By Matthew
A huge poll to further our recent discussions on fantasy and great or classic literature.
Rules:
- Do not vote for anything unless you have read it- even if you have heard it is great or you like other works from that author
- Don’t vote for something even if you have read it and like it.
- Don’t vote for something if you have only seen a movie version of the title, regardless of how faithfully it has been rendered.
- Your votes must be what you think is GREAT or CLASSIC literature however you define that.
- Vote for as many titles as you like as long as it is GREAT or CLASSIC literature.
The list has been derived from “The Top 100 fantasy books of all-time as of September 2008″
Loading ...
Joivre on 
Arabella Figg on 
Red Rocker on 
Tom on 
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
You may, like me, think that there are many, many fantasy/sci-fi stories that are great literature but are not on the list.
So, if they aren’t on the best selling lists, why not?
And what’s all this dross doing on the list?
Do people want great or classic literature in their fantasy/sci-fi or an easy escape from the mundane?
Too many hard rules for this poll!
This was hard.
I voted for books that I didn’t particularly like (A Clockwork Orange, Animal Farm), I voted for books which I consider deeply flawed (LWW, Dorian Gray), I didn’t vote for books which I really enjoy(Dragonflight, Lovely Bones, Haunting of Hill House, Five People You Meet in Heaven, The Princess Bride, The Time Traveller’s Wife) and I didn’t vote for books which I know are considered classics but just didn’t do it for me (Alice in Wonderland, Odyssey, Dracula, Metamorphosis) I had a very hard time over Harry Potter. My instincts said “no”, but I reminded myself of Chapters 34 and 35 of DHand clicked it.
Of course I’ve only read 32 (although I’ve read all of the top 20). Perhaps people should say how many they’ve read, because unless we factor that in, the poll will inevitably be biased in favour of the more widely read books.
And I would like to point out that, like Korg, I consider some of these books dross, and ask myself how Patricia McKillip’s name is absent – and don’t take my word for it, the woman writes prose that reads like poetry, why Ray Bradbury gets only one mention – Dandelion Wine anyone? – why Mary Stewart – The Crystal Cave isn’t there, and if dross is allowed, then why Robert E. Howard (of Conan fame) and Edward Rice Burroughs (Tarzan!?!) are omitted.
I had a hard time with that one. There are a lot of books (and authors) on that list that I haven’t read, nor do I care to. So I guess in some ways it made it easier, since I couldn’t vote for anything I had only heard about. And to be honest, there were some that I’d never heard of. Guess I should click on the link to see where this list came from.
I found it hard because the only piece of great literature I could find on the list was the Left Behind series. I define great literature as only books that will be read after the rapture.
… Actually the fact that those books are on this demonstrates that the Antichrist is already in charge…
Like Red Rocker I voted for books I didn’t actually enjoy/like but they acheived the goal they set. I found Watership Down and Lord of the Flies deeply disturbing, especially at the age I read them. Art Garfunkel sold me the first one as a story about fluffy bunnies. Little did I know!
It was hard not to click on stories I simply liked (but of course I only like Great Literature!).
How do YOU define great literature? Isn’t that the question? I’m certainly no literary scholar. This is a tough poll for me because I consider great liturature a story that touches me, and has some sort of impact on my life… and have certainly not read more than five or six of those books, and some I read so long ago, and possibly under pressure for a good grade in english class.
And there was no question for me to put the Harry Potter series on that list, however flawed the books may be. To me, it IS great literature.
I really wanted to vote for something by C S Lewis, but even though I love the Chronicles of Narnia to death it just doesn’t fulfill the stated criteria. If only Til We have Faces were up there, or maybe Out of the Silent Planet. It’s also a shame that I haven’t read the Murukami book that’s on the list either.
I’ve only read a few of those books. Most of the works of Fantasy that I have read that I think should be classified as such are not on the list:
Christopher Hopper’s White Lion Chronicles &
Jeffrey Overstreet’s Auralia’s Colors
Are two of the most remarkable Fantasy works that didn’t make the list.
I appreciate everyone’s comments.
Part of my goal with the poll is to get people discussing WHY so much of what we think is great fantasy literature is missing from the list.
Any takers?
Korg, you’re going to have to give some examples of what you think is great fantasy literature.
For my part, I would ask another question. Why are there so many books on that list which I believe are mediocre in writing style and have very little relevance to themes of universal interest? As I said, I’ve only read 32 of these books, so I can only talk about those books. I’ll take Dragonflight as an example. Very entertaining book, with an original premise: mankind forms a mutually beneficial relationship with dragons, based on the formation of an initial emotional/mental bond between a human child and a baby dragon, much like imprinting amongst birds. Really cool idea, and McCaffrey got lots of mileage out of it. But her writing is plebian, her characters neither noble nor heroic, and her exploration of themes of universal interest non-existent. So why place the book on the list of classics? Because they are popular?
Now look at Patricia McKillip and the Riddle Master Trilogy. Morgon, the prince of a small kingdom, is the master of solving riddles. The trilogy is built around the quest to find the High One, who is the ruler of all the lands. In his quest, Morgon must battle the shape changers – forces of raw power and chaos – and the evil wizard Ghisteslwchlohm. He is helped by Raederle, who is half shape changer, and at first helped and then betrayed by the High One’s harpist, Deth. The books are about power, two kinds of power: selfish, destructive power, and the kind of power that comes from knowledge and awareness and responsibility. Like all the best quest sagas, they are also about the transformation of the hero; he (and often she) battles dangerous forces and finally reaches his goal, only to find that it’s something that was always within him. McKillip’s prose is clear and fluid and lyrical – too much so, sometimes, when she gets lost in the beautiful images that she conjures. And as a bonus, she plays with words, a bit like our own JKR: the sad heroine of her Book of Atrix Wolfe is named Saro,
So why did McCaffrey make it and McKillip didn’t? About the only answer I can give is popularity, defined both as how many people have read a book and how many people have heard of the book.
I also think that part of the problem here might be in how we are interpreting the words “great fantasy literature”. I see great fantasy literature as great literature which happens to be about fantasy. From that perspective, I applied the same rules to the list that I would to any book: great writing, and resonance with universal themes. Using that standard, not too many of the 100 would qualify, at least not for me.
I couldn’t agree more about Patricia McKillip’s “Riddlemaster” trilogy – now I have to go re-read it!
http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/fantasy100/admin_faq.html
The above link to the FAQ about the Fantasy 100 explains why certain books made the list and others did not, as well as their ranking. And yes, it comes down to a popularity contest, with some of it being based on awards as well.
Seeing how many of those I have not read (though I have seen some as movies), just confirms for me that I’m not really a fan of fantasy per se. The fantasy books I’ve read (and re-read) had something besides the fantasy element that captured my interest.
They also have a separate SciFi list but I didn’t check that out.
Pat
I wouldn’t say McCaffery made it solely because of popularity. I’ve read McKillip’s Riddlemaster trilogy. It was a nice read but didn’t really engage me all that much. Whereas, even though it’s been five years or more since I read any of the Dragonrider books, I still remember the main characters & most minor ones & the plots of most of the original three Dragonrider books & the Harper Hall trilogy. I also reread the Dragonrider books more in my younger days. Whereas I’m not in any rush to reread McKillip’s Riddlemaster books. Now, The Changeling Sea by her is another matter. Great book!
But I will agree that the Dragonriders of Pern is pedestrian writing, albeit very serviceable in telling the story. And technically speaking, Dragonriders isn’t actually fantasy but soft science fiction.
Which of course leaves us still trying to figure out what is Great literature or not. And that’s the question we’ve been trying to hash out with not too many satisfactory answers so far, it seems.
Since I’m on a McKillip riff, I would also strongly recommend The Forgotten Beasts of Eld and the aforementioned The Book of Atrix Wolfe. Eld is where McKillip first plays with the idea that fear keeps us from knowing the truth. If Tom Riddle had read about the riddle of Blammor and the Liralen, he would have cast aside his horcruxes. And Atrix Wolfe is not only her best stand-alone book (imho) but a must for those who find mystery and magic in the kitchen.
korg20000bc: “Part of my goal with the poll is to get people discussing WHY so much of what we think is great fantasy literature is missing from the list.”
Sometimes it’s simply obscurity. (Such as Overstreet’s book.) Not enough people have heard of the book for it to be considered for the list.
revgeorge, while I have no objection to well-placed pessimism (for example, with regards to the likelihood that actors who have completely misread their lines in the last three HP movies making a seachange for the better in the next three, but let that go for now), I think you’re being unnecessarily pessimistic in the present discussion, about the lack of satisfactory answers to the Great question: what makes for Great Literature?
I have suggested two possible criteria: great writing, and an attempt to seriously depict themes of universal significance, e.g. power, love, death and so on. You yourself just mentioned another: a book that makes you want to return to it again and again. To which I would add: a book which gives you new insight each time you return to it. And I remember you saying at another time that great literature guides us towards universal truths. So that’s four criteria we’ve managed to put together.
On the other hand, I don’t think whether we liked a book should be a criterion. I’ve already said that I didn’t like Animal Farm nor Lord of the Flies. But I can recognize that both of those books are great literature for at least some of the four reasons we’ve identified: they are about issues of universal significance, they guide us to the truth about those issues, and they are very well written. (As an aside, if JKR could write as well as either Golding or Orwell, we wouldn’t be having these discussions about whether HP is great literature or not). The last test, of delivering new insights every time you re-read the book, is one I personally haven’t been able to perform. I was so repulsed by the events – and the characters – in both books that I never wanted to read them again. Yes, this is how human nature is, but I’d prefer not to dwell on it. On the other hand, the images from Lord of the Flies will never leave me, nor of course the great line from Animal Farm: All animals are equal; but some are more equal than others
Red Rocker, I was just making an observation. Personally I think we do have several criterion to determine what makes a great book. I just saw pessimism or uncertainty on the part of others. Actually, from previous discussions, I thought you yourself had doubts as to whether or not we could determine with any certainty or with any sort of criteria which books might be great or classics.
So, we must have been just crossing paths in the night, because I’m in primary agreement with your criteria. I also agree with your observation that whether or not we personally like a book or not is not a determiner in its greatness. Also, in perfect agreement with you on the two books you mentioned. I absolutely cannot stand Lord of the Flies. But I wouldn’t deny that it’s a book with a lot of meaning to it. I did like much better The Simpson’s retelling of it.
Same way with Animal House. Except that I don’t really reread it because I dislike the book but because it is too disturbing. That is to say, it’s too right about what’s been going on in the world, even in our so called democratic republics. Same reason why I don’t reread 1984. Of course, that doesn’t keep me from reading plenty of other dystopias.
OK, so now that all that’s out of the way, I’d like to take a few pieces out of the person who put together the top 100 fantasy books list.
I went to the FAQ which Eeyore linked (above) and read the criteria for how a book got placed on the list. Was not too impressed either by the criteria nor the writer’s tone. To wit:
Q: How come [insert name of book or author] didn’t make your list? I think [he, she or it] really fires my imagination and is simply the best!
A: Unfortunately not many agree with you. The book list is a statistical survey of existing popular polls, published critical opinion and major fantasy awards. To make the Top 100 a book has to score enough points in the survey to warrant its inclusion. The same goes for the film and television lists.
The tone is dismissive. And the description isn’t very informative. The author consulted “popular polls, published critical opinion, and major fantasy awards”. The “popular polls” is exactly what some of us here are beginning to believe the top-100 list is based on. And as for published critical opinion, I would like to know the sources. And how they were factored into the equation. My own understanding of literary critics is that their conclusions rarely mesh with popular polls. And I need more info on how major fantasy awards were factored in. As soon as you start digging a little bit into how books get nominated for different prizes, you can see that there are a lot of rules and conventions which bias the outcome. All this is not to say that you wouldn’t need a systematic way of collecting and analyzing information to decide what is the “top-1oo”. Just that this list doesn’t provide enough information to convince me that, aside from a few recognized names, it really reflects quality.
I did come across one site which I’d recommed to anyone who wants to learn more about the development of fantasy fiction and the lines of influence:
http://www.sflare.com/archives/10-most-influential-fantasy-authors/
What I particularly like about this site is that it distinguished quality from popularity and influence.
And one last dig: why are
A Clockwork Organge (which if it belongs to a niche at all, would fall under science-fiction),
Lord of the Flies (neither sci-fi nor fantasy),
The Haunting of Hill House (one of the best ghost stories ever written, but a ghost story nevertheless),
A Wrinkle in Time (sci-fi),
on this list, anyways?
I was wondering about Left Behind, never struck me as a fantasy.
More of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture viewpoint dramatisation.
Not to mention:
Dracula (gothic horror)
Interview with the Vampire (supernatural, horror)
One Hundred Years of Solitude and The Master and Margarita and Parfume (magical realism)
I am Legend (sci-fi)
If sci-fi is allowed, then what about Dick, Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, Gibson, Wells, Verne, Vonnegut, LeGuin, and all the rest?
And why The Odyssey and not The Iliad? And seeing as we’re talking about classic texts, how many people have actually read The Odyssey, Beowulf, The Inferno? What does it mean, exactly, to be a top-100 fantasy book of all time if most readers of fantasy haven’t read the book? And in which universe do The Iliad and Sword of Shannara belong on the same list?
Red Rocker, I agree that some of the stories on the list are a bit confusing. In my mind I’ve always separated fiction in to three categories: realistic, fantasy and sci-fi. I see sci-fi as anything that attempts a vague scientific explanation for fantastical elements, While fantasy I see as anything containing unexplained magic, paranormal activity, or mythological or theological elements. I don’t know if everyone else has the same standards, but I think its logical enough.
I have one question about liking a book, though. It seems to be an accepted rule here that liking a book is not a criterion for it being great. I you ask me, that’s one of the most important! If you don’t really like a work of art, what’s the point of even making it. If your story isn’t interesting, or doesn’t have your reader rereading it over and over and calling new readers, whats the point? Why not just write an essay? I think that’s what makes it art. That’s the difference between a painting and an exercise in perspective or foreshortening. I may just have gotten the wrong idea, but this interests me very much.
Mark Anthony,
I’m not sure we ever said liking a book was not a criteria for saying it’s great. It’s just not the only criteria. I think what we’re trying to avoid is saying that something is great simply because it’s popular. Because popularity can come & go, thus you need to have a work that’s popular & enduring over time, not just in the here & now. At least that’s what my understanding is.
Thanks Revgeorge, I think I can agree with that fully. I don’t think something being popular makes it great, either. I just couldn’t see why something’s likability seemed to be a non-issue when judging its greatness.
I had a teacher once who said that great art held up a mirror to its audience. He taught theater, and didn’t care if an audience liked a play; his main concern was that the play forced the audience to go away thinking about something. Perhaps if a book is well-written and conveys something important, it can be a classic even if I don’t think it enjoyable. I may never read it again, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t influence me (and probably others).
I think, however, that often we’re more receptive to a work we find enjoyable, which may explain why books we think of as classics are ones we enjoyed: we were able to learn more from them than from something that we struggled to read.
There are many “best of” lists when it comes to literature. In the last century, a group of academics came up with a list of Great Books, books which they felt had been most influential in shaping Western culture. These books are also called the Western Canon. They include fiction, drama, poetry, essays, biographies, and some scientific books. Comparing with our list of 100-best fantasy books, the only two matches are The Odyssey and A Midusmmer Night’s Dream (because all of Shakespeare’s works are included).
There are many other lists of books considered classics, or influential or “the best”. I liked Modern Library’s approach to list making: for the top-100 books of the 20th century (which means JKR wasn’t included as a candidate) they compiled two lists, one made by a board of literary experts, one by their readers. There is no agreement between the experts and the readers for the top 10 positions, although there are three matches in the top 20.
More interestingly, for our purposes, the experts’ top-100 feature only two of the top-100 fantasy books: LOTF and Clockwork Orange., neither of which really fits the definition of what most of us here would consider fantasy. Even more interestingly for us, the experts’ list for us does not feature LOTR. From which I for one would assume that fantasy as a genre is not considered the stuff of serious literature.
The readers’ top-100 feature five of the top-100 fantasy books: LOTR, Animal Farm, Something Wicked This Way Comes, The Haunting of Hill House and Watership Down. Interestingly, Ender’s Game makes it to the ML’s top-100 books of the 20th century but not to the list of top-100 fantasy books.
This is the link to the ML lists:
http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html
I once read that you can tell fantasy from science fiction by the cover art. If there are rivets at all in the art it is science fiction. If there are leaves visible it is fantasy.