My Top 100 Authors, comments requested

[Stevenator]

I was just looking more into his stuff and remembered _Starship TRoopers_ and _Methuselah's Children_. Other forums have presured me on this ranking too, so I might even put him in the the 40's (yeah, I changed my mind quickly)

[dagwall]

yeah as long as you are going by the book Starship Troopers and not the movie. The movie just took a vage idea of the book and made it into a movie. The book is much better and so different.

 

 

May Lazarus Long live forever

To Sail Beyond the Sunset and Time Enough for Love were also well written I think.

[Taymist]

Hmmm, well to start, I've read about 50 of the authors on your list and have to say that I wouldn't agree with them all either :D I'm inclined to think that its very close to literary snobbery, no matter how interesting.

I do agree with Ursula Le Guin being in the list and so high up. Her contributions to the genre and the depth of originality and plot make her a giant in my opinion. Left Hand of Darkenss is incredible and the Earthsea books are not far behind.

I'd also put Iain M. Banks a little higher on the list. When you mention George MacDonald I presume you mean of "The Princess and The Goblin" fame ? If so, I agree with that too, he's the grandfather of fantasy as we know it.

Glaring absences for me would be Lewis Carroll, Alasdair Grey and Anne McCaffrey.

I can't believe you've omitted Robert Jordan either compared to some of the authors on that list and considering your basis for the various choices I really don't see how Tolkien ended up at number one.

Food for thought:

The authors we remember in 300 years time will not be dictated by quality or originality or best seller lists. It'll be dictated by the upper echelons of some elite literati and the various national education systems as always. Why do we remember Shakespeare? Mainly because he is taught in just about every school on the planet. Who decided this? Certainly not the general masses who buy and read books every day. Of the people who know his name, how many have actually read one of his plays???

I'm going to have to agree with Egwene on this, literature is totally subjective. The reason we have authors who are "commonly accepted" as great is because a lot of other people have done as you have done..... written lists and ascribed scaled points.

The greatest writers are those who touch our hearts and reach across race, sex, religion and other barriers to appeal to a huge mass of readers. They are the ones that change minds and make people think, who allow our imaginations to expand and whose work we remember long after we've finished reading. To get a true reflection of this, you'd need to ask all fantasy/sci fi readers to make a list the same as yours and then look for the names that appear in every list.... they are the great writers.

 

In my humble opinion

[Andrew B.]

you have some awesome authors up there, but I disagree with some here is my top ten

 

1. Robert Jordan

2. J.R.R. Tolkien

3. David Eddings

4. Brian Jaques

5. D.J. Machale

6. Christopher Paolini

7. Anthony Horowitz

8. Eoin Colfer

9. Roland Smith

10. J.K. Rowling

 

J.K. Rowling used to be at the top of my list, and it's not that I haven't stopped liking her, it's just I've gotten into High Fantasy which I absoloutly love, she is stilla great author though.

[Stevenator]

Excellent points, Taymist, valid points.

 

I can't believe you've omitted Robert Jordan compared to some of the authors on that list

 

If you could mention the majors, that would be very beneficial to me. (Jones, Elliot, ect.?)

 

considering your basis for the various choices I really don't see how Tolkien ended up at number one

 

Who would you say, Peake? Tolkien consistently scored high everywhere, that’s how that happened (his prose is what I call “invisibleâ€; it appropriately draws you in with no glitches to distract).

 

Glaring absences for me would be Lewis Carroll

 

Too true, too true. My reason for leaving him out seems flimsy now. On the same note, I also need to add Baum, Lafferty, and Callvino.

 

I appreciate your Top 10, Andy.

[Lights]

Got a bit put off her books as I saw a really bad film adoptation a couple of years ago but seeing various recommendations' date=' I have high hopes that the books are ten times better.[/quote']

 

Dear God, no! Hahaha. That was absolutely one of the worst things I've ever had the displeasure to view, and I had such high hopes, too. It was made all the worse because of how good it could have been. But believe me when I say you will hardly find any semblance between the two. Matter of fact, she actually publicaly made known her disappointment in many online statements. Here's this taken from one:

 

"It was hard keeping silence for months while I knew how bad the script was. It was hard watching them spend all that money on PR and hype, and still keeping silent. It was hard, having seen the thing, knowing a lot of people were going to tune in to the Sci Fi Channel that night expecting to see Earthsea...

 

But I tell you, it was almost worth going through it all, to get such an outpouring of anger, grief, indignation, outrage, and sympathy from you ever since."

 

[source]

 

Haha. Definantly check out her works, you can find all of them extremely cheap ($7 for one at B&N), too.

 

 

 

Aaah, sorry for hijacking your thread, Stevenator. It's just a shame more people haven't read her. Back to the thread, now. :)

[athena]

Hey, what about Terry Brooks? The Shanarra series right up there for me woth Jean M. Auel and the Earth's Children series. And what about Robert A. Heinlein with A Stranger in a Strange Land?

[Justin]

I haven't read 3/4 of the listed authors, but I do know one thing for sure: Terry Brooks would be somewhere in the 700 range.

I think I would move Robert E. Howard up a few pegs.

Stephen King is a tough one for me. He gets quite a bit of attention from the books made to movies/series and could influence 'Rankings'. He would definitly be in the top 100, just not sure where I would place him.

The list is cool, I'm going to start looking for those authors I haven't read yet.

 

You should make a tops 100 worst, now that would be interesting.

[Lights]

Hey' date=' what about Terry Brooks? The Shanarra series right up there for me woth Jean M. Auel and the Earth's Children series. And what about Robert A. Heinlein with A Stranger in a Strange Land?[/quote']

 

Every single Terry Brooks series, and even novel nearly, is the same. It gets extremely repetitive and boring. :(

 

I got tired of him just after reading the original series and the first couple of entries to "Heritage." Maybe it got better, but.. I haven't been interested enough to check it out.

[athena]

Granted, the first 3 were the best but I did like his novel the voyage of the jerle shanara it was futuristic and not his usual style. I did like Magic kingdom for sale I thought that was funny more for younger kids but I still liked it! I am currently reading Robert Heinlein's Time enough for Love which is about a human who has lived for 2300 years and its pretty interesting I don't know that belongs in the top 100 but there it is. I think Jean M. Auel should be though I am still waiting for her 6th book which she is writing now!

[dagwall]

Lazarus Long rules, when you finish time enough for love read To sail beyond the sunset. Both are great

[Stevenator]

Ah, Terry Brooks. The ultimate example of bubble-gum fantasy.

 

I'll have to look into Jean M. Auel; I'm slightly familiar with her, but time-constraints have limited me.

 

Justin, If you really liked Robert Howard’s whole Sword & Sorcery thing, I would heartily recommend Fritz Leiber’s Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser sequence. Hands down the greatest work that sub-genre has ever produced. By the simple expedient of shifting from a single hero to a duo of equal partners, Leiber opened up a world of possibilities: with two main characters, he had vastly expanded opportunities for dialogue -- something of a problem with the strong, silent, brutish types of Howard's direct imitators. He can also play with perspective: some tales are told primarily from Fafhrd's point of view, others from the Mouser's, while most switch back and forth between the two (often with interesting and sometimes humorous effect). Leiber's attractive mix of humor, horror, and action keep these stories going decades after being written. (probably my #1 favorite author of all time)

 

Here’s what the experts say:

 

“Two of the most delightful characters in the history of fantastic literature†– Neil Gaimen

 

“Most fantasy writers, if asked, admit that Fritz Leiber is our spiritual father, and for the most part we’re sweating to keep up, let alone overtake him†– Raymond E. Feist

 

“The most literate and important sword and sorcery series†– Mike Ashley

 

Also I would suggest Michael Moorcock, who attempted to re-invent the genre by inverting its conventions with Stormbringer (1963), the first (and best) of the Elric of Melniboné series. Instead of an uncivilized barbarian, Moorcock gives us an overcivilized decadent; instead of rising from adventurer to king, Elric declines from emperor to peopleless wanderer; instead of the straightforward Conan's loyalty and occasional gallantry, the subtle Elric betrays and brings about the death of every friend, subject, relative, or subordinate who puts their trust in him. In fact, Elric is just the sort of treacherous wizard whom Conan specializes in lopping the heads off of. And the finishing touch: he’s albino.

 

Out all the new blades currently asking for your money, I find that Steven Erikson is the most entertaining. It is Sword & Sorcery on a scope larger than Martin’s High Fantasy masterpiece, SoIaF.

 

About the Worst Hundred, that would be really tricky to judge. I usual stop reading that type of novel in the first 50 pages, so I couldn't fairly rank them with any consistency.

 

cheers,

the Stevenator

[el_Libre]

I would just like to throw in my support for Stevenator’s list and the criteria he set forth to attempt fair judgment of this form of art. Evaluation of art is inherently subjective, but reviews are not thereby rendered arbitrary and useless. Stevenator’s premise of aesthetic value in writing (obviously sub specie aeternitatis because of the inclusion of authors like Branch Cabell) is to judge fantasy and science fiction as true literature.

 

A person made a comment earlier about the true measure of an author is his/her ability to reach out to millions of readers and to maintain their loyalty. Nothing wrong with that statement, just it isn’t really a quality judgment but rather a popularity contest. (An example of this would be the Da Vinci Code, which is at best a great read, not a great book). If we were to base our “literary greatness†verdicts on popularity and not quality, well then, there would be nothing to judge—no discussion here would be necessary. I believe in a place called New York there is a newspaper that has already compiled those stats for us.

 

Case and point with Lord Dunsany: It's hard to believe that the greatest writer of speculative fiction of all time is at risk of being an "unknown," but this is the era of Short Attention-Span Theater. He would probably be rated “literary failure†if based on current popularity.

 

Now, about the Robert Jordan exclusion: Under the given criteria, I believe it is the appropriate action. Let me make the comparison to Tolkien, though I can’t comprehend how anyone that understands literature, not just the fantasy genre, could possibly make it.

 

The Lord of the Rings is true literature; beautifully written, with wonderful prose, and a sense of grand myth and legend akin to The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Iliad, and the Nibelungenlied, just to name a few. Not to mention a thoroughly detailed history, languages, myths and genealogies written by a man well versed and educated in each of them. The Lord of the Rings has been considered by many to be the greatest work of fiction in the 20th century, above such novels as Ulysses, The Sound and the Fury, Catch-22, Gravity's Rainbow and so on ad nauseam. It's mandatory in many secondary and undergrad curriculums. What other piece of modern fantasy is held in such high regard? Not many, if any at all. Tolkien finished his tale completely and satisfactory in three novels (actually one, if his wish is followed). It speaks volumes of Tolkien's ability that he did so.

 

This is the level I believe Stevenator is looking for, though some of his lower picks are rather lacking—I suspect this is just because he has not been able to fully read and properly critic them.

 

Martin, Bakker, Erickson, etc. may have imagination and relevant, visceral impact on modern fantasy, not to mention bludgeoning the readers with superlative amounts of foul language, sex, rape, incest, carnage, and gore. It's all good; it keep things fresh, and moves the genre forward.

 

But IMHO they don’t belong on a list like this.

 

Other than that, I might substantially move the 3 musketeers of Weird fiction down.

 

Great job, great list. Keep reading. :!:

[Werthead]

I like this list a lot. Somewhat interesting choices of order (Kate Elliott better than Kim Stanley Robinson? Robin Hobb over Scott Bakker?) though.

 

Jordan's exclusion I would agree with. The series may have had a shot at being something truly remarkable and interesting if the series had been kept to a reasonable length, but sadly it's bloated status precludes this. I enjoy the series a lot (hence my posting on here and on Wotmania), but it has lost whatever chance it had of true literary greatness. It may be remembered for its impact on the genre (as Brooks will), most notably for radically increasing the number of books in a series publishers are prepared to print.

 

Tolkien at Number 1 is bound to be contentious. In some areas, notably the creation of mythology and history, Tolkien is without equal in the genre. If his presence at the top of the pile is mainly down to The Silmarillion, I would agree with it. LotR is a different matter: a powerful and impressive novel, but with glaring faults riddling it, particularly the latter parts. The sheer black-and-white nature of the conflict has long since been surpassed by the more complex conflicts described by the likes of Bakker and Erikson, and Tolkien's disappointing inability to create three-dimensional characters in the novel renders him obsolete compared to master character-builders like George RR Martin. Tolkien is also rather dry, lacking real wit when compared to our genre's answer to Oscar Wilde, the mighty Jack Vance. Nevertheless, LotR's presence as the most important novel of the epic subgenre and its presence as one of the most common 'entry points' into the genre for new readers should not be underestimated.

 

I would also strongly recommend Christoper Priest's inclusion on the list. One of the most significant SF figures Britain has produced in the last thirty years (low sales aside), his literary credentials are impeccable, as are his storytelling ones. His novel The Prestige is simply a perfectly-judged novel of character and mystery.

[Stevenator]

Hey, thanks for the great input, el_Libre and Werthead!

 

It seems like we three have the same opinion of RJ (*nudge* also the correct one)

 

About the rankings of Howard, Lovecraft, and C.A.S.; definitely Lovecraft as #17 seed is way to high (in later revisions I’ve dropped him as much as five levels), but even though you could call the other two “campyâ€, they still have a unique appeal to me. Howard is undeniably one of the greatest hacks of all time, single handedly creating the S & S craze. Your right though, they’re not literary brilliance.

 

Tolkien at Number 1 is bound to be contentious

 

well said.

Who would you personally pick, Werthead? It seems you’re really well read. Or if that’s not a call you want to make, who would you consider in your Top 5?

 

Funny you should mention Priest—I just bought his Inverted World to read over vacation. Your recommendation makes me all the more eager.

[Graendals favourite]

I feel I need to challenge you on a point, on RJ, at least as far as a consideration. Now, I have not read much except professional works in english, I read fictional books now and then when I have time. Anyway, I'm slower in english, so it takes a little effort. English is only my second language, so the beauty of the writing means little to me. Were it I read in Finnish, I might think differently.

 

However, I noticed a point that WoT might have been regarded higher, were it shorter. I do not understand this. This is a big story, and it cannot be brought forth in a few novels. We are at the disadvantage of not knowing the story yet, a potential plus for the story with one book to go, yet surely there have been few plots in literature as big as this. There are 1880 characters thus far, 111 of them pov characters. You know, the more complex it becomes, the harder it is to keep together. RJ did not, in the beginning, understand the scope of the work himself, yet he did not simplify the work for compactness. All along, with every twist of the plot, he brings us to be the pov character. The plot has become much larger than the writing, also; we know there are things that are we don't know about, but are hinted of.

 

So I just want to say, I don't think there's a story out there as big. And I haven't even considered reading the Finnish translation, because I'd be reading the translator's guess of what RJ meant, aside from losing all potential double meanings.

[Kivam]

Two I think you missed (and nobody has mentioned)

 

Lois McMaster Bujold

 

Her vorkosigan series is some of the best writing I've ever come across - funny, charming, quick moving and intelligent.

 

Kij Johnson - a true stylist, unique stories (updates on japanese folk tales) and a brilliant writer. I've never really read anything like her.

 

And Lustbader? Seriously? The guy's only real uniqueness is that he's borderline pornographic, and that's not a particularly redeeming value in my book.

[Werthead]

However' date=' I noticed a point that WoT might have been regarded higher, were it shorter.[/quote']

 

Sort of. The point many critics and even many fans of Jordan make is that The Wheel of Time, when it is completed, will fill 12 very thick volumes amassing between 3 and 4 million words and over 10,000 pages. If there was enough story to fill this bulk, then your point would be accurate. However, my opinion is that Robert Jordan could have told his story in eight, possibly even six, volumes which would have been much leaner, much tighter, much faster-moving and superior at keeping attention. In such a case it would have been more worthy of a place on such a list. As it stands, I enjoy the story but the slowing pace at the moment it should be ramping up for the finale has sapped most of the momentum from the story, resulting in tedium (particularly in Book 10). 11 resolves some of these problems, but not all of them.

 

well said.

Who would you personally pick, Werthead? It seems you’re really well read. Or if that’s not a call you want to make, who would you consider in your Top 5?

 

I'm not sure. For literary merit, it would be

 

1. Tolkien (for The Silmarillion, and it may be contentious but that doesn't mean I disagree with it).

 

2. Mervyn Peake

3. Gene Wolfe

4. Jack Vance

5. Christopher Priest.

 

However, for fusion of literary merit versus entertainment it would be:

 

1. George RR Martin

2. Jack Vance

3. Christopher Priest

4. Peter F. Hamilton

5. Steven Erikson

 

I've just finished reading Priest's The Separation which is an even more awe-inspiring piece of work than The Prestige. The reviewer John Clute immediately it ranked alongside The Man In The High Castle as a superlative piece of WWII 'alternate history'. My review here.[/u]

[Kivam]

OK, now I need to pick up Priest - is he published in the US?

 

BTW, I fould Mervyn Peake completely unreadable - and no amount of "literary merit" can make up for that.

 

I'm surprised not to see Asimov or Heinlen in the top 5 for "fusion of entertainment and literary merit" - Foundation and Stranger in a Strange Land . . .?

 

Also, I can't remember (and don't feel like looking back through 100 names) but was Jules Verne on the list? If not, he really should be (and fairly high up)

 

BTW, the lowest rung on the Worst 100 list is easy to pick out: Robert Newcomb. Easily the worst writer I've ever read (I wanted to claw my eyes out halfway through, and my editor keeps sending me his books to review because of that - I think he likes my negative reviews [you can have more fun with them] - so I actually need to read them).

 

No comments on Bujold or Johnson, huh?

[Werthead]

Haven't read either. Heinlein leaves me cold. Asimov is a great writer, but I feel he hasn't aged very well compared to, say, Arthur C. Clarke or Frank Herbert. Still good to read though.

 

I believe Priest is published in the US by a hodgepodge of publishers. Last time I checked Old Earth Books were his US publishers for The Separation. Check Priest's homepage for more details.

 

Peake is very demanding, easily the most demanding writer I've tackled. However, the plot is so compelling and Steerpike such a great central antihero, that I managed to wade on regardless of the ultra-dense prose.

[Stevenator]

nice review and top 5, Werthead. Looks like Jack Vance is the net-value winner.

 

I really like Bujold--some authors have to be cut, however. Next to Hamilton, probably the best space opera ever. Definitely in my top 150.

 

Johnson I know almost nothing about (she's relativly new). DO you consider her short stories better than her novels? What work do you believe elevates her above the common author?

 

Lustbader got in because of his Sunset Warrior Quintet. His latest work is, ah, not quite the thing. But these earlier works exhibit power and vision.

 

I commented earlier that I considered the works of Shelly, Wells, Verne, ect. to be more in the area of essays than fiction and merit only historical importance.

 

Thanks everyone, this is starting to be a real discussion.

[Werthead]

At the risk of sounding snobbish, but Dragonmount's lack of a dedicated 'Other Author' forum does seem to be stifling the debate somewhat. I would suggest reposting the question on Westeros.org's Literature forum and on the Wotmania Other Fantasy page where there a lot more 'serious' fantasy fans with wide-ranging opinions on the subject. And I post on both sites as well.

[Kivam]

I've actually only ever read Johnson's 2d novel, Fudoki, when I was assigned to review it. It was powerful, unique, and above all else absolutely beautiful. It's a rare talent that can write books that easy to read and also that carefully crafted.

 

Between work and other reviews being assigned to me, I haven't had a chance to pick up The Fox Woman or her short stories, but they are DEFINITELY on my list.

 

BTW, probably the best one-off sci-fi book I've read in a long time is a future history called "Fitzpatrick's War" by Theodore Judson. Here's a link to a review (not mine :lol: ) http://www.sfreviews.net/fitzpatrickswar.html

 

one quote puts it best:

 

An inspired touch of Judson's is his decision to structure the novel as the memoirs of one Robert Mayfair Bruce, a confidant of the ruling Consul of the Confederacy, Lord Isaac Prophet Fitzpatrick. Judson starts the ball rolling with a prologue written by a historian coming to us from near the end of the 26th century, about 150 years after the events in the story. We are informed in no uncertain terms that Bruce is a cad, and his memoirs are a foul fiction designed to sully the reputation of one of the world's greatest men. Who was the real Fitzpatrick, a hero for the ages or the maniacal tyrant Bruce makes him out to be?

 

That the novel would even pose this question as its main narrative conceit means that the answer is dead obvious. But in spite of this, the book works because Judson's framing device is no mere gimmick. He uses it to get us to think about the reliability of history as a practice. What can we say we really know about such figures as Alexander, Caesar, Jesus or Napoleon that is a cold, hard fact? Certainly a number of things — some more than others depending upon the person — but for the most part, we must rely on historians for our facts, and such people have often written through the filters of their own biases or ideologies, just like anyone else. And if someone dares to challenge the Official Story, to tarnish our heroes, should we be too eager to smack them down? One book Fitzpatrick's War reminded me of was Roland Huntford's extraordinary Scott and Amundsen (currently in print as The Last Place on Earth) which depicted the 1912 race for the South Pole in terms none too flattering to British hero Scott. Huntford's vilification by the British press upon his book's first publication is strikingly similar to what Judson's fictional historian, who peppers the narrative with indignant footnotes, heaps upon Bruce.

 

Still, it would be a fallacy to assume that anyone who challenges orthodox history must be right at all times, simply because they're challenging it. (Huntford held up because he had voluminous documentary evidence to back up his critique of Scott.) That way lies the delusional realm of the paranoid conspiracy theorist. But the point is, for Fitzpatrick's War to be the kind of novel that persuades people to think about how we know what we know gives it an impressive intellectual heft you don't usually find in these kinds of military adventures. Well done.

 

From the Publisher's Weekly review:

 

"Judson's use of the twin viewpoints allows him to make points about subjects as diverse as history and heroes, academia and ambition, love and shame. Yet like Heinlein, Asimov and other great writers in the genre, Judson never lets his message get in the way of the story, nor does he lapse into preachiness."

[Stevenator]

lol, Werthead. my comment was in referance to the common boiling level of this forum.

 

I'm going to be picking that book up sometime, Kivam

[shanara74]

One glaring omission or two I see:

 

Marion Zimmer Bradley

J.K. Rowling

Robin McKinley

Robert Jordan

C. S. Lewis

Geroge Orwell

Christopher Paolini

and, of course, myself.