SFFWorld Best Reads Review of 2007, Part 1

[Hobbit]

The first part of our SFFWorld Review is up HERE. See what Adam (known as Werthead on site), Aidan (known as Al’Kael), Graeme (known as Deornoth) and Robert (known as Cervantor), as well as Rob Bedford and myself thought about their reading this year.

And then comment here.

Have we got it right (or wrong?)

Further note: Around New Year you will have your usual chance to give your favourite 5 in the Forums. Might be worth saving your lists until then.

Hobbit

[Severn]

Cool! Great reading everyone's thoughts, particularly from people whose opinions I respect.

Mope. I rarely get to read books the year they come out - I wait for the trade/hardback phase to pass on by...(did get to the Lynch though, and loved it).

I'm really looking forward to reading Rothfuss and Abercrombie, and have deliberately avoided the giant Name of the Wind thread on here.

I agree, it has been a great year for fantasy, with the exception of some sad losses, and illnesses.

[Mithfânion]

Nice feature Hobbit, good idea to have everyone's thoughts put together like that. You can see there are certain books almost everyone loved, and some interesting outsiders as well. I posted my top 5 at Westeros, I will repost here.

I'll go with a top 15

15. Soon I will be invincible- A. Grossman

Interesting novel on superheroes. It works.

14. Bertram of Butter Cross- J. Barlough

Unknown little 250 page Fantasy fable by a gifted prose author.

13. Darkness of the Light- Peter David

David's best book, also really looking forward to his standalone "Tigerheart" in June next year, his take on Peter Pan. This book is the start of the Hidden Earth trilogy and David show some flair here. Inventive use of races.

12. The Last Wish- Sapkowski

Looking forward a lot to the novel Blood of Elves, this was only an appetiser really, but certainly one worth reading. Geralt is a great character, fond of Yennefer as well.

11. Red Seas under Red Skies- Scott Lynch

I agree that this is definitly not as good as "Lies" for a variety of reasons ( female characters have a lot to do with it, also the loss of some of the first book's great characters that were not compensated). I expect Republic will be at least as good as "Lies" though. And it was still an entertaining book well above the average cut in the field.

10. Fall of Kings- David Gemmell

Somewhat mixed feelings about this conclusion to the Troy trilogy, but all in all this is some of Gemmell's finest work.

9. God's Demon- Wayne Barlowe

Remarkable debut that came out from Tor two months ago, sort of an epic Fantasy really set in Hell. Check it out.

8. The Broken Kings- Robert Holdstock

Strong conclusion to an intriguing if somewhat wandering series from the English Fantasy master.

7. Children of Hurin- JRR Tolkien

A really new tale by Tolkien would probably easily top this list. But as fine a story as this is, there's just very little in the way of new material here and so even including it here is questionable. But it is a 2007 release and good enough to take a no. 7 spot here, I rated it 8/10. Now if only they could do something similar for the Fall of Gondolin.

6. Heaven's Net is wide- Lian Hearn

This turned out to be the best of all her books. Took her some time to write it but she created a very fine Samurai Fantasy work here. Best of the Asian setting books that I have encountered.

5. Ysabel-Guy Gavriel Kay

Now granted this is a lighter Kay work and not as good as say Tigana, Song or Lions. However there is still the superb prose, interesting myhtic elements and great characters in there. Kay is just one of the best writers on the planet so even a less ambitious/less complex work still ranks high.

4. Before they are hanged- Abercrombie

Better than the first book even, and that was already very fine. Sad death of a great character, I expect Last Argument to be even better.

3. The Name of the Wind- Patrick Rothfuss

Immensely well-written. Superb style, a natural storyteller. Despite my disappoinment over the whole "book 2 comes out a year afterwards, no delays guaranteed" charade, I can still objectively rate this book as one of the best new books this year. And I didn't think it would be at first. Way better than anything fellow DAW author Tad Williams had produced btw.

2. Book of Joby- Mark Ferrari

Like God's Demon this is another TOR debut you don't see too much about. Just check out Amazon or the sling of reviews on the Net to see what it is about and then believe it is as good as everyone says it is.

1. Sword from Red Ice- JV Jones

Now this one has encountered some mixed reviews ( unlike say the Abercrombie, Rothfuss or Ferrari books above which almost everyone likes). But I think it is a strong continuation of what is simply one of the best ongoing series in the field. The characters are great and keep getting better. The new ones she adds work as well. And there will not be as long a wait for book 4 because that is due in the first half of 2009.

Some runners-up
Companion to Wolves- Monette/Bear, The Bestiary- Christopher.

Still to read:

Betrayal in Winter by Abraham, Sword-Edged blonde by Bledsoe, 20th Century Ghosts by Joe Hill, Somnambulist by Jonathan Barnes, The Pilo Family Circus by Will Elliot and The Terror by Dan Simmons.

[Aldarion]

I'll be quite blunt here: While most of the individual books named were decent, were they really "outstanding" efforts of great style and originality? Also, while I noted the Valente and Rowling mentions (and the brief wondering why C.S. Friedman's book wasn't talked about more), where are the discussions of the female authors here? There have been some very well-written efforts lately - Sarah Monette, Elizabeth Bear, Emma Bull, Nalo Hopkinson, Jo Walton, Cherie Priest, and Elizabeth Hand among them - and I just don't see any coverage of them. Is it an audience expectation thing, where one reads the books most similar to their tried and true tastes, or is it something else? The question has to be asked, considering how well paranormal romances, urban fantasies, etc. are doing these days. List just felt a bit too epic/secondary-world centric to me.

[Raule]

Aldarion,

those are all authors that I have been interested in or have at least tried a few of their books (but mostly not anything from this year), and would be interested in reading more and gaining more insight from others who have read their recent efforts. In fact, I would consider several of those authors underappreciated, and maybe that has to do with the fact that they don't get the same kind of hype that epic/secondary world fantasy releases tend to get.

I have read both volumes of Valente's Orphan's Tales, and would rate them near the top of my list as truly deserving and exceptional.

I think my main limitation in discussing books released this year is that I often don't read books the year they are released. Too many books, too little time, and not enough funds for buying all those books.

[Mithfânion]

Aldarion

Why can't people just like what they like? Why can't people just recognize a quality read and say so, without you continiously reminding them that they are not what you enjoy.

Yes Aldarion, since you have said it a 100 times by now, it is clear. You dislike epic Fantasy. Not a single one of the epic ( Tolkienesque) Fantasy debuts that people have applauded all over the net has really met with your approval. That is because you have a vastly different taste. You like blurry navelgazing books. You love any and all things New Weird. Heck you even love MJ Harrison and that man is so full of crap he's hitting the toilet 10 times a day. You hate worldbuilding, and piss over books that use it whenever you get the chance.

Seriously man, you like the high literary stuff. Fine. I don't care for your Spanish books, or your Spanish translations. I know your get very excited when there is something obscure found, something that few others have read. I know that you really don't care for epic Fantasy. I know you love it when Japanese or Serbian authors bring out something new that nobody else had read and you'll go pimping it. Also fine by me.

But what is up with pushing that agenda of yours everywhere you go. Why does a book have to be "original" in order for it to be good. I've read so many poor "original" books that that simply is not an indicator of quality. Have you considered that the posters there simply don't have your fancy taste for literary navelgazing efforts? Books where you can get 200 pages of the character talking about how he's on speed and the world is just one big bizarre blurr? Preferably translated of course, because that makes it extra chique. Not a book that has any interal consistency either, that would be another no-no.

where are the discussions of the female authors here? There have been some very well-written efforts lately - Sarah Monette, Elizabeth Bear, Emma Bull, Nalo Hopkinson, Jo Walton, Cherie Priest, and Elizabeth Hand among them - and I just don't see any coverage of them. Is it an audience expectation thing, where one reads the books most similar to their tried and true tastes, or is it something else?

Who cares? Why should anyone who is listing a 2007 favorites lists make sure it adheres to your standards and make sure that if anything, it has to have feminine authors on it. It's gotta be 50/50, else Dylan won't be happy.

Perhaps the works of the female authors simply aren't as good this year? Or in any year? I know you love a book that gives you a mindstretch so how is that for a thought? Perhaps women aren't writing as many good books as men? Or is that too politically incorrect for you?

I mean, there is this agenda that you lay on the table here where you say that what all these respondents have selected is not good enough, because there are not enough women in the list and it isn't fancy enough for you in terms of originality. Thought for you: Just being a woman or being original does not make your book better.

Anyway, maybe next post you could complain about how there not enough black or Asian authors in the list.

[Hobbit]

I'll be quite blunt here: While most of the individual books named were decent, were they really "outstanding" efforts of great style and originality? Also, while I noted the Valente and Rowling mentions (and the brief wondering why C.S. Friedman's book wasn't talked about more), where are the discussions of the female authors here? There have been some very well-written efforts lately - Sarah Monette, Elizabeth Bear, Emma Bull, Nalo Hopkinson, Jo Walton, Cherie Priest, and Elizabeth Hand among them - and I just don't see any coverage of them.

It's a good point, Larry. For me, my answer is quite simple: I've based my comments on books I've read this year. All of the female authors you've mentioned haven't made their way here to the UK, at least not easily. (I've only just managed to get a copy of Jo Walton's Farthing, for example.) If I haven't read it, I haven't mentioned it. Remember that (and I thought it was fairly clear!) that this was a set of connected comments made by members who read a lot mainly based on what we've seen/read/heard this year. You will notice at the end that I mention Connie Willis, but as I haven't quite finished that one I felt it would be unfair to include it in my 5.

And as for the men/women/race question: it really doesn't matter to me whether they're male, female or alien: a good book's a good book, regardless of colour, creed or culture. I certainly do not go around picking a book because it is written by a male/female writer.

Does that help?

Mark / Hobbit

[Aldarion]

Mark,

I understand your rationale and I am not arguing matters of individual tastes (not to mention the inevitable problems of availability with US/UK releases to the other country). What I think has to be considered is if there is a Catch-22 situation in which certain authors are not seen/read/heard because they aren't being read/heard elsewhere for others to have seen/read/heard of them. The lists in common were of books that I mostly enjoyed; I just can't help but wonder if (emphasis on the if here) there's a sameness to the reviewers' choices if that might lead to a sort of narrowing of focus for other readers, thus perpetuating an "overlooking" of books. It's a tricky issue, one that I don't know could be addressed easily, unless one treats SFF World's 2007 Review as being but one of many stops along the way to discovering all sorts of excellent reads. That's how I treat it anyways. Didn't want it to come across as being an attack and I'm glad to see that you didn't take it as such

Raule,

I understand your situation as well, as there are still many books from prior years that I've meant to buy/read, but haven't yet due to lack of money. Hopefully, you'll find those authors to be as enjoyable as I've found them.

Mitacalifragilistic,

People are free to enjoy what they can, how they can; I just raised the issue of considering whether or not there might be indeed more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio. Nice to see you distorting my likes/dislikes there - now which author's book did my name (as well as yours) appear? Oh wait, that's right, an epic fantasist's one. I do like certain efforts in it - I just wish authors would be more daring (and that goes for multiple fields). If you want to bring that and other issues up, please at least be completely truthful about it. As for the non-English ones, that's a personal taste bit - I mention those just like others all across the web mention books that they think others might like. You suddenly against people being made aware of other styles and forms of the speculative?

Please stop being so defensive about your tastes. It's unbecoming. And as for the last bit...I look actively for works by such authors because sometimes they have perspectives that make for an enjoyable reading experience. You make it sound as though it were a crime. A shame, that.

[Hobbit]

What I think has to be considered is if there is a Catch-22 situation in which certain authors are not seen/read/heard because they aren't being read/heard elsewhere for others to have seen/read/heard of them.

Yes: absolutely. In fact you can see two on that list: RobB mentioned Jeffrey Ford's Empire of Ice Cream, which he's only just got to but thought worthy of inclusion; I included Stross' Atrocity Archives even though it's been available in the US for a while.

there's a sameness to the reviewers' choices if that might lead to a sort of narrowing of focus for other readers, thus perpetuating an "overlooking" of books.

Very possibly. We regularly have books mentioned in the Forums at SFFWorld that have passed under the radar: hell, we encourage it! - and there's always the chance to come back to them later. (That's one of the reasons why I'm determined to sit down and read Farthing!) Our 'Reading in...' threads are always a mine of such stuff, if not the Book Clubs.

One of the things that I have emphasised in the review is that the comments were written independently before being compiled by yours truly. Even my comments were written before I saw others, (hence the 'Later edit' comment) and it was only me who saw them until the end.

In that respect I thought it would be interesting (for me and others!) to see how similar and different our tastes, likes and dislikes were.

I for one was very surprised to see how similar both my likes were to Werthead/Adam's, for example. (And it's an interesting trend in the second part, too!)

one that I don't know could be addressed easily, unless one treats SFF World's 2007 Review as being but one of many stops along the way to discovering all sorts of excellent reads.

Yup. Don't think there's a problem there. We never have claimed to be the 'definitive review' at SFFWorld: indeed, I've made it very clear in the introduction to the article and the strapline where the background to this one is from.

In these days of 25+ books published a week, it's darn nigh impossible to keep up with them all. (And that sorta leads back to your earlier point.)

I like a look around myself, though I try to avoid them until we've written ours here. And I'm sure Locus's list, not to mention many of the other sites around, and Mith's list above, will add more to the list. I would like to think that most members here and elsewhere would have a look around and choose something they like which coincidentally matches our likes.

You will notice (deliberately) that there's not a tally of the favourite books in the list: that, we think, others can do for themselves if they wish. More importantly to my mind is the fact that many of the members here know the reviewers (as best you can on an internet forum, anyway!) and will factor that into their analysis.

I look actively for works by such authors because sometimes they have perspectives that make for an enjoyable reading experience.

Can't say I disagree with that, nor do I think many others here would either. We all hope for an enjoyable reading experience, and for me, certainly a varied one. But there are times when many readers want a demanding book and sometimes others a little less so. Think there's room for all here.

Mark / Hobbit

[Aldarion]

Not too much to add here, since I'm pretty much in agreement with what you said in reply One interesting little thing from today that I'll share, though: Over at Pat's blog, he commented that a few years ago, it used to be Rob and I to whom he'd look for recs. Now, while he and Rob are still mostly akin in their choices, he's noted that my preferences have morphed in his mind towards fields that he doesn't like as much. Nothing wrong with that either way - I think there's a natural "comfort zone" for many that once found, will be clung to since there is the increased chance of enjoyable books, music, movies, etc. being identified quickly and accurately. Of course, there are those (and I guess I'm one, although it's not something that worries me overmuch) that like to explore and find new things constantly, making it hard to be satisfied for long. Sometimes, those itinerants dig up something that makes its way into the others' "comfort zones," other times those things will just irritate others.

I like to think of all the reviews we stumble upon (and reader comments in the Reading in ____ threads, etc.) as being some sort of mixture of the two schools I mentioned above. In both cases, books are presented as what the particular reviewer/blogger/etc. thinks is good. In one of those cases, it'll be presented with a community setting (i.e. as SFF World's is, a gathering of opinions for others to consider as they may, with the focus on consideration and not having a "definitive" take, as you put it so well above), while with the other, it'll be presented with more of a "here, you may like this, you may loathe it, but these are things that I think are worth considering." The two cases are similar, just with a different attitude behind them.

And if we're really lucky, we'll discover some cool authors writing in a variety of fields, not necessarily just some in one particular one

[Eventine]

A simple question (and one perhaps pertaining to why the many similarities in what's been discussed):
How were the people selected to discuss?

(Not insinuating anything, I'm just wondering if a different crowd would have produced markedly different results)

[Hobbit]

How were the people selected to discuss?

Well, originally there was RobB and myself.

Apart from that, there were no hard and fast rules, other than they were people who have reviewed books this year at SFFWorld or on the Internet, have been noticeably around on the Forums this year or have worked as staff this year. They either offered or were asked. I did ask people who I thought we'd get different results from. I did think we'd get a wider range of responses from the variety of people asked, so in that respect, the results are interesting. Great minds think alike, or fools seldom differ - take your choice!

I did try and get a bit of the cross-continental perspective there, Eventine, though there were no takers from the Antipodes. Would you be interested next year?

Mark / Hobbit

[Power to the J]

Just here to say that I liked the article and agreed with everything that was said, but it was kind of odd how unanimous all of the responses were.

[Eventine]

I think you'd find some people who write much more thoughtfully and eloquently than myself, and as far as being Antipodean, I'm not sure I'd offer that much given that the Australian market is essentally an extension of the UK. There's more talk about Australian authors coming from the UK than here!

The question was more aimed at seeing the diversity of the group, it seems that this was achieved with unexpected results.
On the topic of 2007, I don't think the year was particularly strong in terms of releases - I definitely haven't been as excited about new releases this year as the previous two years. By my count I've read 14 books released in 2007:

Bone Song, John Meaney
Fatal Revenant, Stephen Donaldson
The Somnambulist, Jonathan Barnes
Before They Are Hanged, Joe Abercrombie
Red Seas Under Red Skies, Scott Lynch
The Modern World, Steph Swainston
Twilight Watch, Sergei Lukyanenko
Ink, Hal Duncan
Day Watch, Sergei Lukyanenko
The Court of the Air, Stephen Hunt
Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
Lady Friday, Garth Nix
Ilario, Mary Gentle
Black Powder War, Naomi Novik

The stand outs would have to be Ink and The Modern World, followed by The Somnambulist and Ilario - I'd not describe any of of these books as excellent though. I was pretty underwhelmed by everything else, especially Un Lun Dun and Fatal Revenant - I know the authors are capable of so much more.

Contrast this to last year, where we had an excellent conculsion to an epic series in Crown of Stars by Kate Elliot, the wonderfully written Shriek: An Afterword by Jeff Vandermeer and the (still) haunting The Road by Cormac Mcarthy and this year doesn't seem to have quite hit anywhere near those highs.

Having said that, I still have a few 2007 releases to read, including:
The Name of the Wind, Patrick Rothfuss
Stormed Fortress, Janny Wurts

I may have to add The Fade to that list, but they'll have to be pretty good to convince me it's not been a mediocre year.

[Hobbit]

That's a pretty good list, Eventine; Ilario I read last year. (Actually I found out yesterday that the UK paperback has a quote from my review on it... was a nice surprise!) And I did say in the review that it wasn't ASH revisited...

And the Night/Twilight/Day Watch series is on on my list to get to.

There were a couple that nearly got through on my list: I enjoyed Ysabel by Guy Gavriel Kay, though there were parts I was less enamoured with; I tried to go with books that had stuck in the brain over the year...

Do we have an equivalent to The Road this year?

And Power makes the point again. Yes, it's interesting, especially as the results were produced without any collusion on our part/s. As I said, I even wrote mine before I saw the others just so I wouldn't be persuaded to change my mind.

Perhaps it's because we're reading less (or the same books?) from a bigger pool? Having said that, I thought I'd read more this year... but I did try to limit contributors to 5.

Mark / Hobbit