com Casey Barton
> Terry Brooks, David Eddings, Piers Anthony, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind
"...nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Doom & Gloom Dave
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:erilarloFRY-2C02...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
Now remember, come back in another 3000 messages for another
recalibration. We've also checked the air and topped off all the fluids.
Bill Snyder
Oh, yeah, like too many trees haven't died for no reason already.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
David Friedman
erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> OK, I don't know offhand who's alive and who's dead, so I'll just point
> out that my standard of epic fantasy is Tolkien, dead or alive. I read
> LOTR when it first came out in paperback(yes, I actually have the Ace
> edition), so all the inheritors, etc., came later in my reading as it
> did in their writing--and I could see the influence.
I, on the other hand, had to wait for the _Two Towers_ (hardcover,
British) to be published.
John Pelan
> Randy Money <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> writes:
>
> > Scott Dubin wrote:
> > > Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times? I'm a huge Neil
> > > Gaiman fan, so I'm tempted to answer Neil Gaiman based
> > > on The Sandman, the two Death comics and Stardust. (If you haven't
> > > read these you just haven't read Gaiman, I don't think Coraline or
> > > American Gods were on the same level)However, the truth is I haven't
> > > read a large selection of the fantasy stuff out there.
> > > If the crown doesn't go to Gaiman, who should it go to? Needless to
> > > say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
> > > on multiple levels.
> >
> > Ray Bradbury
> > Peter Beagle
> > Ursula K. Le Guin
> > Jonathan Carroll
> > Tim Powers
> >
> > Just to name a few possibles.
>
> None of those would be in the running at all for me. The Bradbury
> I've liked was SF, I gave up on LeGuin 25 years ago, and I don't like
> the others *at all*.
Bradbury writes SF?
>
> I'm not primarily a fantasy fan, and I have a particular distaste for
> horror and "dark" fantasy (i.e. light horror repackaged as fantasy).
Then it would seem you'd be totally at sea in this discussion as by
definition your knowledge of fantasy is rather limited.
>
> Also the criteria are uncertain. "Of our times" doesn't mean much.
> Somebody said Zelazny was out through being dead, but I don't see that
> as a given. Do "our times" extend back to 1920, or 1950, or 1980, or
> what?
For the sake of argument, let's say that anyone that's had new work
published in the last decade would qualify. It's also stipulated above
that the author in question is doing something a bit more complex than
a prose version of MAD MAGAZINE, (which would rule out Mr. Pratchett,
amusing though he may be).
I'd offer up
Bradbury
Powers
Wolfe
Carroll
Blaylock
Vance
with the caveat that Bradbury is probably the greatest fantasist of
the period from 1950-1980 and that Powers and Carroll assumed the
mantle shortly thereafter. Gaiman is certainly a considerable talent
as are Wolfe and Blaylock, though in the case of Wolfe and Vance much
of their work is SF and in the case of Blaylock the overall body of
work just misses hitting the heights of Carroll and Powers (though not
by much).
Cheers,
John
David E. Siegel
> In article <1fqaexh.8qljvn11w2waeN%pl...@newsreaders.com>, J.B. Moreno wrote:
> > John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Possibly he means that the worms eating Tolkien's corpse are, by
> >> association, better fantasy writers than any of the current crop.
> >>
> >> I think that's a bit extreme, but the case can be made :-)
> >
> > I wouldn't call it (or her) the greatest book ever, but I really liked
> > _Curse of Challion_ by LMB.
>
> I actually didn't like it much.
>
> It had some great scenes, and I liked the "magic system" and the main
> character, but many of the other characters were faceless and the
> writing style felt too contemporary. Bujold's style is great for the
> Miles books, and would be great for swashbucklers, but for this book the
> characters dropped into modern-sounding dialogue far too often. Also,
> the world felt false, mainly because all the names sounded artificial.
>
> Joe
They kept reminding me of names from spanish history. Not actual
names, but they feel was there. Given the source of the map of
Challion, this shouldn't be a suprise.
I liked this more than most works of fantasy i have read in the past
2-3 years.
-DES
Michael Alan Chary
John Pelan <jpe...@cnw.com> wrote:
>definition your knowledge of fantasy is rather limited.
>>
>> Also the criteria are uncertain. "Of our times" doesn't mean much.
>> Somebody said Zelazny was out through being dead, but I don't see that
>> as a given. Do "our times" extend back to 1920, or 1950, or 1980, or
>> what?
>
>For the sake of argument, let's say that anyone that's had new work
>published in the last decade would qualify. It's also stipulated above
>that the author in question is doing something a bit more complex than
>a prose version of MAD MAGAZINE, (which would rule out Mr. Pratchett,
>amusing though he may be).
A) Mad Magazine at its height was absolutely, no holds barred, brilliant
satire and humor. Yes, Pratchett is not more complex than Mad Magazine,
but this puts him in a complexity class with a brilliant piece of art.
Humor is perhaps the most important mechanism for expression in the human
experience from Aristophanes to Gilbert and Sullivan to Preston Struges to
Mark Twain. The bizarre notion that Mad Magazine and Terry Pratchett are
fluff merely indicates that some people haven't read enough. Go find
yourself some Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks and early Bill Cosby and listen. Go
read some George Kaufmann.
B) Any five novels of Pratchett have more sheer ideas than the combined
works of Jack Vance. The rest of your list I would agree are legitimate
contenders. Btw, your guy Bradbury actually wrote for EC comics. Three
guesses as to EC's most lasting title, and the first two don't count.
(Tale Calculated to Drive You...)
>
>I'd offer up
>
>Bradbury
>Powers
>Wolfe
>Carroll
>Blaylock
>Vance
>
>with the caveat that Bradbury is probably the greatest fantasist of
>the period from 1950-1980 and that Powers and Carroll assumed the
>mantle shortly thereafter. Gaiman is certainly a considerable talent
>as are Wolfe and Blaylock, though in the case of Wolfe and Vance much
>of their work is SF and in the case of Blaylock the overall body of
>work just misses hitting the heights of Carroll and Powers (though not
>by much).
>
Powers and Carroll don;''t have the unique energy to their writing that
distinguishes the truly great writers like Wolfe or Bradbury.
Htn963
>htn...@cs.com (Htn963) wrote:
>> "Mike Schilling" wrote:
>
>> >That's no sillier than Steinbeck getting his in 1962, as if it were for
>> >_Travels with Charley_ and not books like _The Grapes of Wrath_ (1939) and
>> >_The Moon is Down_ (1942).
>
>> And Hemingway got it for _The Old Man and the Sea_ because it happened to
>> be a favorite of another old man sitting on the Nobel prize committtee who
>was
>> about to retire.
>
>No, he didn't. The litterature price is explicitly awarded for a body
>of work, not for a single book.
Yes, yes, but that wasn't how the voting process actually worked in this
case. Hemingway would never have been considered for the Nobel prize, let
alone have been awarded it, if one person on the committee didn't go wild for
_The Old Man and the Sea_ and actively campaigned for it.. Furthermore, the
rest of the committee thought this book was tripe, or in this case chum, but
give in to this old coot as a retirement present.
>The Nobel committee did give _The Old Man and the Sea_ as an example
>of Hemingway's writings:
>"for his mastery of the art of narrative, most recently demonstrated
>in The Old Man and the Sea, and for the influence that he has exerted
>on contemporary style", but that seem to be an exception.
If you mean that _The Old Man and the Sea_ is an exception to the claim
that Hemingway has "mastered the art of narrative" then I agree. It is without
doubt the most boring short book that I have read, more tedious and pointless
than tomes ten times its size, and that is quite an achievement. And I'm a
fishing afficionado too.
>The latest winner, Imre Kertész, got the price "for writing that
>upholds the fragile experience of the individual against the barbaric
>arbitrariness of history".
Translation: we like his politics.
>No story mentioned.
Does it matter?
Mike Schilling
<wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:yv7z7kc2...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu...
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > "John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:b2grca$ll1$1...@spock.usc.edu...
>
> [Nobel prizes]
>
> > >
> > > I suppose they could have pulled an Einstein and given Twain a Nobel
> > > for whatever his best work of 19XX was, with a nod and a wink as to
> > > what he was really being recognized for.
> >
> > That's no sillier than Steinbeck getting his in 1962, as if it were for
> > _Travels with Charley_ and not books like _The Grapes of Wrath_ (1939)
and
> > _The Moon is Down_ (1942).
>
> If memories from distant high school days are accurate,
> the Nobel committee specifically mentioned Steinbeck's
>
> "The Winter of our Discontent" (1961)
>
> which was a return to previous form (or almost so).
IMHO).
> But the community recognized that despite the nod
> to "winter", it was really for earlier work.
>
>
> (I don't think of the latter as one of his best,
> > but it's about the quiet heroism of the people of occupied Norway, and
was
> > very popular in Scandinavia.)
>
> A book set in occupied Europe in which Our Hero *doesn't*
> trash an entire nazi battalion with a toothpick?
>
> It goes on my "to read" list.
It's good, but not a patch on _Tortilla Flat_, _Cannery Row_, or _Of Mice
and Men_ (again of course IMHO).
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
> Btw, your guy Bradbury actually wrote for EC comics.
Well, no, he didn't. EC adapted Bradbury's stories, which isn't the
same thing. The scripts were by Al Feldstein, not by Bradbury
himself.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 11/18/02
My latest novel is ITHANALIN'S RESTORATION, published by Tor.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:<m2of5hx...@gw.dd-b.net>...
> > Randy Money <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> writes:
> >
> > > Scott Dubin wrote:
> > > > Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times? I'm a huge Neil
> > > > Gaiman fan, so I'm tempted to answer Neil Gaiman based
> > > > on The Sandman, the two Death comics and Stardust. (If you haven't
> > > > read these you just haven't read Gaiman, I don't think Coraline or
> > > > American Gods were on the same level)However, the truth is I haven't
> > > > read a large selection of the fantasy stuff out there.
> > > > If the crown doesn't go to Gaiman, who should it go to? Needless to
> > > > say, said writer should be living, and should produce stuff that works
> > > > on multiple levels.
> > >
> > > Ray Bradbury
> > > Peter Beagle
> > > Ursula K. Le Guin
> > > Jonathan Carroll
> > > Tim Powers
> > >
> > > Just to name a few possibles.
> >
> > None of those would be in the running at all for me. The Bradbury
> > I've liked was SF, I gave up on LeGuin 25 years ago, and I don't like
> > the others *at all*.
>
> Bradbury writes SF?
Yes, of course. Collections like _S is for Space_ and _R is for
Rocket_, and of course _The Martian Chronicles_. And _Fahrenheit
451_. And no doubt more.
> > I'm not primarily a fantasy fan, and I have a particular distaste for
> > horror and "dark" fantasy (i.e. light horror repackaged as fantasy).
>
> Then it would seem you'd be totally at sea in this discussion as by
> definition your knowledge of fantasy is rather limited.
I think of myself as liking fantasy fairly well, though not as much as
SF. Thus I've read a fair amount of it. You can try to define my
preferences as irrelevant if you like.
> > Also the criteria are uncertain. "Of our times" doesn't mean much.
> > Somebody said Zelazny was out through being dead, but I don't see that
> > as a given. Do "our times" extend back to 1920, or 1950, or 1980, or
> > what?
>
> For the sake of argument, let's say that anyone that's had new work
> published in the last decade would qualify. It's also stipulated above
> that the author in question is doing something a bit more complex than
> a prose version of MAD MAGAZINE, (which would rule out Mr. Pratchett,
> amusing though he may be).
Strong disagreement on the last exclusion. You've obviously not read
Pratchett with any attention.
> I'd offer up
>
> Bradbury
> Powers
> Wolfe
> Carroll
> Blaylock
> Vance
>
> with the caveat that Bradbury is probably the greatest fantasist of
> the period from 1950-1980 and that Powers and Carroll assumed the
> mantle shortly thereafter. Gaiman is certainly a considerable talent
> as are Wolfe and Blaylock, though in the case of Wolfe and Vance much
> of their work is SF and in the case of Blaylock the overall body of
> work just misses hitting the heights of Carroll and Powers (though not
> by much).
Reasonable enough, just not much to my taste. Too literary -- mostly
boring. Lack of interesting/believable characters, especially. They
invoke the Eight Deadly Words far too often.
Gaiman has written some first-rate short work, and I really really
liked _Good Omens_ (with Pratchett), but I haven't liked any of the
other novels I've read all that much.
The Vance I like best is stuff like "The Moon Moth", which is
technically SF, but functions as fantasy so far as I can see. It's
also rather old. But any time limits are arbitrary anyway.
I'd think Zelazny would have to be included in consideration.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
Michael Alan Chary
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 14 Feb 2003 17:43:51 -0500, mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary)
>wrote:
>
>> Btw, your guy Bradbury actually wrote for EC comics.
>
>Well, no, he didn't. EC adapted Bradbury's stories, which isn't the
>same thing. The scripts were by Al Feldstein, not by Bradbury
>himself.
Bradbury said he wrote for them in an interview in the early 1990's, so I
believe you because I know EC comics are your thing, but I also have to
think Bradbury knew what he was talking about. So, I leave it to you, whom
do I believe, and also, are you coming down against humor?
(I'll guess Bradbury was misquoted, but still...)
Craig Richardson
>Joe Mason <j...@notcharles.ca> wrote in message news:<slrnb4mae...@gate.notcharles.ca>...
>> It had some great scenes, and I liked the "magic system" and the main
>> character, but many of the other characters were faceless and the
>> writing style felt too contemporary. Bujold's style is great for the
>> Miles books, and would be great for swashbucklers, but for this book the
>> characters dropped into modern-sounding dialogue far too often. Also,
>> the world felt false, mainly because all the names sounded artificial.
>
>They kept reminding me of names from spanish history. Not actual
>names, but they feel was there. Given the source of the map of
>Challion, this shouldn't be a suprise.
To paraphrase Peter Schickele, Chalion bears a certain sort of
resemblance to medieval Spain. The name of the certain sort of
resemblance it bears is "identity". Other than that, they really
aren't much alike...
>I liked this more than most works of fantasy i have read in the past
>2-3 years.
AOL.
--Craig
--
"It's great to be known, but it's better to be known as strange."
- Chairman Kaga
BrainsAkimbo
> Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
I'd say Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
-- BA
David Bilek
"Magical Realism" doesn't count.
No, I don't know why.
-David
Htn963
>brains...@netscape.net (BrainsAkimbo) wrote:
>>scott...@yahoo.com (Scott Dubin) wrote in message
>news:<887734a2.0302...@posting.google.com>...
>>> Who is the greatest fantasy writer of our times?
>>
>>I'd say Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
>>
>
>"Magical Realism" doesn't count.
Yes, it does. Check out, for intance, Lucius Shepard's award-winning
novella, "R&R." Other examples are homework.