[Fuxxy Elf]

After reading various opinions on this site on the "Popular Authors" and what is wrong and right with their respective works was wondering what peoples preferences for the Fantasy genre were.

Do you prefer to read stand alone Fantasy books? Stand alone but within a setting e.g Terry Pratchett or the single Feist books? Trilogies? Longer series? Do you prefer the story to have been completed before you start to read? And do you read a complete story i.e trilogy in one go or do you read books in between?

I'll give any style of Fantasy a go once and will read any author's work, but I can be very particular about how I read it. For instance if they are standalone books but within a setting I must read them in order, like I am reading the Discworld novels in publication order, because I am worried that I'm missing out on in jokes or background to characters that I might meet later. This has meant I am approaching Moorcock with trepidation, I did find a couple of volumes of the complete Eternal Champion but couldn't really get into them, however I really want to read Elric but due to my need to know all the ins and outs I think I might be missing something if I jump straight in to these. Am I the only one who thinks like this?

Also my reading of WoT has made me wonder whether it is better to read completed works, because I have dedicated a huge amount of time and effort readin the previous six or seven volumes and now it's moving downhill, but I'd feel it was a waste of my time if I didn't finish the series. This thinking led me to Martin thinking his series was a trilogy because these books had been out ages with no new ones only to find at least three more to come, grr. Hopefully there won't be such a drop off in quality. I am reading Erikson now, but I have more faith in him because I know he has his series well planned in advance whereas it seems Jordan has an end but keeps adding and adding to the middle.

Finally, I've tried reading whole trilogies in a row, but I find it exhausting and usually need a small humorous book to split it up, like Pratchett or a recent acquisition, Mark Gatiss' The Vesuvius Club which was very good. But this affects my enjoyment of longer saga's as I forget the nuances of the plot sometimes. I think this may become a problem with Erikson.

Anyone else like to chip in any thoughts on how you like to read fantasy books?

[Generalbassist]

I hate being done with a series, so I prefer them long(longer the better). I HATE finishing a trilogy(whether an author can pull of a looong series is another thing, but nothing would make me happier than to read a 10 book+ series)

WOT is kind of boring from book 6-book 10, but I'm enjoying the new one a lot

[silvercue]

I don't mind fantasy series or stand alone. But the series is better when it is planned, rather than when the author just churns out more and more books as they are popular. What I don't like is when an author writes a couple of good books and then is offered a six book deal with the same characters, though he has no idea what to do with them... like Terry Goodkind.

[Brett Hall]

I've read most of what you listed and enjoyed them for different reasons.

WoT is losing ground for the reasons meantioned (6-10 are slow going and the plot spiderweb looks nearly impossible to resolve within another 4 or 5 books).

Moorcock and Pratchett are quite different in their works. I prefer Pratchett as I enjoy the use of humor within the story. Many of the people on the forum seem to mock the 'lighter works' but at the end of the day, funny is funny.

Hard to say what I like best. Probably something along the lines of Pratchett/Aspirin (M.Y.T.H. series is hilarious). Basically, if I want the good guy to win and the bad guy to lose, or the opposite (either way, I <i>care</i> about what happens) then the book was acceptable. If the story had a good ending, even better.

Having written a few novels myself, I too am interested in what others like. Most seem to enjoy well-developed characters who perform acts that aren't too contrived or predictable.

My $0.02

[Lani]

Personally, I have found that there are too few stand alone fantasy books. Sure there are some, but not many of them draw a lot of attention to themselves the way many of the fantasy series do. Perhaps it makes the good stand-alone books feel like a deli product to me. I wish I could find the good ones more often especially when I don't want to get into reading a huge series.

On the other hand, when I find a book I really enjoy, I am often glad it's a series because I want to know more about the characters, the world, and what happened next. Granted, some series go downhill in time, but if the series keeps the standard I am happy for it to be as long as the author's writing it. For example, I didn't mind one bit when Hobb returned to write the Tawny Man series because I enjoyed all the previous books and wanted more.

As for standalone books within a world, I don't particularly care about them. If some catches my attention, I'll read it, but I might not really go on reading them unless I really like the writing (vs. characters).

I guess to sum it up, I want my books to be quality, and the format is a secondary, and not particularly important issue to me.

[Randy M.]

Preferences:

1) Stand alone or short series of novels, each novel less thick than a brick and not because the type font is microscopic.

2) Dark. Not necessarily horror, but the danger to the characters has to seem real, and there should be consequences to foolish/stupid/evil actions.

3) Characters I can believe in, whether I like them or not.

4) Prose style that fits the story being told.


Randy M.

[Bad Heartburn]

I like epic fantasy, cinderblock sized books and long series. Nothing whets my appetite like spending a lot of time in a well fleshed out world. Single book fantasy just doesn't do it for me. It's over before it's begun, the way I see it. Other than comic fantasy, which I like as a nice break from the norm, I've never really been into much else in the genre.

[Brys]

I now prefer standalones or series of short books. I used to prefer long series, but having to wait for books to come out and the common decline in quality over a series has put me off (Robert Jordan). Some very long series, ie Moorcock's Eternal Champion series is fine because it concludes regularly - as does Steven Erikson's Malazan series. I'm fine with trilogies though, because at least there is an end in sight with them and they don't have time to get that much worse. The only prolonged series that I'm still reading and enjoying is Martin's ASOIAF.

2) Dark. Not necessarily horror, but the danger to the characters has to seem real, and there should be consequences to foolish/stupid/evil actions.
3) Characters I can believe in, whether I like them or not.
4) Prose style that is fits the story being told

Yes, I pretty much read only fantasy like that now.

As for Pratchett - I've still got to discover a book of his that is very funny. I've only read 3 of his, one co-written, but none have really grabbed me. Generally, though, I prefer books that are dark in tone but have elements of humour in them than pure humour novels - something along the lines of Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Steven Erikson's Malazan books or Jeff Vandermeer's City of Saints and Madmen.

[K.D. May]

I prefer stand-alone books. I hesitate to invest time in a trilogy because some authors don't finish a storyline in book 1. In a series, I like each book to be able to stand on its own. I'm not likely to pick up a super long book, which is why I've never read Robert Jordan.

[Acei]

I would much prefer a series rather then a stand-alone. I hate to find a book and fall in love with the world or the characters and once I've finished the book they're gone. If I find a world or character that I really like, I wouldn't mind if the series was 20 books long.

The exception to that I guess would be the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance books. Even though they're not exactly a series, there are tons of stand alones in the same world. I can handle that I guess.