TIME's 100 Best Fantasy Books of All Time

Thought this might be fun to argue about:

Note that they are placed in chronological order.

My thoughts:
The Phantom Tollbooth doesn't deserve to be on here.
Glad to see that Peter S. Beagle is represented.
Harry Potter 3? I get 6 being on the list, but I think 1 should be been here instead of 3.
I expected Bradbury, Ellisson, and Kafka to appear. I think they're getting type cast and deserve a place here.

What is Dragonflight doing here? It is SF. (Yeah, I know its really fantasy, but it was published as sf, so shouldn't count.)

Thanks for posting that - added a bunch to my to-read list from it.

Can't say I have too many kvetches. The inclusion of multiple works in the same series seems a little inconsistent in spots. Not including Beowulf is about the only thing that I might really complain about.

Ed_Laprade said:

What is Dragonflight doing here? It is SF. (Yeah, I know its really fantasy, but it was published as sf, so shouldn't count.)

Click to expand...

It is all under 813 in the Dewey Decimal system. And it has dragons in it. Why bother with the distinction?

Ralif Redhammer said:

Not including Beowulf is about the only thing that I might really complain about.

Click to expand...

Well.. it isnt' a book. The original is one poem in a codex, along with several other pieces. So, technically...

Ed_Laprade said:

What is Dragonflight doing here? It is SF. (Yeah, I know its really fantasy, but it was published as sf, so shouldn't count.)

Click to expand...

I have the same problem with the Madeleine L'engle novels. I know they're largely considered to be fantasy, but they always felt pretty darn sci fi to me. To much math and physics in the tesseract to claim it's magic.

I am looking forward to the new translation by Maria Dahvana Headley, though Seamus Heaney's is currently my gold standard.

Umbran said:

Well.. it isnt' a book. The original is one poem in a codex, along with several other pieces. So, technically...

Click to expand...

Thoughts on the list and comments in thread:

• The distinction between Fantasy & Science Fiction has always been a little wibbly-wobbly. L'Engle's stuff is definitely far more fantastical than sci-fi, honestly.
• Outlander is traaaaaaash
• I get that everyone loves Rothfuss but I wonder if history will be way less kind to The Name of the Wind which was tedious as all get out.
• Philosopher's Stone is iconic Harry Potter but also kind of bland in retrospect. Prisoner of Azkaban is a much better book, especially after book 2 suuuuccckkked. Also JK Rowling can take a short walk off a long pier
• Kind of shocked Mistborn is Sanderson's only entry on the list. It's the one to pick but I would have expected The Way of Kings also.
• Speaking of shocked, but pleasantly so, nice to see Six of Crows on this list. Might've expected Shadow and Bone but 6oC is definitely way better. Also, I would've expected to see the Lies of Locke Lamora repping the fantasy heist genre on here instead as well; I thought tons of people of loved that one.

This list makes a mockery of the fantasy tradition, and should be considered a joke to anyone with a decent knowledge of its history.

For one, 45 of the 100 books were published within the last 12 years.

Secondly, if they care at all about influence, they excluded tons of authors and books that have had a significant lasting impact. No RE Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, ER Eddison, Lord Dunsany, Michael Moorcock, Patricia McKillip, Stephen Donaldson, CJ Cherryh, Steven Erikson, and many others.

Thirdly, all of the panelists have at least one entry, some three. Couple that with the fact above. Imagine being OK with having a second or third book over The Riddle-master of Hed or Stormbringer.

Fourthly, the list was clearly compiled with a certain ideological bias and resulting agenda. Nothing wrong with that, but at least be honest about it and call the list what it really is. This was not an attempt at the impossible (and inherently subjective) task of creating a list of the 100 best fantasy novels of all time, but making a list of books and authors that the panelists and whoever oversaw it at TIME want to see gain greater exposure.

I enjoy reading lists by famous authors of their influences, and I'd love to see lists of various demographics. But to mash it all together under the guise of the "best of all time" is absurd.

Mercurius said:

Thirdly, all of the panelists have at least one entry, some three. Couple that with the fact above. Imagine being OK with having a second or third book over The Riddle-master of Hed or Stormbringer.

Click to expand...

The panel and Time staff nominated a total of 250 books, none there own, and then rated them. The time Editors just used those ratings as one factor along with their opinion to make the final 100.

It would be interesting to see what the top 100 as rated by just the panel were.