A Best 100 Fantasy Novels list

Internet top 100...read 34 of them, but I have to say the order is an atrocity, as is the travesty of spectacular author's whose books are conspicuously absent, like Philip K. Dick, Philip Jose Farmer, Feist, a ton of Arthur C Clarke's books, Gene Wolf, I could go on and on. And what about some of King's novels!
 
Originally posted by Hemingway
Internet top 100...read 34 of them, but I have to say the order is an atrocity, as is the travesty of spectacular author's whose books are conspicuously absent, like Philip K. Dick, Philip Jose Farmer, Feist, a ton of Arthur C Clarke's books, Gene Wolf, I could go on and on. And what about some of King's novels!

Remember, these books are voted on via e-mails to the guy that runs the list. So, if you don't like these, follow the instructions on the page to send in your own votes.
 
I have to wonder about what David was thinking when he compiled this list.

Many potential inclusions are squashed out because of the Horror and SF/adventure works miscategorized here as Fantasy. I would immediately exclude all the following from the list: AE Van Vogt's The Book of Ptath Richard Matheson's The Shrinking Man, Robert Heinlein's The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag, Robert Heinlein's Glory Road, Jack Finney's Time and Again, Tim Powers' The Anubis Gates, Thomas M. Disch's The Businessman, Lisa Goldstein's The Dream Years, Robert Graves' Seven Days In New Crete, Ira Levin's Rosemary's Baby, Stephen King's Salems's Lot, Stephen King's The Shining, Suzy McKee Charnas' The Vampire Tapestry, Michael Bishop's Who Made Stevie Crye?, Angela Carter's Nights At the Circus, Ramsey Campbell The Hungry Moon.

There are also basic description errors (such as claiming Stormbringer to be the first novel of Elric).

The first in the Elric series is actually Elric of Melniboné. The first Elric book published was The Stealer of Souls. The first Elric story published was The Dreaming City (1961 Science Fantasy No.47 June).

[Edited to correct a typo. - Cor.]
 
I don't see the problem. Pringle was using a definition of the fantastic that included supernatural horror, as many critics do. The expansive definition is frankly more defensible and less arbitrary than one that attempts to categorize a work by whether it's "scary" or not. For the record, James Cawthorn and Michael Moorcock's "Hundred Best Fantasy" similarly includes classic works of horror such as Shirley Jackson's HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE and Fritz Leiber's OUR LADY OF DARKNESS.
 
Originally posted by Llama
I don't see the problem. Pringle was using a definition of the fantastic that included supernatural horror, as many critics do. The expansive definition is frankly more defensible and less arbitrary than one that attempts to categorize a work by whether it's "scary" or not. For the record, James Cawthorn and Michael Moorcock's "Hundred Best Fantasy" similarly includes classic works of horror such as Shirley Jackson's HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE and Fritz Leiber's OUR LADY OF DARKNESS.

Ok. I think horror should not count, unless the horror is incidental, but ok.

He states the list is his 100 best of all time up to the 1980s (stated in the SF list, and the F list is stated as the F version of the SF list).

Given that and that horror is allowed, no Lovecraft? No Koontz?

I also can't get over that he has 3 Mervyn Peake books listed and 4 Fritz Leiber books!

Then also, he seems to have a fixation on witches and demons.

As for adventure SF counting as Fantasy, there are myriad SF books he hasn't mentioned in either the SF or F section that would be strong candidates, especially compared to some of the hacks (my opinon) and B authors that found space on his list.
 
Whoever may have posted saying that the lists are intended to select the best fantasy and SF "of all time" is plain wrong. Each of Pringle's books makes clear that his "best of" lists start in the late '40s. (The Cawthorn/Moorcock collection, on the other hand, doesn't limit itself in time.)

Also, just to be clear -- Pringle covers ONLY novels, not short stories or short story collections, so Lovecraft would not have been included anyway. And Koontz? Well, I certainly wouldn't have included him on any list, I think he's a hack of the worst order.

I like the fact that in the case of fantasy Pringle covers the entire field, giving the reader a representative sample of the best of what the different facets of the genre can produce. Of course one can disagree with many of his choices -- I have no idea why he didn't just group the three Gormenghast novels into one entry, for example, or why he felt compelled to give Philip K Dick so many entries, particularly when his books are so damn similar. But that's the fun of these things -- there's always room to quibble.

What people look to in these lists, I suspect, is partly a sense of validation and partly a sense of discovery. A good list should contain enough entries to make you conclude that the person knows what they're talking about (and to validate your own favorites), combined with interesting (even obscure) choices that make you want to read further. Pringle's lists certainly fulfilled that criterion for me when I first came across them in the late 80s. Also -- it's a bit harsh to judge Pringle on the lists alone without reading his accompanying essays (one for EACH selection). You may disagree with his choices, but he might also change your mind if you understood why he chose them.
 
One's opinions are always going to be contentious with anothers , I like Koontz , but I also happen to like most books that Llama has recomended . I think Llama has made one very unarguable point about why people look to lists of this nature " validation " and " discovery " . I think I'll accept the list for what it is , a guide for books that I've yet to read and obviously Pringle has !!

So many books to read :D
 
Originally posted by Llama
Whoever may have posted saying that the lists are intended to select the best fantasy and SF "of all time" is plain wrong. Each of Pringle's books makes clear that his "best of" lists start in the late '40s.
You are correct. After reading your post I crosschecked against other sources. The author of the Pringle listing on The Absolutely Weird Bookshelf the linked site states "of all time", but it seems the list is taken from an actual book by David Pringle, titled Modern Fantasy: The Hundred Best Novels, An English-Language Selection, 1946-1987.

Given the corrected information, I retract my question over his omission of Lovecraft.

Also, just to be clear -- Pringle covers ONLY novels, not short stories or short story collections, so Lovecraft would not have been included anyway.

Ummm, then how do you explain Jack Vance - The Dying Earth, and Ray Bradbury - Dandelion Wine?


And Koontz? Well, I certainly wouldn't have included him on any list, I think he's a hack of the worst order.
Granted, he has written a lot of trash, but have you read Warlock or The Haunted Earth?
 
>>Ummm, then how do you explain Jack Vance - The Dying Earth, and Ray Bradbury - Dandelion Wine?


I suppose because even if their components started out as short stories, when they were published in book form they were intended by the author and the publisher to be read as a coherent whole, either as a novel or as something closely approximating one. There are also similar examples in Pringle's SF list -- Disch's 334, Bradbury's Martian Chronicles, Roberts's Pavane, to name a few. I do take your point, but the fact that there are a few items near the dividing line doesn't negate the fact that others aren't anywhere near it. Even if there is a thematic unity to Lovecraft's Mythos stories, Derleth certainly didn't attempt to market THE OUTSIDER AND OTHERS as a "novel" but as a short story collection and included a number of unrelated stories in the bargain, even going so far as to make one of them, the rather mediocre "The Outsider", the title story. The only Lovecraft item that comes to mind along these lines is DREAM-QUEST OF UNKNOWN KADATH, which Lin Carter edited for Ballantine in the seventies and which collects Lovecraft's Randolph Carter stories. There is an undeniable charm to these stories, which show Lovecraft at his most Dunsanian, but they are hardly representative of the best of his work.

Interestingly, Derleth did practice the whole short-story-into-novel alchemy with his own Mythos work, turning a series of short stories into TRAIL OF CTHULHU and MASK OF CTHULHU. But as with most of Derleth's original work, they're quite forgettable.
 
Originally posted by Llama
Even if there is a thematic unity to Lovecraft's Mythos stories <snip>

I retracted my question over the omission of Lovecraft in my last post, as he clearly doesn't fit the time parameters of David's book (despite the "Absolutely Weird Bookshelf" incorrectly stating it was an "of all time" list).

Peace. :)
 
Originally posted by Llama

What people look to in these lists, I suspect, is partly a sense of validation and partly a sense of discovery. A good list should contain enough entries to make you conclude that the person knows what they're talking about (and to validate your own favorites), combined with interesting (even obscure) choices that make you want to read further.

OOhhh...nice turn of phrase. Interesting how you use validation in a neutral context. Cool.

Anyway, just to stay on topic, I have only read a handful of books on the list. And those I did read I didn't consider anything special. But I like "tough-guy" semi historical fantasy and not fantasy that is fantasy simply because it is different or has magic. I think that means I have anger at the world or something. Hmmm...I guess I can live with that.
 
How anyone could manage to slog through even one Peake novel, not to mention three, is beyond me, but I'll chalk that up to a difference in taste.

A more objective criticism I'd like to make is the fact that the three Peake books are listed individually, and yet Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is listed in it's entirety as one entry. Pringle should have chosen one method of ranking series books (even if they weren't published as "trilogies" in name) and applied them equally to all; to not have done so seems unprofessional.
 
Originally posted by Gravity's End
A more objective criticism I'd like to make is the fact that the three Peake books are listed individually, and yet Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is listed in it's entirety as one entry. Pringle should have chosen one method of ranking series books (even if they weren't published as "trilogies" in name) and applied them equally to all; to not have done so seems unprofessional.

Just to clarify...Tolkien wrote LotR as one book, not three. It was the publisher that chose to break it into three parts.
 
Warewolf, I can see how that info may be of incidental interest, but in relation to my criticism it doesn't really factor in. To readers and critics alike, The Lord of the Rings is three books, not one, regardless of how Tolkien intended it to be published. So even though all three tie together to tell one story, you could conceivable argue the same point for just about any trilogy (such as Peake's Gormenghast trilogy).

This isn't really a big issue, but I do feel that in the interest of fairness, a better job could have been done on keeping a level playing field while compiling this list.
 
Last edited:
add another list to the topic

Just in case you didn't fair as well in the other lists, maybe this one will have a couple more books.



Although this list draws heavily from Sci-Fi, it's still fun to compare
Top 50 List for SFBC
 
Last edited:
I was surprised I had only read two of the books on his list :confused

There are many other novels I would personally I included rather than the ones he did.:(
 
I didn't realize untill the second time I looked at the list that they were in order of publication (which probably explains why the Gormenghast was listed as the three separate books and the Lord of the Rings as one).

Any way, I ran across reference to the Gormenghast trilogy twice in the last week (both times on best of fantasy lists). I have not really heard about the books before. Does any one (besides Gravity's End) have any opinion to offer on the books either positive of negative?
 
I have them in my pile (together in one book), but haven't gotten to them yet. My interest in them developed when they showed the Gormenghast movie on PBS. The characters were interesting, the plot absorbing, and I can only imagine the books are even better. Of course, I have yet to read them so probably shouldn't be giving recommendations! :p I've heard they aren't easy reads.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a little bit strange that I figured much better in the SF- list than in the fantasy list, although I read much more fantasy than SF.
On the other hand, when I read SF I tend to read the "classics" whereas in fantasy I'm a fan so I don't care:)
 
My GOD - i've only read about 4 books on the fantasy list given at the beginning of the thread, and 8 of the science fiction. I guess that shows how little 'older' fantasy i read!

Nice to have that scifi list though, cos the earlier 'era' that it reflects is definitely the preferred one for me :)

(Weird - i like 'old' sci fi and 'new' fantasy...)

Edit - feel better now - read 23 of the INTERNET TOP 100 SF/FANTASY list. :)
 

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.
Back
Top