A question about contemporary fantasy

[Lieutenant Kije]

As the thread title implies, I've got a question about contemporary fantasy.  I really haven't read too much of it and I find that I would like to become more familiar with the genre for a project I'm working on.  Particularly "high fantasy" and not magical realism.  I guess when I say contemporary I mean anything 80s to the present.

Here's my question: what works are the most representative of high fantasy literature during this period?  I'm looking for a list, around 15 books long, but you can go as low as 10 or as high as 20.  If you want to include a series (as so many fantasy books are a part of) just include the first book of the series, or the most representative book of the series in your opinion, but please mention the series along with the specific book.

Remember, I'm looking for 80s to the present, so no Tolkien, or early LeGuin, or early Moorcock, or other such stuff.  And the criterion is not the best, but the most representative of the genre.  If the best is the most representative in your opinion, that's fine.  And just use what you consider to be high fantasy.  I'm don't want to re-establish the fantasy genre classification discussion here.

I'm hoping to get a variety of opinions, and I'll value them all.  I'm especially interested in the opinions of those who have studied the area of literature concerned because they have aspirations of contributing to it.  It seems to me they'd be especially qualified to respond.  But please, all who wish to, let me know what you think.

[Entsuropi]

Hrm.

Wheel of time, robert jordan.
Belegariad (5 books) David Eddings
Mallorean (5 books) David Eddings
Way of Kings, EUOL
The Discworld Series, Terry Prattchet
The Assassin trilogy, the Liveship Traders trilogy and the Golden man trilogy, Robin Hobb.
The Riftwar series, Raymond E Feist
Dragonlance Chronicles, Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman
Orcs first blood trilogy, Stan Nicholas.

The first 1 and the last 2 are of slightly dubious quality, but i still feel them to be very much representative of the genre. Discworld, Robin Hobbs books - both are slightly lower powered than the high fantasy norm but i would regard them as belonging, at least partially. Way of Kings may not be published, but it damn well deserves to be up there.

[fuzzyoctopus]

I, of course, recommend The Dark Tower series by Stephen King, which I recommend to everyone.  In 30 years, when he's dead, it will be regarded the way that Lord of the Rings is, and I intend to promote it as much as I can now for two reasons.  
1.) It's the best fantasy series I've ever read, EVER.
2.) I'll get to spend years saying "I told you so," once it hits mainstream.

I also recommend "The Gift" by Patrick O'Leary, and please for the love of all that is holy, don't discount it on the name of its title.

[EUOL]

I'd like to point out a few things.  First, contemporary fantasy is very much divided in its thematic content.  Do you want to follow the Tolkien fantasy line or the Howard fantasy line, because they're very different.  Do you only want to include 'High Fantasy' (ie, otherworld fantasy) or would you include spin-off fantasies, such as Harry Potter and Dragonriders of Pern?

Right now, the market is dominated by Jordan and Goodkind.  They're both high fantasy in the Tolkien tradition.  Eddings, Tad Williams, Brooks, and Feist ruled the 80's.  Again, most of these are Tolkienesque high fantasies.  

Hobb is an increasingly powerful market force, but she--along with Martin--deviates strongly from the Tolkien 'quest fantasy' tradition.  The Hobb/Martin crowd write gritty, even stark, books which are becoming more common on the scene.

[stacer]

Would you be interested in children's fantasy as well, or are you limiting this to adult-level reading? If children's can be included, I'll post a couple tomorrow (don't have the list out tonight).

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I, of course, recommend The Dark Tower series by Stephen King, which I recommend to everyone.  In 30 years, when he's dead, it will be regarded the way that Lord of the Rings is

Ugh. I hope Stephen King is never looked at the way Tolkien is. At least, not unless he wrote some better drivel than The Stand. It's not that the plot or ideas are inherantly terrible, it's that he has NO consideration for details. He's lazy and it shows in his writing. Which leads me to believe he doesn't care about the book. If he doesn't care about the book he's writing, why should I care enough to read it?

[fuzzyoctopus]

Ugh. I hope Stephen King is never looked at the way Tolkien is. At least, not unless he wrote some better drivel than The Stand. It's not that the plot or ideas are inherantly terrible, it's that he has NO consideration for details. He's lazy and it shows in his writing. Which leads me to believe he doesn't care about the book. If he doesn't care about the book he's writing, why should I care enough to read it?  

I'll grant that his early writing is not always good; but Eric, if you haven't READ anything else, you have no idea how much he's improved over the years.  And if you haven't read the Dark Tower, you have NO business saying he doesn't care about the details.  The Dark Tower world is all ABOUT details, and the little things that you miss in other places coming back to be important or not.

I don't know if you've read anything else, but it seems to me that if you didn't like The Stand, you're probably not a SK person.  And as well-read as I am, I'm sorry, but you can't just peg him as a popular hack-writer, even if you personally don't like his work.

[Entsuropi]

Heh, i totally forgot about goodkind. Yeah, him too, just be warned that the sex scenes are way OTT and unnecessary. The man has a rape fetish.

[Mr_Pleasington]

I'd have to agree wholeheartedly with fuzzyoctopus, you really can't go wrong with The Dark Tower.

As most of you know, I'm a huge SK fan.  That said, I can't disagree with SE, but I don't think his two biggest flaws:  

1)Skimming the details at times
2)Being terrible at ending books...

aredetrimental enough to dismiss him.

Especially when two of the things he does well:  

1) Potraying relationships naturally and making the reader actually feel what the characters are.  I've shed tears in a couple of his novels.

2) Being really creepy...

...are done at a skill level that is unmatched by his conteporaries, at least as far as my opinion is concerned.

[Spriggan]

I just want to add to entropys remarks about goodkind, the first book (wizards first rule) in his first series was ok and pretty much rape free, and was very good.  But I could not even finish the second book becasue of blatent in your face rape and torture in it, this wasn't even just one small part either but about half the book someone was tied up and being subjected to something.  It's realy sad that a good author has to add something like that to make a story more dark.

[EUOL]

I've heard that he gets over that side of himself after a few books, and starts getting good again later in the series.


As for SK--sorry, SE, I have to take Fuzzy's side.  I think he has fantastic skill.  Unlike some other popular writers--Grisham--King has real talent.  He's probably the defining author of American literature in the 20th century.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I've read three SK books, Salem's Lot, the first I read, was adequate. Didn't really creep me out, but didn't annoy me. The Green Mile was the best of the three. But the Stand really really torqued me off. pick up a frickin' atlas and look at it for 15 seconds. It's not going to make you miss deadline. And the fact that I read a REVISED edition where SK had gone through himself and cleaned things up and there were STILL tons of errors.. man, sorry. That's unforgiveable. This was supposed to be one of his signature works, right?

So yes, I DO have business dismissing him. If his archetypal work isn't any good, then I feel I have a good grounding in his work as a whole. I still think he's crap. He may have talent, but unless he can stop and craft his work instead of spewing it forth, I won't recognize that.

[Entsuropi]

I've heard that he gets over that side of himself after a few books, and starts getting good again later in the series.

He doesn't. I read up to book 6 or 7, and he keeps on getting kahlan into that sort of situation. It's kind of amazing she doesn't fail a sanity roll.

[fuzzyoctopus]

I've read three SK books, Salem's Lot, the first I read, was adequate. Didn't really creep me out, but didn't annoy me. The Green Mile was the best of the three. But the Stand really really torqued me off. pick up a frickin' atlas and look at it for 15 seconds. It's not going to make you miss deadline. And the fact that I read a REVISED edition where SK had gone through himself and cleaned things up and there were STILL tons of errors.. man, sorry. That's unforgiveable. This was supposed to be one of his signature works, right?
.

Sure, you can dismiss him, just don't un-recommend him.  I've personally decided to start a campaign against William Faulkner (the man couldn't WRITE). Also, I personally thought Salem's Lot was a HORRIBLE book.  Heck, I don't really like any of his first few books - Carrie, Christine, etc.  And The Stand was written 20 years ago - even though it was revised, it wasn't revised much - mostly he just added back in the stuff that he had to take out 'cause it was so long.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Sure, you can dismiss him, just don't un-recommend him.  I've personally decided to start a campaign against William Faulkner (the man couldn't WRITE).

I'm not sure I understand the difference. If he's dismissable, he's not commendable. I specifically take issue with comparing SK to Tolkien. As I was telling Brian last night, Tolkien, imo, has essentially done what Cervantes did with Don Quixote in reverse. (to wit, pioneering a genre into serious usage, and converting the sentiments of a culture toward their own perceptions) We're talking a 3 and a half century  distance between works of that impact. Now, it's true that I haven't read any Dark Tower novels, but are you comfortable comparing him to Cervantes (who is, after all, very much comparable to Shakespeare, are you comfortable puttin him in that league?) I'm not saying Tolkien DID as much as Cervantes, but it's definitely coming close.

I won't argue with you on Faulkner, though. It's my opinion that much of American fiction is vastly over-rated, with a few exceptions.