All right, an attempt at ranking my favourite fantasy authors, from best to worst.
1. John Ronald Reul Tolkien. As much as I try to hide it, Tolkien is my favourite. His works introduced me to the genre, and his books are still the ones that made the biggest impression on me. Versatile, intelligent and wise.
2. George R. R. Martin. Based on his “A Song of Ice and Fire”, I rank Martin as my second favourite. His characterizations are sharp, his story is original, his setting has a lot of depth, and his style of writing is gritty, realistic and to-the-point.
3. Tor Åge Bringsværd. The only Norwegian on my list, but he is in return an amazing writer. His books are all written in a very personal style, following one or more main characters from a first person point of view. This allows the reader to really connect with his characters. When Bringsværd in addition to this writes stunning, dystopic science fiction, as well as almost avantgarde low fantasy, he’s bound to end up high on my list.
4. Neil Gaiman. If I include “Sandman” in the “fantasy” genre, and include comic book writers as authors, then Gaiman belongs in the top five of this list. “American Gods” secures him the fourth place, with its unique setting, brilliant characterizations, and exciting plot. However, because of “Neverwhere”’s relative lack of quality, he’ll get demoted if “Anansi Boys” disappoints me. If I ever get around to actually buying and reading it.
5. Steven Erikson. I’ve mentioned extraordinary settings in my praise of the above authors, too, but there’s nowhere that description is more fitting than in the case of Steven Erikson’s “Tales of the Malazan Book of the Fallen”. His world, its history, its peoples and cultures and races, and the plots that unfolds in this world, is nothing but extraordinary. The way he starts out with several apparently unconnected stories, and then sends them accelerating towards an explosive convergence, is amazing. However, he loses the fourth place because his characters, although likeable, cannot match those of Bringsværd, Gaiman, Martin and Bakker.
6. R. Scott Bakker. Based on the first two volumes of his “Prince of Nothing” trilogy, I feel forced to rank him as number 6. If “The Thousandfold Thought” is as good as “The Darkness That Comes Before” and “The Warrior Prophet”, and if he can perform as good with another couple of books, he’ll overtake both Erikson and Gaiman. Because this is rich, top-shelf storytelling, with interesting characters, intricate plots, a fascinating setting, and first-class descriptions.
7. Robin Hobb. I haven’t read her “Soldier’s Son” trilogy yet, but based on “The Farseer”, “Liveship Traders” and “Tawny Man” trilogies, she’s bound to be ranked high. Although not as brilliant as Martin Bringsværd, Gaiman or Erikson, Hobb is nevertheless a talented writer. Her world is interesting, her characters are well-rounded and sympathetic, even the cynical bastards, for the most part, and the plots are refreshing. Not so much violence or open warfare as in a lot of other fantasy, which I find a relief (don’t get me wrong, I love a bloody, well written battle just as much as the next guy, but sometimes you just need change, you know?), especially as her stories manage to be both thrilling and captivating in spite of this.
8. Susanna Clarke. Clarke has only written one book so far, at least that I know of, but that book is in return so fun, so captivating and so special that it wins Clarke the 8th place. “Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell” — if you haven’t read it yet, make amends!
9. J. K. Rowling. I love her Harry Potter books. For a long time, I was a total skeptic, ridiculing the Harry Potter books as childish nonsense. After all, I was 15 (possibly 14), and had read “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Silmarillion”; what did I care for these probably boring and silly books?
Then I actually sat down and read them (the first three, anyway, as they were the only ones published at this time), and from the first page, I was wholly captivated. Her humour was perhaps the first thing that appealed to me, but it didn’t take long before I developed a real fascination for both er world, her characters and her story.
10. Robert Jordan. Overrated, but yet a decent author. As said before, I’m something of a Jordan fanboy, and although “The Wheel of Time” barely can be said to have any progression, and in spite of Jordan’s abysmal style of writing, he ends up this high because of the impact tWoT made on me when I started reading it five years ago. Naturally, he’s not totally bereft of skill; the setting of tWoT is still among my favourites, the actual plot of the same series is excellent (though not so excellently executed), some of his characters are fascinating and well described, and he writes good introductionary fantasy.
11. Katharine Kerr. Celtic fantasy that may deserve a higher rank, too, although I find much of what I’ve read of her to be bland and easily forgotten. But that could just be related to the fact that I’ve till now read her while studying for my exams. And that tends to have a spill-over effect on most things. Kerr has good characters, decent plots, and an interesting twist to the entire dwarves-and-elves thing.
12. C.S. Lewis. I’m not really a big fan of Lewis’ Narnia-books. His descriptions are too scarce, and the morale is despicable. But the stories he tell are never the less quite entertaining, and trying to win children over to the faith through fantasy is.. charming, although perhaps not entirely original.
13. Terry Pratchett. The funniest guy in fantasy. His “Discworld” novels are hilarious, intelligent and thorough, but he doesn’t climb any higher because he’s best in small doses. Too much Pratchett, and it’s just not fun anymore. And if it’s not fun, well…
14. China Miéville. I read “Perdido Street Station” with towering expectations. And it looked so promising: Awesome. twisted characters, one of the most innovative, magnetic and living settings I’d seen in a one-volume fantasy, and the beginnings of a decent 1984-like plot. But then what does dear China do? He makes the plot revolve around a couple of giantic, dream-eating moths, who flies around New Corbuzon, spreading terror and apathy. This is probably a metaphor for something, but I’ve never bother to think more about it, because I realized that I’m not very fond of “villains” who are nothing but hungry animals. I want sentience, and I want plans. Not just instincts and randomness. Boooo!
15. Raymond E. Feist. Based on the “Riftwar Saga”, I cannot rate Feist any higher than this. Sure, the story and the characters weren’t that bad, but lets face it. This is little else than introductionary high epic fantasy, following the genre’s tropes almost slavishly. I enjoyed it, though.
16. Terry Goodkind. Goodkind is a decent writer of adventure fantasy, but he imagines himself to be more. Also, I despise Richard Rahl, around whom most of “The Sword of Truth” revolves, and the last four books have been boring.
..
..
So, that was my list. If you, my readers has any thoughts on it, or if you want to list your own favourites, please do so. Like all human beings, I am a sucker for attention.
EDIT September 20, 2006: Added C.S. Lewis and added some text on J.K. Rowling.

Posts
Sword of Truth is probably going to be made into a mini-series by the man who made Spider-man I and II, by the way.
As for your list, I’ll get back to it tomorrow. Right now, I’m way overdue for going to bed, I have, as usual, an early day tomorrow. X(
18. September 2006 @ 02:21 ( Permalink )
Yeah, I saw that Raimi bought the rights to SoT. Might be fun, as they probably will have to cut a lot of the preaching, and that’s what eats at me, mainly.
As for getting to bed, I might do that soon, too. Got nothing in particular on the schedule for tomorrow, but it’s rarely beneficial to stay up so late that one has to sleep all day…
18. September 2006 @ 02:28 ( Permalink )
The preaching: yup, my thoughts too.
And I got up. I got back to bed when I got home four hours later, and slept ’til 14:30, but hey, I *did* get up and I *did* attend my lecture.
18. September 2006 @ 19:28 ( Permalink )
So, my list of these same authors. Note that I’ll not include any fantasy authors I’ve read in addition to these, as I simply don’t have the time or energy to sit down and try remembering all of them. Note also that I haven’t read R. Scott Bakker, Robin Hobb, Susanna Clarke, China Miéville, and that they therefore obviously won’t appear on this list. Neither will Tor Åge Bringsværd, seeing as I’ve only read his novelizations of old myths, and none of his original work, thus making it hard to judge.
1. George R. R. Martin
2. Steven Erikson.
3. Neil Gaiman
4. John Ronald Reul Tolkien (maybe I should put him above Gaiman, I’ve read too little of Gaiman to be sure, and I’ve never read LotR in English (for shame!), which is also something I suspect might affect my judgement here)
5. Raymond E. Feist (his individual books would by average probably be ranked as 7, above Jordan, below Goodkind, was it not for the amazing ability he has to flesh out his world more and more with each book and each series, making the setting feel more real and coherent and complete than any fantasy world with the exception of Erikson. (Tolkien and Martin have very convincing worlds, but they only let you see a small portion of it - and while Erikson and Feist too focuses on relatively few areas on their worlds, you get the feeling that the entire world is created in almost as much detail and complexity as the place(s) the plot(s) happen to take place in.))
6. Katherine Kerr (note that I haven’t read her in years, and when I did, I read the Norwegian translations - today, I’d probably have liked her far better or far less, but I won’t know which until I get around to reading more of her work)
7. Terry Goodkind
8. Robert Jordan
9. Terry Pratchett (he’s good, but he gets tiresome. And he’s anyway malplaced on this list, which generally consists of epic fantasy(ish) stories, and he writes satires)
10. J. K. Rowling (not bad by any means, but generally not as interesting as the others he had on this list)
18. September 2006 @ 19:42 ( Permalink )
“I’ve never read LotR in English”
Me neither… probably should have, but I hold both Nils Ivar Aagøy and Torstein Bugge Høverstad in such high regard that I don’t feel it as a loss. And at the moment I think I prioritize the Nynorsk translation (when it’s done) over the English original…
Nice list, by the way. Looks more quality oriented than mine.
18. September 2006 @ 22:40 ( Permalink )
XD Yours isn’t quality-oriented, then?
As for the Nynorsk version, I’m hoping I’ll have had time to read the book in English before it is released. That’s highly unrealistic, but still.
18. September 2006 @ 22:48 ( Permalink )
Looks like a great list. From what I have read, I could might have picked much of the same. (Hmm.. I looks at the list and thinks I have read nothing, but you are only seven authors ahead of me)
But I think I could be pretty much agreed with you. I would rate Clarke above of all of those (Tolkien, Kerr, Jordan, Feist, Gaiman and Rowling), and Jordan would probably not get to high either (your words are commin’ in.) But besides that, I think I can agreee with you.
19. September 2006 @ 17:42 ( Permalink )
“XD Yours isn’t quality-oriented, then?”
Four fifths of it is quality oriented. The remaining fifth is more emotion oriented, or something like that.
“but you are only seven authors ahead of me)”
And how many pages does that combine into? 18-20,000, or somesuch?
19. September 2006 @ 20:46 ( Permalink )
By the way, I *know* you’ve read C. S. Lewis, why isn’t he on the list?
19. September 2006 @ 21:27 ( Permalink )
Wow, that’s a good question. I’ll remedy that right away.
(He’s probably absent because neither “The Chronicles of Narnia” nor “Legenden om Narnia” are here with me in Trondheim, and thus I must have forgot it.)
EDIT: Added Lewis as wel as some text on Rowling.
20. September 2006 @ 00:07 ( Permalink )
“After all, I was 15 (possibly 14),” I was 16, or possibly 17, when I read the first one.
“what did I care for these probably boring and silly books?” My thoughts too.
“Then I actually sat down and read them (the first three, anyway, as they were the only ones published at this time), and from the first page, I was wholly captivated.” Ditto. Though I lost the interest a bit after the first one, and, despite liking 3 better than both 1 and 2, even more after the third. To this day I don’t know why.
“Her humour was perhaps the first thing that appealed to me” Likewise, here as well, I think.
“but it didn’t take long before I developed a real fascination for both er world, her characters and her story” And that’s where we differ. I never did that. She writes encaptivating, and I got sucked in and finished the books very quickly, but I never, even while reading it, cared very much for neither story nor characters. Dumbledore was okay, if a bit two-dimensional, and the same went for Snape. Other than that, none interested me to any mentionable degree. The story was slightly better, but still, it never impressed me.
The world, I hated. I found it an insultingly simple, god-awful rehash of random mythologies, much like the Wheel of Time-world if you scratch the “god-awful”-part, only *without* the author having bothered to actually structure it like Jordan has. It is the only time in my life that I’ve read a fantasy-book and thought “oh, dear God, this world is so lousy *I* can make a better one”. I suspect this might be what eventually made me lose all interest in the books - combined with the uninteresting characters, that is.
20. September 2006 @ 01:35 ( Permalink )
“And how many pages does that combine into? 18-20,000, or somesuch? ”
Whoa! I really have to get some speed on my reading. Or not. Nah, I’ll just read what I like int he tempo I like. Probably, Martin is soon in my bookshelf as well.
20. September 2006 @ 16:26 ( Permalink )
“Yeah, I saw that Raimi bought the rights to SoT.”
And now there’s a trailer. (All it tells us, though, really, is that the show has a very good budget, because it looks pretty but contains virtually no information of how the show will actually be)
30. July 2008 @ 20:41 ( Permalink )
It also tells us that there is a Young Guy With Magic Powers, a Damsel in Distress, a Magic Sword! and the Same Fucking Mountains That Were Used in LotR!
I’m NOT hopeful. It looked cringe-worthy.
30. July 2008 @ 22:46 ( Permalink )
Well, it doesn’t tell you that last part, but it’s common knowledge as well as being pretty obvious.
30. July 2008 @ 22:48 ( Permalink )
I think all that sounds as good as can be expected. Never seen a high budget TV-show built on a strictly fantasy premise like that before, they’ve always somehow tied in myths or fairy-tales or been more sci-fi-y, and thus I’m pretty interested in this. I mean, I have no expectations to it being out-of-this-world-brilliant, but I’m assuming they’re not doing the purposefully cheesy thing (like, say, Xena and Hercules) because I can’t see how Goodkind wouldn’t approve of that at all, and thus that they’re trying to take a more serious approach. Which should end up being reasonably good unless they do something horribly wrong. Last time I saw this guy do something fantastical in a serious way we got three rather well done Spider-man-movies, so I’m hopeful.
Also, you know, it’s based on one of my favourite fantasy novels ever, especially back when I was growing up, and that certainly helps.
Oh, and by the way, you can hardly fault the show for sticking to fantasy stereotypes in a media which hasn’t ever done epic fantasy before. They’re not stereotypes there yet. Honestly, I find your reaction to a rather contentless trailer to be relatively prejudiced and critical for no apparent reason. (Other than, I’d hazard, Goodkind’s name being involved, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you have better reasons than that for reacting like you did.)
31. July 2008 @ 01:03 ( Permalink )
Of course I don’t like that they chose to run with SoT as a TV show, because anyway you look at it, it can’t be good for HBO’s aSoIaF production. Success equals less chance that they’ll run with something that’s actually very different from SoT (no magic! BAH! HBO would have to change the entire premise of the story) and if it bombs, it’ll mean an even slimmer chance of of seeing Martin’s work on screen. Who’s gonna run with something no one apparently wants to see?
The reason I didn’t like the trailer is because it looked like ERAGON .2 - The Quickening, only with more tropes and poorer special effects. My brain naturally turns off all function and goes of to My Happy Place whenever I see something even remotely like ERAGON (probably the reason why I have no great love for Jeremy Irons any more…), so yeah, I admit to being both prejudiced and overly critical.
It’s a health issue.
1. August 2008 @ 23:30 ( Permalink )
“Success equals less chance that they’ll run with something that’s actually very different from SoT ”
…HBO? The posterboy-channel for doing stuff more seriously and gritty than anyone else? The channel that when they on “Studio 60″ had a character pitching a show about the United Nations was so highly thought of among the writers that he initially _refused_ to run it elsewhere because there was a good chance HBO might make an offer?
I’m not saying they’re saints or anything, but “The Wire” was hardly destroyed by the myriad of copshows out there, not “Deadwood” of the hundreds of western movies and shows there’s been, why would “A Song of Ice and Fire” be wrecked by ONE other fantasy show?
You ARE however maybe right about the odds of seeing it slimming if SoT goes poorly. I honestly don’t see that as a reason to be critical in its own right though. If you’re going out with the position that nobody should express themselves artistically in case someone better wants to do it later to keep from ruining the chance of the other guys if your own stuff ends up sucking, then that’s a little scary and borderline crazy.
And Jeremy Irons would need to be in twenty Eragons before he’d remotely smell of less than awesome quality. He’s Jeremy bloody Irons, for crying out loud.
2. August 2008 @ 21:14 ( Permalink )
HBO: Also the channel that’s currently working out a comedy-pilot about a basketball coach with an enourmous penis. The show is tentatively titled, “HUNG”. So, you know, it’s not all Sopranos or The Wire…
The reason why The Wire and Deadwood didn’t suffer are of course because they both operated within boarders that viewers could relate to and can, obviously, not get enough of. An Epic fantasy show like SoT is does not, as you yourself pointed out, have that benefit, and so it becomes a curiosity, an experiment into a place no one has ever quite gone before. And, you know, if it goes over well, a commercialized market like the one in America is ten times more likely to go with something that can bring in the same demographic as opposed to something that would be equally as “daring” as SoT.
“If you’re going out with the position that nobody should express themselves artistically in case someone better wants to do it later to keep from ruining the chance of the other guys if your own stuff ends up sucking, then that’s a little scary and borderline crazy.”
Clearly we haven’t met. Hi, I’m Jon, and I’m scary and borderline crazy when it comes to hoping that a good fantasy series will be made properly on a fantastic channel in stead of it being ruined by a two-bit cheese-fest made from a series that I have very little love for. If I didn’t have any relationship to these projects I wouldn’t give a shit, but since I’m invested, I choose to root for a team of my own choosing. Seems a quite natural response for a fan, if you ask me.
3. August 2008 @ 01:45 ( Permalink )
“a series that I have very little love for. ”
A series, I might add, that you’ve never read. Nor have you read the other series that you’re so incredibly enthusiastic about getting a TV-show made out of. The entirety of your position gives entire new REALMS of depth to the concept of prejudice. And honestly, Jon, that’s just not good. You’re lucky these aren’t the first posts of yours I’ve read, I’d never have even considered checking out your weblog if this bigotry was my first impression of you.
And your entire basis of argument is just irrational. Why would people have an easier time relating to Ancient Romans than to people in a made up Medieval world that all things considered are still thirteen hundred years or so closer to them, made up background or not? Also, when ABC (the selfsame channel that’s doing Legend of the Seeker) made the reputedly abomination of a series “Empire” about the VERY SAME events that HBO (the channel that’s hopefully doing “Song”) did “Rome” RIGHT before HBO started up theirs, it didn’t make “Rome” less awesome. So the closest you’ve gotten to an HBO unrelatable fantastical TV-show in recent years , “Rome”, a giant hit by the way, was following the traces of exactly a miserably failed ABC-series on the very same premise.
3. August 2008 @ 13:28 ( Permalink )
I have read the two first books in both series, so I do feel like enough to base my argument on. I quit TG’s series ’cause I couldn’t stand it; Martin’s is one that I have every intention of picking up again in the future when it’s closer to completion. I also have the collected impression of two years worth of reading all but every major fantasy message board, and everything I’ve heard (except from you) says that Goodkind’s series is very flawed and that Martin’s is among the best. It’s like this: I’ve never seen an Uwe Boll film, but I’m not going to watch one just to prove to myself that they aren’t worth the discs they’re printed on.
“And your entire basis of argument is just irrational. Why would people have an easier time relating to Ancient Romans than to people in a made up Medieval world that all things considered are still thirteen hundred years or so closer to them, made up background or not?”
Dude, “Rome” is based on historic events. Events that people have heard tales about, read about and that’s effectively become a part in our cultural hive mind. And while I don’t know what kind of storyline Legend of the Seeker will follow, I think we can safely presume it won’t be something as familiar as that.
But since you feel so strongly about it, I will actually try to watch this series now. I still think it’s going to suck, but hopefully it will suck in the good, “Psych” kind of way
3. August 2008 @ 23:23 ( Permalink )
Your arguing in circles now. Earlier, cliches and tropes were bad, now, historical events that are part of the “cultural hive mind” are GOOD. If there’s anything Sword of Truth is good on (in the early books, anyway) it’s using the familiar fairy-tale and mythical tropes and patterns in interesting ways. So there’s plenty familiarity. Everyone is familiar with the old wise man, the young inexperienced hero, the mystical princess, the trusty hunter, the evil wizard, the mad queen, etc, and the first two books (which I’m assuming this show will be based on for the foreseeable future) are full of good use of these. Don’t be coming here to tell me that the average American viewer, even of HBO, have a knowledge of Roman history that’s notably more detailed than that.
My expectations to the show is that it’ll be like “Psych” - a well-made, well-acted, well-scripted show that doesn’t reinvent the wheel but that still manages to entertain enough to catch an audience - but with the obvious added element of an ongoing storyline with a much stricter continuity to draw a little extra quality from. If it’s worse than that, I’ll stop watching. If it’s better than that, then yay and huzzah. But if it’s just that, I’ll still be very happy, as it’s the first and only big TV-show I know off that is based off of a big fantasy-series, and that’s ground-breaking enough for me.
Glad to hear you’ll give it a go. Then again, I didn’t know you’d read the first two SoT-books. If you truly disliked those as you say you did, I can’t really hold it against you if you decide not to. I haven’t read them in years, but I’ve read them many, many times when I was younger, and I remember them being among my favourites in the genre for many years, the first one in particular. It was unencumbered with the too obvious propaganda of the later books and blessed with a richer fairy-tale-esque world than the more realistic and less trope-dependent later books (which works far more poorly with the somewhat cliche characters).
4. August 2008 @ 03:31 ( Permalink )