shameless selfbump

>>2106203
You don't have to bump that soon, it was still on the first page. I'm still going through the list, will tell you how I feel about it soon.

That flowchart is a pretty great way to do a recs image

>>2106205
It was last on the first page when I did that.

That's pretty badass

lol. "Ready to blast into space? YES: The stars are my destination (can't believe they left that one off the list"

imperfect but not entirely hatable list, decently constructed flowchart. the only criticism i have is that it makes it possible to reach terry goodkind without at least warning you that terry goodkind is crazy. maybe put terry goodkind on a little island.

>>2106215
Yeah, I actually sent this to a friend who has read that entire series (I will admit, I only read the first book and eh. It was enjoyable.) and noted it. I mean, Terry has all but a man crush on Ayn Rand.

>>2106220
even ignoring the... uh... extreme ideology of the author, it's still a pretty crazy and bad series just on its own. i mean, it is some out-there stuff.

>>2106220
>>2106223
Also should point out that the series gets progressively weirder and weirder: the first book is fairly normal (things like the villain using powdered boy testicles for prophecy or w/e the fuck that was excepted), the second book has some crazier stuff, and then it really takes off in the middle of the series

Pretty cool. I mean, the NPR top 100 merits some criticisms, but I don't really have complaints about this representation of it.

A little too much Gaiman for my taste, but still a pretty good flowchart.

saved and will refer back to it later
thank's OP

>>2106226
She loaned my Wizard's First Rule and I literally read the first four or five chapters, just commentating on it. I was like a fat black chick in a movie theater.

>>2106226
It gets crazier than boy testicle prophecies?
>mfw

>>2106230
Welcome.

That pic has like 2 good books

>>2106241
Care to tell which?

>>2106241
OK maybe more like 6 or 7. But there's way too much good sci-fi and fantasy it doesn't have

>>2106247
Well still, name some ones you like?

>>2106247
The NPR top 100 was decided by a popular vote, so yeah, it's a given it's going to miss a lot of books.

I don't agree with your estimate of only 6 or 7 good books, though.

>>2106246
Obvious classics like Wells and Huxley, maybe Orwell, Vonnegut and Verne. Other than that, Peter S. Beagle I guess. I also just noticed LeGuin. But that's pretty much it

>>2106253
Oh and Frankenstein duh

>>2106253
Yeah, if they didn't include all that Verne, I don't think I would have felt it was as complete.

>>2106250
Oh I actually voted on that thing. Most of my favorites didn't make it

>>2106261
I did too. Most of mine did, though, because I really did stick to the obvious classics.

>>2106231
>It gets crazier than boy testicle prophecies?

Oh. Oh yes it does.

http://sandstormreviews.blogspot.com/2006/08/goodkind-parodies.html

>>2106247
yeah this is definitely true but what can you do? especially when the reading public for science fiction and fantasy is (frankly) terrible. how the fuck are john crowley or jack vance or alfred bester or, shit, even fred pohl going to get on there? let alone someone like ra lafferty? no one reads those fucking guys anymore. barely anyone does. shamefully few people do, in comparison to something like terry goodkind or patrick rothfuss or even robert jordan god rest his soul. by the very nature of the thing, no popular list of the best science fiction and fantasy will really be good, because much of the best science fiction and fantasy is shamefully neglected.

>son I am disapoint
I've only read about a dozen of those hundred books

>>2106265
My favs that didn't make it were like Mervyn Peake, John Crowley, Pynchon (surprised he was even on there).

Fantasy is for faggots.

>>2106268
>link

>>2106270
Again: despite the fact that Little, Big is one of the finest American fantasy novels ever, barely anyone has read it. Despite Gormenghast's enormous power, it has at most a cultish following.

Science fiction and fantasy has great works in it. It's a treasure trove of incredibly imaginative, strange, surreal, well-made, utterly human books and stories, an unbelievable heritage. And yet it is ignored by the fantasy and science fiction fanbase, ignored in favor of rehashed epic fantasy and snarky urban fantasy. Works of real power and originality are not read, since people are too busy reading incredibly derivative works which put only the slightest twist on the old formulas. The best books are read only by cults and enthusiasts; the vast majority of fantasy and science fiction fans, so-called nerds and geeks, read the most banal examples of the genre imaginable. The only book in the genre that's probably read as widely as it deserves is hugely misunderstood and read for the wrong reasons. It's a fucking shame. And this NPR list was better than most! I accepted it on first reading it, because it had more good books than I expected. I expected complete and utter shit, but Gene Wolfe snuck in their pretty high, and so I just accepted the fact that Terry fucking Goodkind was adjudged one of the best authors of science fiction and fantasy ever. Fucking shit.

This is a ludicrous situation and utterly shameful.

>>2106279
waa waaa waaaaaaaaa
Neckbeards gonna neckbeard

>>2106284
w
a
t
e
v
e
r

>>2106279
Gormenghast is the archetypal hipster fantasy reference. It's the one fantasy series they deem to be acceptable, for some reason.

>>2106265
Lots of people with taste keep telling me how good Gene Wolfe is, maybe I'll actually read him

>>2106284
This guy is right though, it's not like a group of literary critics voted on it or anything. It's not something to get so worked up over

>>2106289
that's because it's good and also it's good in a way that's really centered around its aesthetic so maybe that appeals to hipsters? idk

>>2106290
1) gene wolfe is awesome

2) i'm not mad about this list so much as about fantasy and science fiction readership in general. and i'm mad about that because i like science fiction and fantasy books. is that dumb and gay? maybe. probably. almost certainly. but i'll make no apologies.

>>2106279
I agree. Sort of. Also, it is like you deliberately make your posts hard to read.
A list chosen by many should return the average and what do you know? It does. The ratio of quality books to blah books on the list is quite high. 75% of the books on that chart should be read at least once.
Are niche books like Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand on there? Or Little, Big?
No, and really they shouldn't be. These jewels are the books you get to pass on to friends who have leveled up and need something challenging. These are the books that you get to feel smug you know about. They aren't for everyone. Books that authors read.

>>2106300
>75% of the books on that chart should be read at least once.
Honestly I'd say it's more like 10-20%

>>2106300
i've been awake for a while now

and fuck this elitist shit, i deeply want a fantasy readership that's not committed only to bs page turners, that's historically minded and that appreciates and makes known really good works. why is that impossible?

>>2106304
Because people don't want to put forth the effort to read something challenging

>>2106307
down with people. i'm going to sleep.

>>2106308
Really it's as pointless as being upset that most people don't read at all

>>2106303

Come on, the sci-fi side at least is all good stuff. Can't really say the same for all the fantasy, as I haven't read most of it. Though I have tried Shannara and WoT and can't believe so many people recommended me that utter crap.

>>2106313
That's because they have/had huge readerships. Really. WoT is self-evident, and Brooks had a huge influence in bringing fantasy back.

>>2106313
I don't like Clarke, Asimov or Bradbury that much, sorry

>no Alfred Bester, Samuel R Delany, Jack Vance, Strugarsky bros, Brian Aldiss, Harlan Ellison, RA Lafferty, Octavia Butler, Thomas Disch, Avram Davidson

>The Wheel Of Time, The sword of truth,RA Salvatore - ok what the fuck?, Stephen King fucking twice, Vonnegut twice, Neil gaiman like three fucking times, world war z,


i am dissapoint

>>2106767

Even /lit/ has salvatore in their recommendations

I've actually read a couple of his books and that's nowhere near recommendable literature.

so I was sorta disappoint.

>>2106772
You're supposed to read Salvatore in your early to mid teens. Or supposed to and supposed to, but then you're most likely to like it.

Same for Weis & Hickman's Dragonlance, Eddings' Belgariad, etc.

More charts like this, please?

>>2106786

>>2106804
I think he meant flow charts for other genres.

>>2106271
those questions are kind of dumb to be honest, it just asks "Do you want this plot? Maybe this one? Maybe this one?" and it doesn't do a good job and going from a big ideea that encompasses all of the following variants. Anyway posting this because I can.

>>2106767
the wheel of time is good you just hate it because you're autistic and can't stick with reading something bigger than 10 pages

>>2106821

>putting Wheel of Time as one of the best fantasy series.

>ishygddt.jpeg

>>2106831
please see the post above yours

seriously sick and tired of this shit, everyone knows people either hate or love the Wheel of Time series, it's well-written but it's long as fuck too

even if you hated Jordan read the latest books by sanderson

>>2106831
I think the Way of Kings is remark is far more worrying. But, that pic is kind of funny.