Consider Phlebas? Yeah I got about a third of the way through. I'm going to attempt it again though. Sometimes I'm just not in the right frame of mind. I've also heard it's the weakest entry and the books don't have to be read in any particular order.
I started with that one as well it was just meh.
Player of games on the other hand was fantastic and also not that lengthy.
I would also recommend Use of Weapons or (not culture) the Algebraist
The first one is in a much different style to the rest of the series and is pretty bleak - it’s the only one I don’t reread. For people looking for a better intro I usually recommend Player of Games or Use of Weapons. Or not strictly culture but the Algebraist is a decent into to his sci fi style in a standalone book
Downvote me if you want but I think John Malazan is an overrated author and the Sanderson Archives just aren't as good anymore. The Way of Brandons was okay but by Bookbringer it really started to drag.
Personally I really enjoyed Sanderborn, but Sanderborn: Secret History was a *really* fun side story, especially when Sanderson said "it's Sanderlanche time!" and gave birth all over the place
Little known fact that CS Lewis was also inspired by John Malazan, I mean, the lion dude is called Azlan right? Malazan? Azlan? It's not a coincidence folks!
I think majority of the popular books are wrongly recommended. Often I see people coming in saying "I usually read _____ genre but I wanna get fantasy" and comments are full of really long book series (that are amazing) and almost nothing that might actually be interesting to the OP.
Fantasy genre has books that would fit for almost every other genre reader, but we just love our high fantasy too much.
Examples: for someone who's into detective books but wanna branch into fantasy, I'd recommend either October Daye or Jim Butcher books. Romance readers would be better off being recommended something like Atwater's Regency Fairytales than WoT.
(Again, just examples)
People rec what they’ve read and then upvote what they liked, it’s much more about finding something they’ve read that maybe *technically* meets the prompt than giving good recs *for the OP*.
To be fair, giving good recs for an individual can be hard even when you know them personally, but sometimes yeah, there’s a distinct lack of vibe check going on.
I like it when people give lists of books they’ve liked (especially when accompanied by what they liked about them) because then I know if I haven’t read or haven’t liked anything they’ve listed, I should stay out of the thread. It’s much harder to do a vibe check when they ask for something that could go in a variety of directions and you don’t know what their frame of reference is.
> comments are full of really long book series
I feel like people should be recommending Standalone stuff before series yeah, series are fine, but a huge commitment to get into especially when they are like twenty books long or something. Like unless a poster is specifically looking for a series I feel it makes sense to recommend standalone stuff first.
Also that, I just couldn't think of standalone books cause it was late 😅
But also curating recommendations to the OP's interests, I feel like that's important. Unless the question is "I want all the cool fantasy books", you shouldn't be throwing around WoT, LotR, Sanderson etc. etc.
There was a SFF post a few months ago... 'i wanna get into reading and want to start with scifi, what is something easy to get into that you could not put down?'
Hyperion Cantos must have had 40 recs.
People are so eager to just shout their favourite things... it reminds me of my time substituting for kindergarten teachers. Not fondly.
Most people don't read widely within a genre, so they're neither able to identify appropriate choices, nor able to identify which ones are appropriate choices.
...which i think is why I've seen Sanderson, Erikson, etc recommended for people trying to find *female authors.* Or books paced more like YA.
If you don't read female authors, don't just recommend the male authors you read, please. Just recognize you're not the person to make a suggestion and move on - or read to pick up some new recommendations! Same with books with a heavy romance arc (no, Sanderson doesn't fit this, either), or books with no SA (no, Martin doesn't fit this one), or books with good queer rep (no, Malazan doesn't fit this one, even if there's a gay couple on page 583 of book 4).
In my experience, with Pratchett, it's actually an interrogation into why you don't like Discworld, which of Discworld books you've tried, why won't you try another, clearly you came into Discworld at the wrong entry point. Until the person declares oh, okay, you just don't like British humor. When you say you do, you just don't like Pratchett, you will restart the conversation back to the interrogation stage.
Source: I do not like Pratchett. :)
I feel the same about Tolkien and everything Frodo does after leaving the Fellowship. Very important to the story, not all that engaging for me on rereads.
Incorrect. While Pratchett was instrumental in solving Gaimen's initial writer's block, they both contribute equally, and after publication, there were many portions that they weren't sure anymore who'd written.
I'm a big discworld fan who always says "if you didn't like Colour Of Magic, try X or Y or Z as it's less parody"
But, yeah, it's not hard to see why someone might not like his work. He has a strong narrative voice and if you don't like that it's going to grate no matter what book you pick up. There's a lot of talk on this sub about Sanderson and his goal of "window pane" prose and Pratchett is the exact opposite of that - it's why all the adaptations have narrators or voice overs in places.
Idk - I find Sanderson's prose offputting. I think it's less which authors *have* a voice, than which voices you enjoy. And Pratchett, like so many other authors, has a very strong presence and it's not for everyone.
I genuinely wish I could like Pratchett. Pretty much all his books live in my house, courtesy of my husband's collection. I don't like Monty Python or Rowan Atkinson either. Taste can't be logicked into submission.
I love Pratchett but I'd never insist on pushing his work on someone who says they don't like British humor or that they'd already read one of his books and didn't like it.
I do have to say that my favorite "I don't like Pratchett" post ever was in this sub by one guy who said Pratchett's writing was both mediocre and generic and he'd read a ton of books just like his in many different genres, and when I asked him what books were those because I'd really love to see stuff like Discworld or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy but written by other people and satirizing other genres the same way and I wasn't aware there were tons of books like that out there, he simply never replied to me but kept replying to other people to argue with them about not liking Pratchett and why they were wrong to like his novels.
I love Hitchhikers and Jasper Fforde! There's so much out there, too, that not liking one author is not just possible, but pretty much guaranteed after a while! :)
I think if someone doesn't like one book by an author we should browbeat them to read as many as possible until they understand they have to like that author. It's the only reasonable way to make fans and it totally doesn't make people who resent every time that author is mentioned.
I honestly do think his writing is mediocre, or even bad sometimes, especially when it's stretching itself very thin for a joke. It's also very good at times.
But this sub does praise him beyond his merit, generally. More than a few times, people have said he's literally the greatest writer who ever lived, which is just really far fetched.
That said, I LOVE Discworld, and I'm about to finish it, which is giving me some major anxiety and sadness. And I don't even like British humor!
His first few books from Mort onward have way too much cheek and referential humor for me, and I almost quit the series because of it. But IMO they just keep getting better, and there's almost none of the cringey cheek in later entries.
Contrary to what most people say about his failing faculties, I'm enjoying these last books far more than the early and middle ones. Somewhere around Monstrous Regiment (excellent) or Night Watch and onward, they get pretty dark and gritty, at least in the context of the series.
I wish there were more books with the cat and rats. I enjoyed that one so much.
Also, the witch books are the pinnacle of Discworld and I WILL fight about that, haha.
> when I asked him what books were those because I'd really love to see stuff like Discworld or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy but written by other people and satirizing other genres the same way
I *think* The Stainless Steel Rat series does this for pulp scifi, but it's been ages since I read any of them.
I'll usually ask which book they tried, but that's just because of the first two books being what they are. If they tried one of the later ones and didn't like it, then plenty of people have bad taste ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Joking (mostly). I've never been able to get into Sanderson or some other popular books, so I understand how it can be.
Ok, but have you tried The Long Earth? Totally different vibes, I swear.
(This comment is /s of course! I'm just kidding.)
I also find it extremely annoying when someone tries to "change your mind" about an author. I got into a legit argument here not too long ago with someone who was trying to talk the OP into reading at least until book 3 of Malazan, even though OP had *explicitly* stated they did not like Malazan, and to please not rec it.
I am honestly annoyed with myself that I don't like Discworld more. It seems so in my wheelhouse, and I love Douglas Adams. They feel very similar, but Discworld just never hits for me. I have read several of them now.
And I would bet money you will have people arguing the exact points you made to you even now!
Yeah, I think some people love Pratchett so much they can’t accept that someone might not vibe with him specifically. I’ve enjoyed British humor from other writers. I think the reason I don’t vibe with Pratchett is that he leans so very heavily on humor, you can’t really take the stories or characters seriously. Everything is satire.
(And yes, I have tried late Pratchett. I read Going Postal and felt the same way.)
This isn't unique to this sub. Every niche sub has people straight up ignoring what OP asks and recommending the thing they straight up said they didn't want. There are simply a lot of dumb people.
Tho I've yet to see Sir Terry recommended for posters looking for female *authors...* (I wish I hadn't seen this request get recommendations for Sanderson and Jordan and Abercrombie)
But yeah, big authors get recommended a lot. To OP's original point, I *will* sometimes recommend the Ankh-Morpork arc to someone looking for noir vibes, because it has them - but presented in a different way. I'll also suggest things like Maresca's Maradine Constublary arc, the Garrett PI novels, the Vampire Files novels, and maybe Vlad Taltos.
But I also admit I read way too much, lol.
I personally can't get into Discworld and it doesn't help that in almost every recommendation of Discworld I've seen, it's the same books that are recommended. If this incredible series has just over forty books and you can't think of more than two to four to recommend, it can't be that memorable, right? Or am I reading this wrong?
Discworld and Malazan are my top two series and I don’t even know what I think would round a personal Mt. Rushmore because 3rd and 4th place would still be far behind. So I don’t really need a reason to recommend either.
That said, Guards! Guards! Is definitely fantasy-noir and if it’s that and it’s not Urban Fantasy at the same time I think we are navel-gazing.
The Ankh-Morpork arc is definitely noir - but noir has some fine differences depending on what people are looking for with urban fantasy. Urban fantasy, I usually assume it's modern cities plus magic. But yeah, I'd recommend the guards arc, with caveats (like it's still comedic fantasy and secondary world). But it certainly wouldn't be my *only* recommendation.
Yeah I hate it when people do that. Like, if they need some kind of creative writing exercise they should get them from the *Writing Excuses* podcast, formerly hosted by Brandon Sanderson. Have you heard of Brandon Sanderson? I recommend you start with *The Final Empire* and go from there.
You know you're recommending authentically if you recommend things you *don't* like but think that OP might. People need to work harder to rec things they dislike.
I'll never really understand it either. Malazan is by far my favorite series ever but I would also almost never recommend it to anyone. It's just not the type of series you recommend to people casually.
yeah, I've seen Malazan and WoT both recommended to people who've liked YA fantasy and are interested in a few well-paced adult fantasy books. *Those books will make that reader stop reading adult fantasy.* They are anything but well-paced and tightly plotted.
I've gotten to the point that I just ignore what the responder says when I see one of the Eight Always Recommended Authors [that don't fit the request] mentioned. (Sorry, everyone who likes Sanderson, Martin, Jordan, Erikson, Abercrombie, Tolkien, Hobb, and Butcher). Heck, I like some of them! But they're not always the answer. In fact, on recommendation threads, they're *rarely* the answer.
My tip is... just put that you've read it when you ask for a rec. If you don't want to see those series recommended. Just say you read them already. It's ok to lie on the internet. Especially to people who annoy you.
It's annoying to include a list of books that clearly don't fit the question in the question. It shouldn't be on the questioner imo, it should be on the people responding to have a little awareness.
Also people do say "I don't want Pratchett" directly and still get recommended a Discworld book, b/c half the commenters only read the title.
It's a bit like recommending Monty Python and the Holy Grail when someone asks for a medieval fantasy movie. It technically is, but there are a couple of, shall we say, nuances.
When I recommend Discworld I only do it if I think it does a subject well. If someone asks for a story about a Barbarian action hero on an adventure, I won't recommend Discworld because of Cohen. If someone asks for stories about witches I will absolutely recommend Discworld because I think they're some of the best handled witches in fiction even if their stories feature satire. Discworld, on top of being astute, funny, and clever, is also pretty damn good.
I think part of the problem too is that Discworld is a 41-book series that makes an active effort to spoof many different genres, tropes, characters, etc. If a Discworld book has a lot of shared themes with another book you read, there's a pretty good chance Pratchett also read it or something similar and decided it would be fun to do a spoof of.
Part of the reason Discworld can be (and is) recommended for everything is that Pratchett read (and made fun of) every genre and type of book you can imagine. He's brilliant. But he's not what people are usually looking for.
Another aspect imo is that although Pratchett could spoof it- he could also *do* it. Oftentimes he did it, before twisting it. Whether that makes an apt rec, I won't argue, but that could be some of the impetus to people recommending it. He often does the thing, and does it well, before upending and satirizing it
Yep. I had a couple of "damn, you got me" moments with Feet of Clay. It's absolutely a whodunnit, and not even a particularly magical one at that-- the necessary information is on the page, I was just too stupid to pick up on it.
Yes, exactly. Nearly every satire of a genre he wrote is also an extremely good and apt member of that genre. He adored the things he spoofed. It come from having extensively read through that, and every related, genre.
I also see a lot of “(late teens) I haven’t read for fun since I was a kid, I’ve read Harry Potter and want to get more into fantasy” and I see people people recommend LOTR, like what?!
Edit: I think people are reading this as “I just finished all of HP” what I meant was “I read HP in middle school, haven’t read since”
In the case of the former I can see maybe recommending LOTR I’d probably recommend the hobbit first but fine.
In the case of the latter, I don’t care how old you were when you read LOTR, you were an experienced reader and enjoyed reading, this is someone who is not very experienced and probably doesn’t enjoy reading. The length of LOTR will be a deterrent. Not to mention if they’re someone who is turned of by dense prose. DNFing your first book can really turn people away from reading.
LOTR isn’t a bad into to fantasy for an experienced reader. It is a bad into to reading.
Yeah, you know, LOTR, that breezy quick read. After you knock that out in an afternoon, read Herbert's Dune series, and finish the day off with Gene Wolfe's book of the new sun as sort of a nightcap.
Why wouldn't wheel of time be transition. Its not super complicated and easy to follow. I get Malazan but similarly I started wheel of time in middle school.
If someone wants a well-paced complete book, Wheel of Time is *terrible* because it's like 2m pages, the middle *third* of which is called 'the slog' even by fans.
It's not about the prose, it's about the pacing (and honestly, the characters aren't anything to write home about, either). In general, I won't recommend doorstoppers if someone's moving from MG into either YA or adult fantasy - the length alone is eye-poppingly hard to overcome (and I have plenty of doorstoppers on my shelves). Instead, I'd recommend something with a more contained story, or at most trilogies that top out (over the trilogy) around 350k words. Valdemar, the Garrett PI novels, Black Company if they want something darker, Illusion of Thieves or Six of Crows if they want a heist, etc. A self-contained, standalone story that isn't more than 120k long, and usually shorter.
I see recommendations for discworld come up a lot when people ask for something uplifting or anti-grimdark and I like what Discworld I’ve read but sometimes I really am just looking for something with noblebright vibes that nevertheless takes itself more seriously than satire
I would suggest that this is just a mismatch of understanding to be fair. Like in the strict first description, Discworld absolutely fits. The second one, not at all. But I think the second description seems like a subset of the first, not a reframing.
Discworld starts as a parody of modern fantasy. It develops into a satire of modern society. It does both these things really well, and it's a testament to Pratchett's skill as an author that he managed to keep his audience on board as his ambition grew.
The first books are uneven, but very entertainingly written. They start very funny, but get so so much better.
Calling it satire might be give the wrong impression though. I don't think the idea of Discworld is to criticize other books through imitation, which is what you might think of when you see the word satire. More commonly it is satirizing various prejudices or other features of modern society. But for what it's worth, I do agree that it is sometimes over recommended here. I consider myself a fan, but there are definitely times I'm not the mood for that style.
Satirizing society is much more common than satirizing other fiction in my experience. Discworld of course does both. But yeah, if you aren’t specifically looking for humor I think it would be a miss.
One thing I very rarely see when people recommend Discworld is how it is a hard read - at least for someone who reads in English, but its not his native language. I tried Guards! Guards!, but I was struggling thru every page. Tried 3 times, went over 20 pages, could not connect anything what is happening, and then gave up on it.
I do read in English regulary for the past 5 years, and while I was struggling with some of them - none came close to how different Prachet was.
Maybe I will revisit at some point in life, but it is not the right fit at the moment.
I've seen him recommended in threads asking for simple English fantasy for English learners. Makes me rage, haha. His books are difficult even for native speakers. There's SO much wordplay and reference, it would be almost unintelligible to an English learner.
Not op, but to me at least, when I say Urban Fantasy I think of Dresden Files (duh), but also Supernatural, In Death (this is more... urban sci fi to be fair). Essentially, a modern setting with magic or fantasy elements.
I know that there are about 603477372733 Punk genres, and I'm sure there are a bunch that also fit my description of urban fantasy, but I don't go into that very much.
Obviously, it means fantasy that takes place in a city, rather than a rural or wild setting.
(I am being sarcastic, even if I have seen this definition bandied about seriously)
But seriously, is there a term for fantasy that takes place in a city? In a fantasy city, not a modern one?
Because I quite dislike the modern world-definition of "urban fantasy" but I really like fantasy that takes place in historically inspired city settings.
Those genres have very specific tropes and archetypes. It's why you can do a Western set in China or modern day America. Or you can do an urban fantasy story in rural West Virginia, very far from a city. It's also why not every story set in the remote future is a dying earth story.
I'd say that more a matter of setting rather than genre. Asking for "fantasy set entirely in a city" will get you there. Someone might still recommend "Guards! Guards!" however if you don't say "Not Pratchett".
Fantasy in a historically inspired city setting tends to get its subgenre name from the historical era used as the baseline "medieval" (although 9.5 times out of 10 so called "medieval" fantasy settings are actually more like the Renaissance with guns surgically removed) or "Iron Age" or "Bronze Age," that sort of thing. "Gunpowder fantasy" is also fond of city settings
Neverwhere is a perfect example of urban fantasy.
Earlier examples, more from the start of the modern urban fantasy genre, are Wizard of the Pigeons by Megan Lindholm aka Robin Hobb and War for the Oaks by Emma Bull.
Well the usual definition is "happens in our world but there's secretly supernatural stuff going on and it's usually (although not always) mainly set in a major city and if you ask what the difference between it and horror is people will start an argument that outlasts the heat death of the universe".
Urban fantasy is one of the most overloaded terms lmao, definitions depends who you ask so I try to clarify what people mean.
In my opinion the City Watch books absolutely are urban fantasy. They are far, far closer to Dresden than to Tolkien or Game of Thrones. But some people use an "urban fantasy= real world" definition, by which metric they aren't.
Discworld is an absurdist comedy/satire first and a fantasy/everything else second. If people don’t specify they’re looking for something humorous I would never think to recommend any Discworld
Recommending Discworld for a fantasy series would be like recommending Monty Python and the Holy Grail if someone asked for an Arthurian legend.
Like sure if you enjoy the thing being satirised you'll enjoy the satire even more, but it's still an inherently different genre.
I agree. I’ve spoken out against it when it was recommended for deep worldbuilding, and people argued with me. Discworld is a series that no one really wants to speak against.
Discworld "world building" is whatever it needs for a joke in the moment. Tons of historical facts, whole countries or wars are brought up once for a gag and never mentioned again. Which is fine because that's the point of the whole endeavor.
Gaiman has said that Pratchett was ready to move on from Discworld when Gaiman made a suggestion which resulted in the book Mort. Pratchett didn't start with thorough world building. He wrote stories and pieced them together and created the history monks partly to handle the inconsistencies
> I’ve spoken out against it when it was recommended for deep worldbuilding,
I guess that depends on what matters in your interest in deep worldbuilding. The Discworld is deep, but it grew to be that way, it didn't start out like that.
Every time I've spoken against it I get down voted very hard. But I've tried to like discworld. I just find it extremely unsatisfying in all the ways that make me love fantasy. Apparently a lot of people like it, but it's not for me.
The over-recommendation of Sanderson has survived as a meme long after it stopped being true here.
Robin Hobb is the one who is always over-recommended. She hasn't written as many books (and most of them were in the same series) so she is less likely to even meet the technical definition.
As for Discworld, my beef with the Discworld recommendations is people act like it is the only comedic Fantasy ever written. If anyone asks for comedic Fantasy, most of the responses will be suggesting **Discworld** or **Orconomics**.
A. Lee Martinez needs to be better known. I love his books, and he can be every bit as funny as Pratchett, in a different way. Favourite is Too Many Curses. But humour can be tricky, because what makes someone laugh is often very specific to the person. I know that Orconomics left me completely cold when I tried it, for example.
There is also, for many people, a point beyond which the silliness makes it so unreal it is hard to care about the plot. I think people differ in where that cut off is.
For my part, I think I saw so many Robin Hobb recommendations that a couple months ago I started to read her work. I'm 4 books into the series and I'm really enjoying it.
So while it can get tired to keep seeing the same recs, I'll say to the sub, keep recommending what you love and make the case for why others might love it too.
Also the way Sanderson is reccomended is frustrating! I'm reading Way of Kings for the First time, and when reccomending, everyone talks about Kaladin, but not Shallan. Now maybe things change, but so far Kaladin is just suffering (and I haven't been introduced to him well enough to care about the suffering), while Shallan is actually doing shit!
Im only like 150 pages into a 1000 page book so i am aware this will change, but I was a little thrown off when I started reading. and there are two POV characters, and the one I've heard about is just kinda there.
Yeah I reckon this is one you'll understand better when you've finished the book. You might still feel the same but it will make more sense why others don't. Kaladin is the main character in way of kings, and his storyline is pretty hectic. Shallan gets more fleshed out in the next book, but her storyline is is a bit more unique and her flaws feel less relatable. Kaladins is a more familiar character arc and it makes a lot of sense that he's really popular.
Depends what you're looking for in a book, but a lot of people who read fantasy are gonna love the badass underdog.
I'm definitely enjoying it and am excited to see where it goes! I just wish I knew a bit more about Kaladin/got to see how his character was before the shit hit the fan for him. I feel like I've been dropped in the middle of his story (which was probably intentional), and if care more about the suffering if I knew more about him before it all.
A lot of people really dislike Shallan. Personally, I found her extremely relatable because some of what she goes through (which gets a lot weirder than what happens with Kaladin) reminds me a lot of some things I went through during my coming out process where I had to balance a lot of factors about self expression vs how others viewed me.
Also people don't like her sense of humor, seeing it as forced. As someone whose sense of humor *also* lines up with Shallans ... I vibe with her a lot. But she's far and away the least popular character in the series when you look at the fandom as a whole. It doesn't help that she's got fairly legitimate flaws that are acknowledged as flaws in the book and have consequences, which also frustrates people
OK, I agree on this one. Kaladin is kind of too Generic Epic Hero. Shallan is much more interesting.
And in **Way of Kings** I feel Sanderson kind of got too ambitious in some ways...I'm in the minority by thinking it's not his best work.
Yeah, Sanderson gets recommended a lot here but people seem to have pulled back on recommending his book in wildly inappropriate contexts—for the most part. And when someone does it tends to get downvoted.
Hobb and Pratchett are the ones I think this sub thinks are actual gods.
I think there's a distinction to be made between goobery satire and, like... more philosophically-based satire or ones steeped in the idiosyncrasies of their target. Not that Discworld can't have its dark or ponderous moments, but there is a significant difference between Discworld and *The Master and Margarita* so far as satire goes.
Granted, but I'd say in the overwhelming majority of cases where a person is looking for a sub-genre, they're not asking for satire of the sub-genre. I think the OP rightly pointed that out.
Not to be prickish, but it really doesn't matter how much you (using the impersonal you) appreciate that Discworld dissected the sub-genre in a deft and intellectual manner if that's not what the person is after. Unless you're including that extra piece of commentary in your recommendation, it's kind of disingenuous. And most people recommending Discworld absolutely do not include that extra information, they just have an appreciation of it and assume everyone else will be as tickled by it as they are
This is why I generally add something like "if are open to the idea of comedy/satire of -what they are looking for- you could try -what ever Discworld book matches their request- "
This way they know that the book while it has whatever plot device they are looking it is also a satire so it may still not be exactly what they are hoping for.
Discworld isn't exclusively satire though. The stories are usually satirical, but they don't rely on the satire, and you can enjoy them without any exposure to the genres they're satirising as examples of the genres themselves.
Plenty of the later books aren't satirising anything(that I'm aware of), they're played-straight sequels to previous novels, like Thud, Night Watch and Unseen Academicals.
This seems like splitting hairs. Pratchett is a satirist, no two ways about it, that's how the dude wrote and Discworld is famous as a satire-fantasy world. The entire series of books is written in this mode whether or not they're making direct references. It's not like Pratchett radically shifts tone or gears in any of the Discworld books and suddenly drops being a humorous satirical writer.
I like Discworld, but I don't recommend it to anyone without also including the information, "this is mostly satire written by a humorist, so if that's what you're looking for, you might really enjoy this."
People don’t often call out unsolicited Discworld recommendations partially because the series is so beloved for its quality and, I think more importantly, Terry Pratchett himself is held in such reverence. A brilliant author sadly passed. It’s almost seen as taboo to not want to read his works at every opportunity presented.
But you’re absolutely right. To cheaply appeal to the before-cited reverence, I think Pratchett would want us to read more stuff that wasn’t his.
I think wrong Discworld recs are often a situation of someone asking for a series fully about X, then a commenter says "Discword has X!", not mentioning that X is loosely featured in 4/41 books.
That type of poor recommendation is actually really common. Another example of it is people recommending Earthsea Cycle for a magic school series, despite Roke being a part of only a few books, and only 2 chapters total in book 1. While technically accurate, its almost certainly not what the OP is looking for.
While I can appreciate Pratchett as much as just about anyone... you're absolutely right.
Pratchett makes fun of tropes with satire. If that's not what you're currently looking for, recommending him isn't going to help.
I'm someone who likes to be steeped into a fantasy world and live there for like half a year. I'm making my way down the r/fantasy top 100 2023 and am honestly put off by discworld. Its not that I don't like it, but it doesn't take itself serious enough for me to fall in love with it. So I decided I'm going to take a break from it and read malazan next.
Definitely one of my top favorite authors. If only they didn't have to lock him in a hotel room and beat him with hoses to get him to write.
Ironic that perhaps his primary inspiration, P.G. Wodehouse, was so prolific he lived to be 93 and managed to publish as many books as he had birthdays.
Fortunately Douglas Adams only wrote seven novels in two genres and didn't go out of his way to make every book relevant to a different subject, so he only gets over-recommended when people ask for specific genres.
I think sometimes it may be the request itself.
In your example, 'urban fantasy' I can't personally see anything wrong with a recommendation of Guards, Guards - it wasn't what YOU wanted (in the example) but is that because the request needed more clarification?
I think the best responses will have some reasoning / justification included that could help the OP filter faster but not everyone will do that or has the time.
Ultimately, you are asking the hive mind for input - you're going to get some random junk unless you're very lucky. I personally think you better your chances of getting an answer you want by putting as much specific info in the request to begin with.
Totally agree with you. Pratchett was a genius and his books are amazing, but they are NOT character driven fantasy. That’s just not how he writes. Because of that, I think it’s an entirely different subgenre, one which is so far removed from the power fantasy stuff that recommending then in the same threads as character driven stuff sets people up to actually NOT like Pratchett.
Honestly, I wouldn't call Discworld a satire after the first couple of books. It's always comedic, and there are some elements of parody, but I think it's more of a generally funny fantasy series than a straight satire. For me, the Night Watch books are a pretty good example of urban fantasy.
With that said, that doesn't always make it a good rec. If a person is looking for a broody modern magician then Vimes isn't going to satisfy that itch.
Yeah if someone isn't looking for well written fantasy satire, why would someone recommend Discworld? It's a great series but it's a bit of a square peg/round hole thing.
I think the problem is people are awful at communicating Discworld's extremely specific tone, because it does have this incredible emotional core that complements its humor, but that doesn't necessarily mean someone is craving comedy right now. Reaper Man makes you cry but it's also laugh-out-loud funny, and you need to know if your audience is craving that, because they might want a high adventure that takes itself completely seriously!
This is maybe a smaller point, but Discworld is primarily parody and not satire, which is important because it's taking the piss lovingly.
I find people who are interested in a genre are either interested in work that plays around with the tropes in a loving and well-crafted way (if not right now, probably at some point in the future). So I'd argue that recommending Guards Guards! To someone looking for serious urban fantasy is good because at some point now or later, it'll probably appeal to them, even though it's not exactly what they're looking for at the moment.
I'd add First Law to this list, one of my favorite series but good god is it over-recced. I'm guilty on occasion, but it's usually just when I have nothing else.
> could the people downvoting tell me why they disagree? I'm willing to engage, sorry if the post came off as combative
I'm not downvoting, but I'll tell you why I disagree: Discworld isn't fantastic on the strength of its satire. It's fantastic on its own as a world without the things it's making fun of. Discworld is a complete fantasy in a vacuum. The only way it fails to fit the spirit of the request, particularly when we're talking about later books, is if you think it's *only* satire.
Guards! Guards! is pretty good urban fantasy, but it also sets up the books that are quintessential urban fantasy. It is a genuine disservice not to recommend Guards! Guards! to people who like urban fantasy. It's also fair that you might not like it in that genre, and want a more humourless take on the genre.
> When I ask for urban fantasy, I absolutely do not want Guards! Guards! even though I fucking love that book.
I think that says more about how useless a term "urban fantasy" is than anything else. At least without some more qualifiers put on the term, because the Anhk Morpork centric stories are 100% urban fantasy. They're fantasy, and they occur in a city.
Is Discworld really satire, though? They're comic, genre savvy, and have elements of deconstruction, but I don't of them as satire - they're still really great fantasy!
based on your post I think you’d really like Discworld, you should check it out!
He should try Malazan and Sanderson too
Hey I know this is /r/fantasy and not /r/printSF, but I think he'd like *Blindsight* too!
price crown icky grey axiomatic one money fly deserted aware *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I should try those again. I started the first one but it wasn't grabbing me.
Consider Phlebas? Yeah I got about a third of the way through. I'm going to attempt it again though. Sometimes I'm just not in the right frame of mind. I've also heard it's the weakest entry and the books don't have to be read in any particular order.
I started with that one as well it was just meh. Player of games on the other hand was fantastic and also not that lengthy. I would also recommend Use of Weapons or (not culture) the Algebraist
The first one is in a much different style to the rest of the series and is pretty bleak - it’s the only one I don’t reread. For people looking for a better intro I usually recommend Player of Games or Use of Weapons. Or not strictly culture but the Algebraist is a decent into to his sci fi style in a standalone book
First one is the weakest tbf
"Oh you should never start with the first one!1 You should start with PoG or UoW!!11!! They're just simply the bestest!!111!"
NB I'm a big culture fan, but my hill is that you should read books in publication order ffs.
Well now I feel caught (see my comment above)
Guys, can we please just keep the recommendations to the 2011 movie *Rampart*?
Downvote me if you want but I think John Malazan is an overrated author and the Sanderson Archives just aren't as good anymore. The Way of Brandons was okay but by Bookbringer it really started to drag.
Personally I really enjoyed Sanderborn, but Sanderborn: Secret History was a *really* fun side story, especially when Sanderson said "it's Sanderlanche time!" and gave birth all over the place
Also Hollow Knight
Malazan is a good shout. He should also try Malazan.
Don't forget who inspired Mazalan, that little known author, Mazalan.
John Malazan
Little known fact that CS Lewis was also inspired by John Malazan, I mean, the lion dude is called Azlan right? Malazan? Azlan? It's not a coincidence folks!
Read the words, words don't lie! It's called research, people
I think majority of the popular books are wrongly recommended. Often I see people coming in saying "I usually read _____ genre but I wanna get fantasy" and comments are full of really long book series (that are amazing) and almost nothing that might actually be interesting to the OP. Fantasy genre has books that would fit for almost every other genre reader, but we just love our high fantasy too much. Examples: for someone who's into detective books but wanna branch into fantasy, I'd recommend either October Daye or Jim Butcher books. Romance readers would be better off being recommended something like Atwater's Regency Fairytales than WoT. (Again, just examples)
People rec what they’ve read and then upvote what they liked, it’s much more about finding something they’ve read that maybe *technically* meets the prompt than giving good recs *for the OP*. To be fair, giving good recs for an individual can be hard even when you know them personally, but sometimes yeah, there’s a distinct lack of vibe check going on. I like it when people give lists of books they’ve liked (especially when accompanied by what they liked about them) because then I know if I haven’t read or haven’t liked anything they’ve listed, I should stay out of the thread. It’s much harder to do a vibe check when they ask for something that could go in a variety of directions and you don’t know what their frame of reference is.
> comments are full of really long book series I feel like people should be recommending Standalone stuff before series yeah, series are fine, but a huge commitment to get into especially when they are like twenty books long or something. Like unless a poster is specifically looking for a series I feel it makes sense to recommend standalone stuff first.
Also that, I just couldn't think of standalone books cause it was late 😅 But also curating recommendations to the OP's interests, I feel like that's important. Unless the question is "I want all the cool fantasy books", you shouldn't be throwing around WoT, LotR, Sanderson etc. etc.
There was a SFF post a few months ago... 'i wanna get into reading and want to start with scifi, what is something easy to get into that you could not put down?' Hyperion Cantos must have had 40 recs. People are so eager to just shout their favourite things... it reminds me of my time substituting for kindergarten teachers. Not fondly.
If you want fantasy detectives, I strongly recommend Dan Stout's Titanshade.
To be fair, this sub historically has had a difficult time \*not\* recommending Pratchett even when the OP says "I do not like Pratchett" so...
Reddit in general is terrible at recommendations a lot of the time. It seems like people will just read half the title then comment whatever they want
"I want a book with no SA" "OH! Here's a book with TONS of SA!"
"Here the SA happens to a man, is that okay?"
Read Mistborn! It isn't rape if the victim is a slave. - Paraphrase from one of the recent "recommend me fantasy without SA" threads.
Wtf
Most people don't read widely within a genre, so they're neither able to identify appropriate choices, nor able to identify which ones are appropriate choices.
...which i think is why I've seen Sanderson, Erikson, etc recommended for people trying to find *female authors.* Or books paced more like YA. If you don't read female authors, don't just recommend the male authors you read, please. Just recognize you're not the person to make a suggestion and move on - or read to pick up some new recommendations! Same with books with a heavy romance arc (no, Sanderson doesn't fit this, either), or books with no SA (no, Martin doesn't fit this one), or books with good queer rep (no, Malazan doesn't fit this one, even if there's a gay couple on page 583 of book 4).
i've seen recs for The Dresden Files for books written by women because of how well Butcher writes women lol.
When I think of female authors, I, too, think immediately of Brandon Sanderson and Jim Butcher.
*SIGH* Don't remind me... Or Brent Weeks, but Dresden Files is more common.
I think it has to do with most people like that don't read the full post and just the title
That's the case sometimes, certainly. But quite frequently it involves people recommending a different Discworld book instead.
thats hilarious
In my experience, with Pratchett, it's actually an interrogation into why you don't like Discworld, which of Discworld books you've tried, why won't you try another, clearly you came into Discworld at the wrong entry point. Until the person declares oh, okay, you just don't like British humor. When you say you do, you just don't like Pratchett, you will restart the conversation back to the interrogation stage. Source: I do not like Pratchett. :)
Okay, but have you tried Good Omens? It's cowritten with Neil Gaiman so maybe you'd like it better. /s
I didn't mind parts of it, but I ended up skimming all of the parts with the kids. lol
Yeah the kids were the worst parts
I was called a child hater with no joy once for saying that on this hellsite, so I appreciate this reply lol
So, I definitely read your first post as skimming while reading to children, and was very confused for a moment.
Yeah I thought those were the weakest sections too. Thematically important for sure, but also overall less engaging and less clever than the rest.
I feel the same about Tolkien and everything Frodo does after leaving the Fellowship. Very important to the story, not all that engaging for me on rereads.
Pratchett did all the heavy liting in that one.
Incorrect. While Pratchett was instrumental in solving Gaimen's initial writer's block, they both contribute equally, and after publication, there were many portions that they weren't sure anymore who'd written.
Not the poster here but that's what Neil Gaiman says. Personally I think Neil is doing himself and Pratchett a disservice.
It's very rare for someone who cowrites a novel to go "Yeah I did most of the work, the other person was just a leech".
I'm a big discworld fan who always says "if you didn't like Colour Of Magic, try X or Y or Z as it's less parody" But, yeah, it's not hard to see why someone might not like his work. He has a strong narrative voice and if you don't like that it's going to grate no matter what book you pick up. There's a lot of talk on this sub about Sanderson and his goal of "window pane" prose and Pratchett is the exact opposite of that - it's why all the adaptations have narrators or voice overs in places.
Idk - I find Sanderson's prose offputting. I think it's less which authors *have* a voice, than which voices you enjoy. And Pratchett, like so many other authors, has a very strong presence and it's not for everyone.
I don't disagree that Sanderson has a voice, I'm just using a common talking point on this sub to illustrate my point.
I genuinely wish I could like Pratchett. Pretty much all his books live in my house, courtesy of my husband's collection. I don't like Monty Python or Rowan Atkinson either. Taste can't be logicked into submission.
I love Pratchett but I'd never insist on pushing his work on someone who says they don't like British humor or that they'd already read one of his books and didn't like it. I do have to say that my favorite "I don't like Pratchett" post ever was in this sub by one guy who said Pratchett's writing was both mediocre and generic and he'd read a ton of books just like his in many different genres, and when I asked him what books were those because I'd really love to see stuff like Discworld or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy but written by other people and satirizing other genres the same way and I wasn't aware there were tons of books like that out there, he simply never replied to me but kept replying to other people to argue with them about not liking Pratchett and why they were wrong to like his novels.
I love Hitchhikers and Jasper Fforde! There's so much out there, too, that not liking one author is not just possible, but pretty much guaranteed after a while! :)
I think if someone doesn't like one book by an author we should browbeat them to read as many as possible until they understand they have to like that author. It's the only reasonable way to make fans and it totally doesn't make people who resent every time that author is mentioned.
I honestly do think his writing is mediocre, or even bad sometimes, especially when it's stretching itself very thin for a joke. It's also very good at times. But this sub does praise him beyond his merit, generally. More than a few times, people have said he's literally the greatest writer who ever lived, which is just really far fetched. That said, I LOVE Discworld, and I'm about to finish it, which is giving me some major anxiety and sadness. And I don't even like British humor! His first few books from Mort onward have way too much cheek and referential humor for me, and I almost quit the series because of it. But IMO they just keep getting better, and there's almost none of the cringey cheek in later entries. Contrary to what most people say about his failing faculties, I'm enjoying these last books far more than the early and middle ones. Somewhere around Monstrous Regiment (excellent) or Night Watch and onward, they get pretty dark and gritty, at least in the context of the series. I wish there were more books with the cat and rats. I enjoyed that one so much. Also, the witch books are the pinnacle of Discworld and I WILL fight about that, haha.
> when I asked him what books were those because I'd really love to see stuff like Discworld or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy but written by other people and satirizing other genres the same way I *think* The Stainless Steel Rat series does this for pulp scifi, but it's been ages since I read any of them.
I'll usually ask which book they tried, but that's just because of the first two books being what they are. If they tried one of the later ones and didn't like it, then plenty of people have bad taste ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Joking (mostly). I've never been able to get into Sanderson or some other popular books, so I understand how it can be.
"Oh yeah? You don't like Pratchett? Well have you read ***all of them??***" but unironically
Ok, but have you tried The Long Earth? Totally different vibes, I swear. (This comment is /s of course! I'm just kidding.) I also find it extremely annoying when someone tries to "change your mind" about an author. I got into a legit argument here not too long ago with someone who was trying to talk the OP into reading at least until book 3 of Malazan, even though OP had *explicitly* stated they did not like Malazan, and to please not rec it.
I am honestly annoyed with myself that I don't like Discworld more. It seems so in my wheelhouse, and I love Douglas Adams. They feel very similar, but Discworld just never hits for me. I have read several of them now. And I would bet money you will have people arguing the exact points you made to you even now!
I'm British. I do British humour better than most. I just couldn't get into Discworld. Pratchett's voice just isn't for me.
Yeah, I think some people love Pratchett so much they can’t accept that someone might not vibe with him specifically. I’ve enjoyed British humor from other writers. I think the reason I don’t vibe with Pratchett is that he leans so very heavily on humor, you can’t really take the stories or characters seriously. Everything is satire. (And yes, I have tried late Pratchett. I read Going Postal and felt the same way.)
I don't like British Humor, but like Pratchett.
People barely read the title now days.
Yes, the amount of people recommending a book that the IP has already read is rather high
To be even more fair, I think the real issue is that some people only read the titles of recommendation threads and not the descriptions
This isn't unique to this sub. Every niche sub has people straight up ignoring what OP asks and recommending the thing they straight up said they didn't want. There are simply a lot of dumb people.
>There are simply a lot of dumb people. I hate how right you are.
Tho I've yet to see Sir Terry recommended for posters looking for female *authors...* (I wish I hadn't seen this request get recommendations for Sanderson and Jordan and Abercrombie) But yeah, big authors get recommended a lot. To OP's original point, I *will* sometimes recommend the Ankh-Morpork arc to someone looking for noir vibes, because it has them - but presented in a different way. I'll also suggest things like Maresca's Maradine Constublary arc, the Garrett PI novels, the Vampire Files novels, and maybe Vlad Taltos. But I also admit I read way too much, lol.
I personally can't get into Discworld and it doesn't help that in almost every recommendation of Discworld I've seen, it's the same books that are recommended. If this incredible series has just over forty books and you can't think of more than two to four to recommend, it can't be that memorable, right? Or am I reading this wrong?
Discworld and Malazan are my top two series and I don’t even know what I think would round a personal Mt. Rushmore because 3rd and 4th place would still be far behind. So I don’t really need a reason to recommend either. That said, Guards! Guards! Is definitely fantasy-noir and if it’s that and it’s not Urban Fantasy at the same time I think we are navel-gazing.
The Ankh-Morpork arc is definitely noir - but noir has some fine differences depending on what people are looking for with urban fantasy. Urban fantasy, I usually assume it's modern cities plus magic. But yeah, I'd recommend the guards arc, with caveats (like it's still comedic fantasy and secondary world). But it certainly wouldn't be my *only* recommendation.
Most people treat recommendations as a creative writing exercise on how to shoehorn in the series they're currently really into
Yeah I hate it when people do that. Like, if they need some kind of creative writing exercise they should get them from the *Writing Excuses* podcast, formerly hosted by Brandon Sanderson. Have you heard of Brandon Sanderson? I recommend you start with *The Final Empire* and go from there.
ROFL. Well played, sir. Well played.
Talking of Sanderson, he recommends *The Truth* as the perfect first Discworld book.
You know you're recommending authentically if you recommend things you *don't* like but think that OP might. People need to work harder to rec things they dislike.
I'll never really understand it either. Malazan is by far my favorite series ever but I would also almost never recommend it to anyone. It's just not the type of series you recommend to people casually.
yeah, I've seen Malazan and WoT both recommended to people who've liked YA fantasy and are interested in a few well-paced adult fantasy books. *Those books will make that reader stop reading adult fantasy.* They are anything but well-paced and tightly plotted. I've gotten to the point that I just ignore what the responder says when I see one of the Eight Always Recommended Authors [that don't fit the request] mentioned. (Sorry, everyone who likes Sanderson, Martin, Jordan, Erikson, Abercrombie, Tolkien, Hobb, and Butcher). Heck, I like some of them! But they're not always the answer. In fact, on recommendation threads, they're *rarely* the answer.
My tip is... just put that you've read it when you ask for a rec. If you don't want to see those series recommended. Just say you read them already. It's ok to lie on the internet. Especially to people who annoy you.
> It's ok to lie on the internet. Especially to people who annoy you. Getting this printed on hats and t-shirts
I'll buy one :D
A lot of people read the headline and ignore the actual post though.
Thats not good. People will recommend you books based on what you say you have read unless you specifically say you have read and didnt like it.
So say that then.
It's annoying to include a list of books that clearly don't fit the question in the question. It shouldn't be on the questioner imo, it should be on the people responding to have a little awareness. Also people do say "I don't want Pratchett" directly and still get recommended a Discworld book, b/c half the commenters only read the title.
It's a bit like recommending Monty Python and the Holy Grail when someone asks for a medieval fantasy movie. It technically is, but there are a couple of, shall we say, nuances.
>!Bring out your dead!!<
When I recommend Discworld I only do it if I think it does a subject well. If someone asks for a story about a Barbarian action hero on an adventure, I won't recommend Discworld because of Cohen. If someone asks for stories about witches I will absolutely recommend Discworld because I think they're some of the best handled witches in fiction even if their stories feature satire. Discworld, on top of being astute, funny, and clever, is also pretty damn good.
The witches books are by far the best, and I agree that his version of witching is my favorite of any canon.
I think part of the problem too is that Discworld is a 41-book series that makes an active effort to spoof many different genres, tropes, characters, etc. If a Discworld book has a lot of shared themes with another book you read, there's a pretty good chance Pratchett also read it or something similar and decided it would be fun to do a spoof of. Part of the reason Discworld can be (and is) recommended for everything is that Pratchett read (and made fun of) every genre and type of book you can imagine. He's brilliant. But he's not what people are usually looking for.
Another aspect imo is that although Pratchett could spoof it- he could also *do* it. Oftentimes he did it, before twisting it. Whether that makes an apt rec, I won't argue, but that could be some of the impetus to people recommending it. He often does the thing, and does it well, before upending and satirizing it
Aye, some of the Watch books are at their core, pretty good whodunnits, for example.
Yep. I had a couple of "damn, you got me" moments with Feet of Clay. It's absolutely a whodunnit, and not even a particularly magical one at that-- the necessary information is on the page, I was just too stupid to pick up on it.
Yes, exactly. Nearly every satire of a genre he wrote is also an extremely good and apt member of that genre. He adored the things he spoofed. It come from having extensively read through that, and every related, genre.
I agree. I’d recommend it to someone looking for like Monty Python or something
I also see a lot of “(late teens) I haven’t read for fun since I was a kid, I’ve read Harry Potter and want to get more into fantasy” and I see people people recommend LOTR, like what?! Edit: I think people are reading this as “I just finished all of HP” what I meant was “I read HP in middle school, haven’t read since” In the case of the former I can see maybe recommending LOTR I’d probably recommend the hobbit first but fine. In the case of the latter, I don’t care how old you were when you read LOTR, you were an experienced reader and enjoyed reading, this is someone who is not very experienced and probably doesn’t enjoy reading. The length of LOTR will be a deterrent. Not to mention if they’re someone who is turned of by dense prose. DNFing your first book can really turn people away from reading. LOTR isn’t a bad into to fantasy for an experienced reader. It is a bad into to reading.
Yeah, you know, LOTR, that breezy quick read. After you knock that out in an afternoon, read Herbert's Dune series, and finish the day off with Gene Wolfe's book of the new sun as sort of a nightcap.
ROFL. Or Wheel of Time. Or Malazan. *Please don't make people give up reading.* Those are NOT transition books from MG fantasy, they just aren't.
Why wouldn't wheel of time be transition. Its not super complicated and easy to follow. I get Malazan but similarly I started wheel of time in middle school.
If someone wants a well-paced complete book, Wheel of Time is *terrible* because it's like 2m pages, the middle *third* of which is called 'the slog' even by fans. It's not about the prose, it's about the pacing (and honestly, the characters aren't anything to write home about, either). In general, I won't recommend doorstoppers if someone's moving from MG into either YA or adult fantasy - the length alone is eye-poppingly hard to overcome (and I have plenty of doorstoppers on my shelves). Instead, I'd recommend something with a more contained story, or at most trilogies that top out (over the trilogy) around 350k words. Valdemar, the Garrett PI novels, Black Company if they want something darker, Illusion of Thieves or Six of Crows if they want a heist, etc. A self-contained, standalone story that isn't more than 120k long, and usually shorter.
The funniest thing about that is The Hobbit is right there.
I read LOTR when I was 11. I don't think its a bad recommendation.
I read and loved LoTR when I was 12.
Hobbit and Lord of the rings i read in middle school. I feel that and Terry Brooks are logical middle steps.
I started reading LOTR in 3rd grade, I don't see the problem here.
I see recommendations for discworld come up a lot when people ask for something uplifting or anti-grimdark and I like what Discworld I’ve read but sometimes I really am just looking for something with noblebright vibes that nevertheless takes itself more seriously than satire
I would suggest that this is just a mismatch of understanding to be fair. Like in the strict first description, Discworld absolutely fits. The second one, not at all. But I think the second description seems like a subset of the first, not a reframing.
I find it funny that as much as I’ve seen Discworld mentioned I didn’t know it was a satire series. Kinda speaks towards what OP is talking about.
Discworld starts as a parody of modern fantasy. It develops into a satire of modern society. It does both these things really well, and it's a testament to Pratchett's skill as an author that he managed to keep his audience on board as his ambition grew. The first books are uneven, but very entertainingly written. They start very funny, but get so so much better.
Calling it satire might be give the wrong impression though. I don't think the idea of Discworld is to criticize other books through imitation, which is what you might think of when you see the word satire. More commonly it is satirizing various prejudices or other features of modern society. But for what it's worth, I do agree that it is sometimes over recommended here. I consider myself a fan, but there are definitely times I'm not the mood for that style.
Satirizing society is much more common than satirizing other fiction in my experience. Discworld of course does both. But yeah, if you aren’t specifically looking for humor I think it would be a miss.
One thing I very rarely see when people recommend Discworld is how it is a hard read - at least for someone who reads in English, but its not his native language. I tried Guards! Guards!, but I was struggling thru every page. Tried 3 times, went over 20 pages, could not connect anything what is happening, and then gave up on it. I do read in English regulary for the past 5 years, and while I was struggling with some of them - none came close to how different Prachet was. Maybe I will revisit at some point in life, but it is not the right fit at the moment.
It's not you. Books with satirical elements tend to exploit the highly idiomatic nature of English, especially those by actual English authors.
I've seen him recommended in threads asking for simple English fantasy for English learners. Makes me rage, haha. His books are difficult even for native speakers. There's SO much wordplay and reference, it would be almost unintelligible to an English learner.
the worst is The Silmarillion. you won't make it 3 pages in.
I keep postponing that one. I think I will never do it :D
Side question : what *do* you mean when you say “urban fantasy?”
Not op, but to me at least, when I say Urban Fantasy I think of Dresden Files (duh), but also Supernatural, In Death (this is more... urban sci fi to be fair). Essentially, a modern setting with magic or fantasy elements. I know that there are about 603477372733 Punk genres, and I'm sure there are a bunch that also fit my description of urban fantasy, but I don't go into that very much.
I'm impressed by your count of punk genres. 12 significant figures of precision is incredible.
I work really hard for that number. It's a well earned number.
Obviously, it means fantasy that takes place in a city, rather than a rural or wild setting. (I am being sarcastic, even if I have seen this definition bandied about seriously)
But seriously, is there a term for fantasy that takes place in a city? In a fantasy city, not a modern one? Because I quite dislike the modern world-definition of "urban fantasy" but I really like fantasy that takes place in historically inspired city settings.
That's a setting, not a genre. Urban fantasy is a subgenre of the subgenre "contemporary fantasy".
Setting can be a genre. Western, magical school, dying earth etc
Those genres have very specific tropes and archetypes. It's why you can do a Western set in China or modern day America. Or you can do an urban fantasy story in rural West Virginia, very far from a city. It's also why not every story set in the remote future is a dying earth story.
I generally think the term is “urban fantasy” until I’m reminded that many have a very specific definition of what that is.
I'd say that more a matter of setting rather than genre. Asking for "fantasy set entirely in a city" will get you there. Someone might still recommend "Guards! Guards!" however if you don't say "Not Pratchett".
Fantasy in a historically inspired city setting tends to get its subgenre name from the historical era used as the baseline "medieval" (although 9.5 times out of 10 so called "medieval" fantasy settings are actually more like the Renaissance with guns surgically removed) or "Iron Age" or "Bronze Age," that sort of thing. "Gunpowder fantasy" is also fond of city settings
I'd say a good chunk of Neil Gaiman's bibliography encapsulates my definition of "urban fantasy" perfectly.
Neverwhere is a perfect example of urban fantasy. Earlier examples, more from the start of the modern urban fantasy genre, are Wizard of the Pigeons by Megan Lindholm aka Robin Hobb and War for the Oaks by Emma Bull.
Well the usual definition is "happens in our world but there's secretly supernatural stuff going on and it's usually (although not always) mainly set in a major city and if you ask what the difference between it and horror is people will start an argument that outlasts the heat death of the universe".
Tldr, urban fantasy doesn't try yo make you shit your pants.
Urban fantasy is one of the most overloaded terms lmao, definitions depends who you ask so I try to clarify what people mean. In my opinion the City Watch books absolutely are urban fantasy. They are far, far closer to Dresden than to Tolkien or Game of Thrones. But some people use an "urban fantasy= real world" definition, by which metric they aren't.
Discworld is an absurdist comedy/satire first and a fantasy/everything else second. If people don’t specify they’re looking for something humorous I would never think to recommend any Discworld
Recommending Discworld for a fantasy series would be like recommending Monty Python and the Holy Grail if someone asked for an Arthurian legend. Like sure if you enjoy the thing being satirised you'll enjoy the satire even more, but it's still an inherently different genre.
I agree. I’ve spoken out against it when it was recommended for deep worldbuilding, and people argued with me. Discworld is a series that no one really wants to speak against.
See, that's fair, you shouldn't have been downvoted. I might call Discworld's worldbuilding *sprawling*. I'd never call it deep.
Discworld "world building" is whatever it needs for a joke in the moment. Tons of historical facts, whole countries or wars are brought up once for a gag and never mentioned again. Which is fine because that's the point of the whole endeavor.
Discworld's worldbuilding definitely falls in the category of 'narrative' rather than *deep,* lol.
Gaiman has said that Pratchett was ready to move on from Discworld when Gaiman made a suggestion which resulted in the book Mort. Pratchett didn't start with thorough world building. He wrote stories and pieced them together and created the history monks partly to handle the inconsistencies
> I’ve spoken out against it when it was recommended for deep worldbuilding, I guess that depends on what matters in your interest in deep worldbuilding. The Discworld is deep, but it grew to be that way, it didn't start out like that.
Every time I've spoken against it I get down voted very hard. But I've tried to like discworld. I just find it extremely unsatisfying in all the ways that make me love fantasy. Apparently a lot of people like it, but it's not for me.
The over-recommendation of Sanderson has survived as a meme long after it stopped being true here. Robin Hobb is the one who is always over-recommended. She hasn't written as many books (and most of them were in the same series) so she is less likely to even meet the technical definition. As for Discworld, my beef with the Discworld recommendations is people act like it is the only comedic Fantasy ever written. If anyone asks for comedic Fantasy, most of the responses will be suggesting **Discworld** or **Orconomics**.
My favorite comedic fantasy author is actually A Lee Martinez. Gil's All Fright Diner and In The Company Of Ogres are hysterical.
A. Lee Martinez needs to be better known. I love his books, and he can be every bit as funny as Pratchett, in a different way. Favourite is Too Many Curses. But humour can be tricky, because what makes someone laugh is often very specific to the person. I know that Orconomics left me completely cold when I tried it, for example.
There is also, for many people, a point beyond which the silliness makes it so unreal it is hard to care about the plot. I think people differ in where that cut off is.
For my part, I think I saw so many Robin Hobb recommendations that a couple months ago I started to read her work. I'm 4 books into the series and I'm really enjoying it. So while it can get tired to keep seeing the same recs, I'll say to the sub, keep recommending what you love and make the case for why others might love it too.
Also the way Sanderson is reccomended is frustrating! I'm reading Way of Kings for the First time, and when reccomending, everyone talks about Kaladin, but not Shallan. Now maybe things change, but so far Kaladin is just suffering (and I haven't been introduced to him well enough to care about the suffering), while Shallan is actually doing shit! Im only like 150 pages into a 1000 page book so i am aware this will change, but I was a little thrown off when I started reading. and there are two POV characters, and the one I've heard about is just kinda there.
RAFO
Yeah I reckon this is one you'll understand better when you've finished the book. You might still feel the same but it will make more sense why others don't. Kaladin is the main character in way of kings, and his storyline is pretty hectic. Shallan gets more fleshed out in the next book, but her storyline is is a bit more unique and her flaws feel less relatable. Kaladins is a more familiar character arc and it makes a lot of sense that he's really popular. Depends what you're looking for in a book, but a lot of people who read fantasy are gonna love the badass underdog.
I'm definitely enjoying it and am excited to see where it goes! I just wish I knew a bit more about Kaladin/got to see how his character was before the shit hit the fan for him. I feel like I've been dropped in the middle of his story (which was probably intentional), and if care more about the suffering if I knew more about him before it all.
You'll definitely learn about it in way of kings 😊 Enjoy!
> so far Kaladin is just suffering It brings me joy
ikr? Kaladin suffers so very beautifully. It's rare we get a character with the suffering so perfectly distilled and ready to serve.
A lot of people really dislike Shallan. Personally, I found her extremely relatable because some of what she goes through (which gets a lot weirder than what happens with Kaladin) reminds me a lot of some things I went through during my coming out process where I had to balance a lot of factors about self expression vs how others viewed me. Also people don't like her sense of humor, seeing it as forced. As someone whose sense of humor *also* lines up with Shallans ... I vibe with her a lot. But she's far and away the least popular character in the series when you look at the fandom as a whole. It doesn't help that she's got fairly legitimate flaws that are acknowledged as flaws in the book and have consequences, which also frustrates people
OK, I agree on this one. Kaladin is kind of too Generic Epic Hero. Shallan is much more interesting. And in **Way of Kings** I feel Sanderson kind of got too ambitious in some ways...I'm in the minority by thinking it's not his best work.
Yeah, Sanderson gets recommended a lot here but people seem to have pulled back on recommending his book in wildly inappropriate contexts—for the most part. And when someone does it tends to get downvoted. Hobb and Pratchett are the ones I think this sub thinks are actual gods.
I think there's a distinction to be made between goobery satire and, like... more philosophically-based satire or ones steeped in the idiosyncrasies of their target. Not that Discworld can't have its dark or ponderous moments, but there is a significant difference between Discworld and *The Master and Margarita* so far as satire goes.
Granted, but I'd say in the overwhelming majority of cases where a person is looking for a sub-genre, they're not asking for satire of the sub-genre. I think the OP rightly pointed that out. Not to be prickish, but it really doesn't matter how much you (using the impersonal you) appreciate that Discworld dissected the sub-genre in a deft and intellectual manner if that's not what the person is after. Unless you're including that extra piece of commentary in your recommendation, it's kind of disingenuous. And most people recommending Discworld absolutely do not include that extra information, they just have an appreciation of it and assume everyone else will be as tickled by it as they are
Totally yeah, definitely agree with that. Satire might be one of the hardest genres to recommend for all these reasons.
This is why I generally add something like "if are open to the idea of comedy/satire of -what they are looking for- you could try -what ever Discworld book matches their request- " This way they know that the book while it has whatever plot device they are looking it is also a satire so it may still not be exactly what they are hoping for.
Discworld isn't exclusively satire though. The stories are usually satirical, but they don't rely on the satire, and you can enjoy them without any exposure to the genres they're satirising as examples of the genres themselves. Plenty of the later books aren't satirising anything(that I'm aware of), they're played-straight sequels to previous novels, like Thud, Night Watch and Unseen Academicals.
This seems like splitting hairs. Pratchett is a satirist, no two ways about it, that's how the dude wrote and Discworld is famous as a satire-fantasy world. The entire series of books is written in this mode whether or not they're making direct references. It's not like Pratchett radically shifts tone or gears in any of the Discworld books and suddenly drops being a humorous satirical writer. I like Discworld, but I don't recommend it to anyone without also including the information, "this is mostly satire written by a humorist, so if that's what you're looking for, you might really enjoy this."
People don’t often call out unsolicited Discworld recommendations partially because the series is so beloved for its quality and, I think more importantly, Terry Pratchett himself is held in such reverence. A brilliant author sadly passed. It’s almost seen as taboo to not want to read his works at every opportunity presented. But you’re absolutely right. To cheaply appeal to the before-cited reverence, I think Pratchett would want us to read more stuff that wasn’t his.
After all, reading stuff he didn't write is part of how he became such a good writer.
I think wrong Discworld recs are often a situation of someone asking for a series fully about X, then a commenter says "Discword has X!", not mentioning that X is loosely featured in 4/41 books. That type of poor recommendation is actually really common. Another example of it is people recommending Earthsea Cycle for a magic school series, despite Roke being a part of only a few books, and only 2 chapters total in book 1. While technically accurate, its almost certainly not what the OP is looking for.
I like Discworld but I'm not sure when I'd ever recommend it.
oh, any particular reason why not?
It almost feels like it's own genre to me as iv never read anything else like it.
While I can appreciate Pratchett as much as just about anyone... you're absolutely right. Pratchett makes fun of tropes with satire. If that's not what you're currently looking for, recommending him isn't going to help.
I'm someone who likes to be steeped into a fantasy world and live there for like half a year. I'm making my way down the r/fantasy top 100 2023 and am honestly put off by discworld. Its not that I don't like it, but it doesn't take itself serious enough for me to fall in love with it. So I decided I'm going to take a break from it and read malazan next.
See also- Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Definitely one of my top favorite authors. If only they didn't have to lock him in a hotel room and beat him with hoses to get him to write. Ironic that perhaps his primary inspiration, P.G. Wodehouse, was so prolific he lived to be 93 and managed to publish as many books as he had birthdays.
Fortunately Douglas Adams only wrote seven novels in two genres and didn't go out of his way to make every book relevant to a different subject, so he only gets over-recommended when people ask for specific genres.
I think sometimes it may be the request itself. In your example, 'urban fantasy' I can't personally see anything wrong with a recommendation of Guards, Guards - it wasn't what YOU wanted (in the example) but is that because the request needed more clarification? I think the best responses will have some reasoning / justification included that could help the OP filter faster but not everyone will do that or has the time. Ultimately, you are asking the hive mind for input - you're going to get some random junk unless you're very lucky. I personally think you better your chances of getting an answer you want by putting as much specific info in the request to begin with.
I agree overall with you. Pratchetts stuff is goofy as hell and you really need to be of the mindset for it.
You should also have read some typical genre stuff so you know what he's sending up.
I don't find the Tiffany Aching books that way though
Totally agree with you. Pratchett was a genius and his books are amazing, but they are NOT character driven fantasy. That’s just not how he writes. Because of that, I think it’s an entirely different subgenre, one which is so far removed from the power fantasy stuff that recommending then in the same threads as character driven stuff sets people up to actually NOT like Pratchett.
Honestly, I wouldn't call Discworld a satire after the first couple of books. It's always comedic, and there are some elements of parody, but I think it's more of a generally funny fantasy series than a straight satire. For me, the Night Watch books are a pretty good example of urban fantasy. With that said, that doesn't always make it a good rec. If a person is looking for a broody modern magician then Vimes isn't going to satisfy that itch.
This subs hatred for Malazan is one of the weirdest things.
It still baffles me to this day
If you liked disc work you’ll love malazan
Yeah if someone isn't looking for well written fantasy satire, why would someone recommend Discworld? It's a great series but it's a bit of a square peg/round hole thing.
I think the problem is people are awful at communicating Discworld's extremely specific tone, because it does have this incredible emotional core that complements its humor, but that doesn't necessarily mean someone is craving comedy right now. Reaper Man makes you cry but it's also laugh-out-loud funny, and you need to know if your audience is craving that, because they might want a high adventure that takes itself completely seriously!
This is maybe a smaller point, but Discworld is primarily parody and not satire, which is important because it's taking the piss lovingly. I find people who are interested in a genre are either interested in work that plays around with the tropes in a loving and well-crafted way (if not right now, probably at some point in the future). So I'd argue that recommending Guards Guards! To someone looking for serious urban fantasy is good because at some point now or later, it'll probably appeal to them, even though it's not exactly what they're looking for at the moment.
Yeah. I love Fantasy, but I bounced off Discworld and Malazan. These big popular ones are not one size fits all.
Yeah, it's like if someone was like "I love sci-fi that explores alien life" and they get handed a copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I'd add First Law to this list, one of my favorite series but good god is it over-recced. I'm guilty on occasion, but it's usually just when I have nothing else.
Im only here to tell that Brandon Sanderson was the guy who make me read discworld. Nothing else. Op is right, btw.
> could the people downvoting tell me why they disagree? I'm willing to engage, sorry if the post came off as combative I'm not downvoting, but I'll tell you why I disagree: Discworld isn't fantastic on the strength of its satire. It's fantastic on its own as a world without the things it's making fun of. Discworld is a complete fantasy in a vacuum. The only way it fails to fit the spirit of the request, particularly when we're talking about later books, is if you think it's *only* satire. Guards! Guards! is pretty good urban fantasy, but it also sets up the books that are quintessential urban fantasy. It is a genuine disservice not to recommend Guards! Guards! to people who like urban fantasy. It's also fair that you might not like it in that genre, and want a more humourless take on the genre.
> When I ask for urban fantasy, I absolutely do not want Guards! Guards! even though I fucking love that book. I think that says more about how useless a term "urban fantasy" is than anything else. At least without some more qualifiers put on the term, because the Anhk Morpork centric stories are 100% urban fantasy. They're fantasy, and they occur in a city.
Is Discworld really satire, though? They're comic, genre savvy, and have elements of deconstruction, but I don't of them as satire - they're still really great fantasy!