[Steven Savile]

And having just checked his intro to Legends II, I think he sums it up well - the new additions to the line up have risen to notable popularity amongst fantasy enthusiasts. That right there is why Gabaldon is in then, because she is selling to fantasy readers. And she is, as well as mainstream.

The first book was meant to be definitive - the second isn't, it is meant to show diversity. I think Silverberg addresses all of your problems in his short intro.

[Steven Savile]

Erf - as I said before, I know it is pointless to try and change someone's mind on a bbservice like sffworld - it just doesn't happen. And I am far from fired up, just getting ready to go to bed actually. I do think Mith has a valid point, not on the status of the legends, but on the performance they offer in the book, which is a massively different thing...

[Hobbit]

PERN is fantasy, period. For YEARS it was best selling fantasy. Actually, according to the author, it's SF.

Though they are called dragons, they are genetic adaptations. The book DragonsDawn fills in the background - was a planet colonised by Humans thousands of years ago etc etc. McCaffrey says that she has always seen it as sf! (Some background HERE) (http://www.srellim.org/pern/intro.htm) and from her own website:

Q: Are your books considered to be fantasy or science fiction?

A: I write science-fiction, (s-f for short). Fantasy usually contains some form of magic. I stick to newtonian logic.

Alternatively, the more cynical could see it as a canny marketing move, covering a broader selling area. (and again, we're back to genre labelling, stereotyping & semantics - what is fantasy, ya da, ya da, ya da. ) :D

But I agree - it doesn't read like Sf to start with (though the hints are there).

And I must admit I agree with the points made above - the writers may be 'Legends' (though I'd disgree with some of the writers involved therefore myself), but moreso, some of the writing (in Legends II particularly) is not... hmm.

(And I must still be one of the few not won over by Gaiman's American Gods - but I'm still not sure why! :) )

Hobbit

[Steven Savile]

Hobbit, I only read the first Pern novel and it really felt like fantasy to me, but I bow to someone who has read a lot more. It does strike me as a lot of genre switching as sales dictate, though...

I loved the novel American Gods but just wasn't impressed by the short story in Legends II... I do think the quality is a much bigger issue than the status of the editor or writers though...

[Mithfânion]

Kane,

I'm pretty much petered out as far as this discussion is concerned. I really don't agree with the brunt of your argument at all and have now presented my opinion several times; we could continue to pick different aspects of the disagreement but that's getting us nowhere. I agree to disagree ;)

[FicusFan]

Well I have read Gabaldon's books so I will comment.

She is included for her Outlander series, of which Lord John is a new offshoot. He is also a small character in the first series which is almost complete (5 of the 6 books have been published). She has published a book with him as the main character and a few short stories. I have yet to read any of the stuff about him so I don't know if it is more than HF or not. I also don't know (yet) if the story in Legends II is about Lord John the main character of his own story, or a back story with him that is part of the Outlander series.

In any event Outlander is set in 18th century Scotland, England and the US Colonies. It also takes place in post WWII Scotland, and US & UK in 1960s. It is about a nurse who through magic and time travel ends up back in the 1800s. She does return to the modern world and then she and other characters go back to the past. While there she discovers other moderns who are living in the past. Although there is magic and time travel in the story, it is mostly a plot device to explain modern people in the past. The series can be described as Romance, Historical Fiction, Adventure, and Military Fiction with a dash of SF&F. It is shelved in a different place in just about every book store - Romance, Fiction, SF&F, Historical Fiction.

She is a hugely popular modern author and sells lots of books. It was because of her name alone that I bought the book. I am not a real fan of short fiction and would normally hem and haw and try to determine if the good would outweigh the bad. Even if I read nothing else in the book, it would still be a worthwhile purchase just for her story. which I am sure was the whole point in adding her in the first place (not just specifically me, but all the other Outlander fans too) :)

[Mithfânion]

My final batch of stories:

Robin Hobb's story is a good one, definitly worthy of 4 stars. It started out really well and basically keeps going but for those who have already read all her 9 books set in this world, the experiences of the main character are less wondrous than they may be for newcomers. On the whole I also think that, like with Martin's entry here, it's not quite as good as her short story in Legends I.

Neil Gaiman's Monarch of the Glen is another fine piece of work. I love the Shadow character and the world that Gaiman creates for him. I'm a bit disappointed that Anansi's Boys looks to be very different from AG but pleased to hear that after that he'll be writing sequels of Shadow in Britain (which is referenced to in the short story). Exciting that, but obviously still two or three years away at best. This was a short but fine tale of Shadow, 4 stars out of 5.

Terry Brooks delivers something that I can best describe as very young adult. I always get this feeling when I read Brooks, it's not that the man is irritating like for instance a Goodkind, but there's just that feeling of immaturity and lightweightedness about everything he does. He tells you that characters are wise, enigmatic and powerful but doesn't show us. It lacks depth, something I felt with Haydon as well. 1 star out of 5.

So, all eleven tales taken together, Hobb, Gaiman and Martin deliver the best tales, totally as expected (Hobb and Martin were also the best contributants to Legends I IMO, along with Feist). Williams and Feist disappoint here, in contrary to their stories in Legends I and the rest is mediocre to downright poor. I'd give the collection as a whole 2 stars out of 5.

[Rob B]

(Hobb and Martin were also the best contributants to Legends I IMO, along with Feist)
Except Hobb didn't contribute to the first LEGENDS anthology.

[Richardb]

Really points out the lacking quality of the other authors when a non contributor leads the list in quality contribution... :rolleyes:

[Duckbutter]

Really points out the lacking quality of the other authors when a non contributor leads the list in quality contribution... :rolleyes:

all i have to say to that is

OH BOY

continue on i will hold the light bulb and let the room spin and soon enuf it will be in place. :cool: