User Controls
"Literary" Fantasy Suggestions
-
2017-08-08 at 8:34 AM UTCLol
Peanu Noir -
2017-08-08 at 8:37 AM UTCPeanu What You Did Last Summer
-
2017-08-08 at 8:42 AM UTC
-
2017-08-08 at 8:43 AM UTC
-
2017-08-08 at 9:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie I thoroughly enjoyed The Riftwar Universe. Starting with The Riftwar Saga, I've read them all through The Empire Saga, Legends of the Riftwar, The Riftwar Legacy, Krondor's Sons and The Serpent War Saga. Now each of these describes an era and each era has a minimum of three books. So Jesus Christ that's a lot of reading, but well worth it. Along the lines of Tolkien, i think you would enjoy it a lot. I just started with the first series "The Riftwar Saga" and went from there.
I think I read the first two riftwar books, Magician was the first one right? They were fun but actually kind of the opposite of what I'm looking for here. Like they were entertaining, but they were so damn literal. I wanted to be in that world because magic and stuff but the characters were all just kinda, uhh, flat. The whole thing was driven by the scenario, it felt like there was a ton of action. The prose was acceptable, clear, descriptive, but it just felt like there was no poetry in it. The kind of fantasy I grew up with but that's why I loved Earthsea so much, it wasn't really about the material happenings of the world, the actual plot was secondary in a lot of ways. It was more about building up an interesting kind of total ethos of the world it took place in. -
2017-08-08 at 9:19 AM UTC
-
2017-08-08 at 9:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I think I read the first two riftwar books, Magician was the first one right? They were fun but actually kind of the opposite of what I'm looking for here. Like they were entertaining, but they were so damn literal. I wanted to be in that world because magic and stuff but the characters were all just kinda, uhh, flat. The whole thing was driven by the scenario, it felt like there was a ton of action. The prose was acceptable, clear, descriptive, but it just felt like there was no poetry in it. The kind of fantasy I grew up with but that's why I loved Earthsea so much, it wasn't really about the material happenings of the world, the actual plot was secondary in a lot of ways. It was more about building up an interesting kind of total ethos of the world it took place in.
Yee, Magician is the first one. I haven't read Earthsea, so i am not sure what to compare it with. Also, did Tolkien build an ethos? I mean the story was fundamentally secondary to his linguistic aspirations but he managed to tell a pretty concise story. Talk about Tolkien, since i like lore i also read The Silmarillion. That was pretty dope, it wasn't concerned as much with conveying a story as it was with building the world. -
2017-08-08 at 9:33 AM UTC
-
2017-08-08 at 9:36 AM UTCRead the book Soph
-
2017-08-08 at 9:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Yee, Magician is the first one. I haven't read Earthsea, so i am not sure what to compare it with. Also, did Tolkien build an ethos? I mean the story was fundamentally secondary to his linguistic aspirations but he managed to tell a pretty concise story. Talk about Tolkien, since i like lore i also read The Silmarillion. That was pretty dope, it wasn't concerned as much with conveying a story as it was with building the world.
What I liked about Tolkien was the kind of vagueness of the power mechanics of Middle Earth. Like aside from "put on the ring, become invisible" the mechanics of magic where never really clear. There were lots of cases the lines between political power, magic, and the internal spirituality of the world blurred. It was fairly rare that Gandalf actually did anything explicitly magical but there was a general sense that he was doing something magical. There were a number of items that appeared that clearly had spiritual significance but without obvious direct effect. There was no "learn level 5 magic missile, takes 10 MP does 30 damage", which is kind of my gripe with Riftwar (although probably also what part of made it fun), even the most fantastical elements of the book have some clear fixed set of mechanics associated with them, even if we as the readers might not know what they are yet. Which, ironically, kind of robs it of its sense of "magic". -
2017-08-08 at 9:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What I liked about Tolkien was the kind of vagueness of the power mechanics of Middle Earth. Like aside from "put on the ring, become invisible" the mechanics of magic where never really clear. There were lots of cases the lines between political power, magic, and the internal spirituality of the world blurred. It was fairly rare that Gandalf actually did anything explicitly magical but there was a general sense that he was doing something magical. There were a number of items that appeared that clearly had spiritual significance but without obvious direct effect. There was no "learn level 5 magic missile, takes 10 MP does 30 damage", which is kind of my gripe with Riftwar (although probably also what part of made it fun), even the most fantastical elements of the book have some clear fixed set of mechanics associated with them, even if we as the readers might not know what they are yet. Which, ironically, kind of robs it of its sense of "magic".
I guess that makes sense.
