Other authors?
 

I know there can be no replacement for J.R.R Tolkien, but are there any other authors who write on similar lines?

Yes - there are, I'm afraid that having read Tolkien first most of the others never appealed to me ..... Things like the Sword of Shannara just seemed to be a rip-off version. However I did like Eragon when I read it and I thought the first volume of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials' called Northern Lights in the UK and The golden Compass in the States, one of the best written books I have ever read - but also the darkest and very bleak. The second one is OK but the third I found disappointing. Lalwende won't agree on that!!!!

Anyway I know there are downers who have read a lot more fantasy than me so I am sure they will provide more suggestions,

It's not what you might think of as "standard" fantasy but Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke is the most Tolkien-esque book I've ever read in that it is able to create so completely another "world" (really a different version of our own world) and immerse the reader in that.

It's also "a ripping good yarn".

For a long list of fantasy books that have been recommended (or not! ;) ) by other Downers, check out this thread: What other fantasy books do YOU read?

I suppose I should give that another try ... didn't get past page 30..... :(

I find Phillip Pullman to be a fairly loathsome person. He wrote his books not to create a good story, but with the intention of lampooning and degrading the works of Tolkien's friend and fellow Inkling, C.S. Lewis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...726739,00.html

Lesser men often attack their betters because they know they can't equal or surpass them.

For a Tolkienesque spin on him, I'll say that Pullman is the literary equivalent of Melkor: incapable of creating beauty, himself, he takes what is already good and beautiful and twists it.

I prefer Tolkien as a person and as an imaginative force but I hold to my statement that Northern Lights is a wonderfully written book.

That's fine. Melkor made the orcs wonderfully tough and adaptable by warping the elves, too. ;)

Have you actually read the book?

Nope. But I'm not denying that it may be well written, either. It most likely is.

The motivation behind writing it, however (specifically, to degrade CS Lewis), corrupts the entire work.

So on what do you base your assertion? It is not stated in the article you link to . Pullman does not share Lewis weltanschauung and I disagree with both but that is immaterial to the quality of the work

The only similarity between Northern Lights and Narnia is that children cross into different worlds. If it a lampoon to write a story vastly superior both in technique and content on that hypothesis then so be it. In any case I sense the approach of off-topic skwerls...

That's simply one article of many about Phillip Pullman and the views which he tries to impart in his stories. I find him to be "less than nice". Many "less than nice" people have talents but that fact doesn't make them better people. I'd rather not support him (or others like them) with royalties from my pocket, however small, and hope that others follow suit.

There are a lot of good stories out there which aren't written by uppity iconoclasts.

Actually, some of the most 'Tolkienesque' stuff out there are the Icelandic Sagas. In terms of style, mood, narrative drive & subject matter you could almost be reading the Sil. CoH for instance, is a Saga - it follows the same structural rules - starting with the hero's genealogy & ending with his death. Morwen is a classical Saga 'mother figure'.

Be warned though, the Sagas can be pretty strong meat - if you found CoH too dark & intense I'd stick to Pullman & his ilk.

There's so much tripe written about Pullman it's almost unbelievable, until you realise he provokes some of it himself. But hey, what's a writer of modern fantasy to do these days? You're inevitably compared to Tolkien whether you want to be or not (and Pullman is content to allow his books to be published with exactly those kinds of statements on the blurb!), and as a typically antsy, sarcastic Englishman, Pullman likes to wind a few people up now and then by having a pop at 'the great gods of fantasy'.

He might have some nasty words to say about Tolkien and Lewis - though his real ire is for Tolkien, not for Lewis - but remember he's trying to garner a market for himself, hopefully from amongst the many, many middle class readers out there who want some quality fantasy for their kiddies to read but who are suspicious of Tolkien (being that so many of us fans are fanatics and that kind of thing sends the average Islington parent running for the hills [or French Gite ;) ]).

I don't hold it against him as the proof is in the pudding and His Dark Materials is one rich and tasty pudding with extra custard. Yep, the final book is a little odd, but it bears up to re-readings by which time it will become clear what he is on about. Pullman did not set out to lampoon Lewis at all, though if he had it might make me like the books even more as compared to HDM, Narnia is flaccid. I'm not a fan of Lewis by the way - he failed to weave any kind of magic on me alas, though I loved the film, Tilda Swinton was ace. ;)

Yeah, davem's right, for Tolkien-esque go directly to some Icelandic sagas. Very readable, exciting, and stuffed full of mad characters. Njal's Saga is a fabulous blood feud that make you see exactly where the Silmarillion comes from.

Otherwise, for grown-up minds, try some Sandman. And for sheer class, Gormenghast.

I was going to recommend Northern Lights/The Golden Compass but found that it had already been done.

Just to chime in on the Pullman vs. Lewis and Tolkien thing, I think that it doesn't really matter, in this case, what spirit His Dark Materials was written in, since it's an excellently written story. As a Tolkien fan, just reading a book that I had no idea was written in that spirit (supposedly), I found nothing even remotely insulting to LOTR or Narnia in it. LOTR is the better book, of course, but The Golden Compass was still an excellent read. I strongly prefer the first book over the other two, though.

I think that if you, out of loyalty to Tolkien, or whatever, decide not to read it, all you're doing is denying yourself a very interesting (if dark) story--any money Pullman is going to make off you buying the book is probably water under the bridge at this point, anyway, particularly with that new movie coming out. If you really care that strongly about it, why not check it out of the library? Most libraries have it, at least that I've seen. You might have to hunt through the children's or young adult's sections to find it, though.

I on the whole like Tolkien better as a person. He seems to have been far less offensive...but who can blame Pullman for being opinionated? Let's face it, most of us are, these days.

And for the record, I absolutely see where Pullman is coming from with Narnia. I loved the books as a child. I read them with my mom, and felt really grown-up, because made it through so many big long books (I was probably about 6 years old), and because I wasn't nearly as upset over the Stone Table thing as she thought I would be/was herself. We did discuss the lion-as-Jesus thing, but I somehow missed the Narnia-as-Heaven thing. I was a kid. I wasn't particularly interested in religion, and had no concept of allegory. Nowadays, I agree with Tolkien: I dislike allegory--I much prefer applicability. I recently read Narnia again, prior to the movie release. I noticed the full allegory this time around. I kind of feel like it was symbolism with a sledgehammer. I resent anything, really, that pushes ideas on me without encouraging independent thought, and that's kind of what Narnia became. I still am upset by Susan losing Narnia because she started liking boys and wearing lipstick. I guess I'm going to hell, too. :p I did enjoy the movie, though, to be fair. There was no way to get around the Jesus thing, but on the whole, I didn't find it offensive. And Tilda Swinton stole the whole movie without even appearing to try.

Anyway...I guess that before I went off on that tangent, I was going to say that I don't really care what Pullman's opinions are on religion and/or Narnia. I didn't see much of that coming through in The Golden Compass, at least. I haven't read the second two in a very long time, so I could be missing something. There is no trace of anything offensive at all in any of the books, at least as far as I can remember.

As to other fantasy, I will admit that I read (and enjoy) Harry Potter, though it is not remotely Tolkien-esque. And that's actually about it, in terms of fantasy. I find too much of the rest of it all just reads the same and seems to lack originality. My younger brother really enjoys the many books by David Eddings. I read a few and I don't think he's even close to as complex as Tolkien, and he has a much more modern feel. I think they make ok summer reading...nothing special, and I got sick of them after about 3 books or so. They're not horrid, though, the way some fantasy is.
I wouldn't bother with Terry Brooks and Sword of Shannara. I was hoping for something Tolkienesque with that book, and I found it to be not much more than a rewrite of LOTR using different place names and character names.

I don't think Tolkien has an equal, but as I sad before, Pullman was the first name to spring to mind.

What an excellent post! There is indeed a lesson in Pullman and that's not to listen to bluster about books being offensive or irreligious or anything like that - Pullman is actually incredibly knowledgeable about religion, scripture etc - and what's more, he is not anti-faith and is not anti-Catholic (the Magisterium is in fact based on Calvinism). He is indeed against religious intolerance though, and religion being used to dominate and is all for people thinking for themselves; honesty and living a full life is one of his main themes. He's an incredibly sensitive writer for children, and there's lots of 'meat' for the grown-ups too.

I have to say I'd feel far more comfortable with a child, particularly a girl, reading HDM than Narnia as the former gives them the message that they need to be brave and honest above all (Lyra has to be one of the all-time heroines of literature), the latter that they should never grow up, which is not such a great message. I'm interested because I do not know...was Narnia written before or after Joy Gresham?

What with Lyra and Hermione Grainger, we do have some fab, interesting heroines being created these days...

The claim that Susan was denied Narnia because of cosmetics and sex was endurable when made by the Madonna of Modern Fantasy but I simply cannot let a fellow Downer go unchallenged on this point. Susan is not condemned for anything so trivial: she is condemned instead for "forgetting" Narnia and pretending that it was all a game. She lost her faith and her belief. In The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe Edmund's first (and, to my mind, worst) act of betrayal was his cruel denial that he and Lucy had been to another world, and his lie that he and she had only been pretending. He is redeemed of this lie but only after going through some terrible things. For Susan to turn around in her supposed maturity and thoughtlessly do the same thing is the height of arrogant pride and foolishness. She is not "kicked out" of Narnia any more than Satan was "kicked out" of Heaven--they are both rebels who turn away from their true home. (Very Important Note--I am not saying that Susan is Satan, nor am I suggesting that she is in any way shape or manner Satanic: I am merely making an analogy for the sake of illustrating my argument.)

And it does seem to me from what I have read in the popular press that Pullman enjoys saying outrageous things simply to garner more print and attention to himself. I simply cannot find any other explanation for some of his sillier claims; he is clearly an accomplished writer who has read the works of Tolkien and Lewis carefully so he is either being purposefully provocative or he has a far more intelligent and perceptive ghost writer!

As to the "obviousness" of the allegory in Lewis, I have three points:

1) The Narnia books are explicitly aimed at the child reader; for an adult to criticise a book for being obvious to an adult when it is intended for a much younger and more impressionable reader is a bit unfair--kind of like arguing that Sesame Street is a little too obvious because C always follows A and B!

2) I'm not so sure it's all that obvious at any rate even to most adults! I have taught LWW at the university level and been surprised every time by how few of the students -- even those who are actively Christian -- who don't get the Christ-Aslan relation! (Oh, and Narnia is explicitly NOT heaven as is made abundantly clear at the end of The Last Battle.)

3) I'm not even sure it's really an allegory either: Aslan is clearly a Christ-figure but that does not make him an allegorical representation of Christ: when Aslan exchanges himself for Edmund at the Stone Table it's a bargain he is making with a Satanic witch for the sake of an individual--not the unconditional offering up of himself for the sake of all humanity. He is a lion and never the lamb. So, sure, Aslan and the story narrates a particular kind of Christian relation but it does not pretend to be re-telling a Biblical orthodoxy.

Pullman does no worse than any other modern writer by making controversial statements - they all do it over something or other. Tolkien himself wasn't averse to stirring things up a bit, he makes a sarcy comment in the introduction to Rings about what he thinks of his detractors (nice one, Tolkien) ;)

And you can find statements elsewhere from Pullman where he gives Tolkien more praise; however nastiness sells copies of Sunday papers to the Brioche munchers of Islington, so that gets picked up on.

Personally, I didn't 'get' the Christian references in Lewis either and I picked those books up when still (just) a Christian. I just thought they were rubbish in comparison to Tolkien, who had I had just finished reading. Despite what the higher message of Lewis might be about Susan I still think them not great choices to give to a young girl to read unless she is possessed of strong self-esteem. Kids do look at 'surfaces' and seeing a girl condemned for something as normal as wearing lipstick is just not fair. Not saying young lasses should not read these books, just that there are now loads of far more appropriate books with better heroines.

I just wish I could find again the page on Gaiman's blog where he talks about his disappointment in finding out what Lewis said Narnia was 'about' - he says as a young lad he felt cheated. I'll keep looking for it...

I suppose my main beef with Narnia was just that it was so....twee.

Twee

1. Originally: ‘sweet’, dainty, chic. Now only in depreciatory use: affectedly dainty or quaint; over-nice, over-refined, precious, mawkish. (OED)

Always wondered about that...

That's it. I find Narnia just a bit too quaint...

Not perilous enough for my tastes...It's OK, but compared to Middle-earth or multiple parallel universes you can cut into or rambling Gothic castles it's nowhere near as exciting. Even if it does have Turkish Delight (drooooooooool....).

Hmm. Interesting.
I always thought that Susan forgot Narnia and began to believe it to be just a game (in other words, she lost it) BECAUSE she became interested in boys and lipstick. She wasn't, I agree, thrown out of Narnia...but I think she lost it or it let her go as her interests shifted, so she saw her memories of it as just a game. Perhaps this is because I just can't grasp the idea of having something so vivid as finding another (real) world through a wardrobe be dismissed years later as a game...at least, not without some kind of reason for it.

Perhaps I am guilty of over-thinking the incident. It does happen.

I think that the manner in which it was presented is an issue, then, if what she was really being punished for was her denial of Narnia. It could have functioned just fine on its own--Susan is all grown up and she looks back and laughs at their childish games, and can't believe that her siblings are still playing. Why, then, is the mention of boys and makeup necessary at all? It's as though Lewis is condemning those things, things that most girls can't help but be interested in (though I'll admit I never had much patience for makeup, myself). And even then, the issue is still there--Susan loses Narnia in the process of growing up...therefore, growing up is a bad thing...still not a particularly desirable message.

I see redemption/forgiveness/absolution as major themes of Christianity...I don't like the idea of a condemning God. I think a more powerful message would have been Susan being welcomed back in spite of those things. That would read more as the power of forgiveness and redemption as opposed to whoops, you lost your faith, too bad for you. That's probably moving into personal belief territory, where I'd rather not go, though.

I do agree with Lal--whatever messages Narnia sends, I think that perhaps a better series for young girls would be HDM, or even Harry Potter...and also that when I re-read it, it did seem to generally be missing something. Other books are more exciting, including HDM.

Personally, I prefer Lewis's Screwtape Letters to Narnia. Having read LWW once, I see no reason to ever read it again, as the plot is cloying and the hodgepodge of mythological references is contrived.

If you compare Susan's treatment with Lyra's growing up, the latter has a much more positive view. Some say what happens to Lyra is negative and that Pullman is giving out the message that fantasy and fantasising are childish things (this may indeed have been davem - if not he can punish me with the washing up later...:P). But no. Without giving too much away, Lyra is told that she must stop telling lies (hence the name?) and instead tell the tales which she finds through living her life - a lesson that life is for living, that at the end of it you should have stories to tell. She is not stopped from adventuring (as shown in Lyra's Oxford and the promise of the Book of Dust), not stopped from operating in a fantastic world, but she is also not prevented from growing up. That's a fantastic message, especially for someone like me who is a grown up who loves magic and mystery. Much better than Peter Pan or Narnia where only the infantile are allowed access to magic. :(

Likewise with what JK Rowling does with her young female characters. They are allowed to have boyfriends and learn about being grown up while still operating in a magical world, and what's more she makes it cool to be clever.

I loved the Chronicles of Narnia as a child and re read each book into a state of dog earred dinginess. I loved Lewis' talking animals and his magical world that you could get to through wardrobes and paintings. Narnia isn't really magical for me any more and I wouldn't recommend the books to an adult but I think the Chronicles are great books for children and since that was Lewis' target audience I would recommend them as such and have in fact done so.

I agree. The "lipstick and nylon" criticism of Susan made by either Polly or Jill, IIRC is because the entire focus of Susan's life at that point was her appearance and invitations to parties. She isn't merely being criticised for having other interests. She no longer has time for anything else including talk of Narnia, dismissing all talk of it as a silly game that she and her siblings had played as children.
Of course the reason all the others are in "Narnia within Narnia" is are because they were all together when a particular event took place. If Susan had been with them where would she have ended up? Would she also have entered Narnia w/in Narnia but be in the position of the denying Dwarves?

I have just completed reading a most excellent biography of Lewis entitled The Narnian by Alan Jacobs. Within a section in which Jacobs attempts to address Lewis's perceived misogyny, he addresses this exact point (any typos are my own transcription errors):I can add nothing to that. Jacobs has written quite an interesting bio of Lewis, and I recommend it highly.

For my money, His Dark Materials starts in a very promising manner, but by Vol 3 devolves into a trainwreck: Act III of Faust as retold by William Burroughs. All I got out of it was Pullman's rather snarky attitude than anyone who believes in anything is a deluded fool.

Still, he's a much better author than Michael Moorcock, who once called The Lord of the Rings "epic Pooh." (MM seems to think that the way to give a character depth is to make him act like a sullen teenager. That's doesn't make him deep: it just makes him low.)


Oh, recommendations: not classic "fantasy," but Watership Down is one of the greats. Ursula LeGuin is superb, although most of her work is SF. For a much better cynical take on deities than Pullman's read Gaiman's American Gods. If you like your fantasy decidedly wierd, in a brilliant sort of way, Gene Wolfe is your man. And if you want to laff till your sides split, try any of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books.

Avoid: Brooks, Eddings, Jordan. Stephen Donaldson has some interesting ideas but executes them terribly. George R R Martin is OK but overrated, and starting to fall victim to Jordanism.

Generally avoid: anything whose hardcover jacket involves typical fantasy "art."

I agree regarding Watership Down (particularly when you discover you can comprehend expletives in Rabbitish). As far as Stephen R. Donaldson, I thought the first four books of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant were excellent (but do not pass the fourth, for you shall regret it); derivative, but excellent nonetheless.

But I am not much interested in the current crop of fantasists. It seems I read less and less fantasies as the years pass. Once one has read T.H. White and Tolkien, the rest seem rather blase'.

Oh come on - its not that bad - John Crowley's 'Little, Big' is excellent & Hope Mirlee's 'Lud in the Mist' is quite beautiful. Poul Anderson's 'The Broken Sword' is also well worth reading. And let's not leave out Dunsany, Eddison & Peake. Trouble is Tolkien set too high a standard.

I think the lesson is not to try to ape Tolkien in any way, shape or form. All these writers like Brooks and Jordan have done that to a greater or lesser extent, i.e. followed the 'Tolkien model' and while they may provide great entertainment (which they must do or they would not have sold by the bucket load) they also attract a lot of criticism, most of it along the lines of "not as good as Tolkien", "Tolkien rip-offs" etc.

Do your own thing instead, like Peake (who was before Tolkien anyway, so that was easier for him ;) ) or like Gaiman, Pullman or Clarke. One of the joys of really, really good fantasy and sci-fi is in discovering new worlds and if they're carbon copies of another one, those worlds aren't quite as much fun to explore :(

Yeah, well... If it makes for a good story...

Don't forget that Tolkien borrowed ruthlessly from myths, folklore, history, and literature. That's what good authors do: they take what's already there and they twist it.

Discussed here if you're interested... Though you might do better to call young John's work Icelandic-esque instead...

Worked for Bill Shakes with Hamlet...

In any case, to avoid being particularly snarky without necessity...

I got through LWW as a kid, and another one... can't remember which... before Lewis got boring. Lewis spoon feeds his audience. I tried again a year or two ago before deciding that just because you're famous doesn't mean you're worth slogging through. It's nauseatingly claustrophobic to read Chronicles and downright incomparable to Tolkien's work.

I read Pullman's work at some point during my teenage years and while I found it interesting in terms of ideas, I also found it easy to - guilty cough - skip entire sections. I look at the covers and think, "You know, I know I've read that..." yet I found the works almost entirely unmemorable. I could take a guess at plot lines and themes and probably be right, but I'd be unwilling to stake money on any of it. Everything's worth a read, but for my money, Pullman's not worth my bookshelf.

As for actual recommendations...

Beowulf, The Vulsunga Saga, The Old Testament, The Divine Comedy.

Yes, yes, I know! Too easy.

They barely count as recommendations. It's like reading the same thing half the time. But we were asked for similar...

Here's my main reason for this post...

If any of you have read it, I wouldn't doubt you're about to raise a dubious eyebrow and wonder at my logic for calling them similar.

Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveler's Wife is the only book I've read since LotR that has captured my interest, my academic mind, my emotions, and my ability to manage my time with anywhere near equality.

You might shun me for saying it, but I actually prefer Niffenegger's story to any of Tolkien's. Naughty me.

Here's why I'm willing to suggest a story that's sci-fi and not really fantasy on a Rings forum: the magic of the writing itself. The themes of fate, love, sacrifice, and waiting. Seriously, I haven't found a story that made me feel this warm and fuzzy since I was a kid and borrowed a beat up copy of the Fellowship from my brother's English teacher. It's both heart-wrenching and hilarious, and is a treat for artists or bibliophiles. I had a blast picking out quietly inserted literary references. One morning, let me share, Claire and Henry's dawn breaks with rosy fingers. :D

And though it's not a book, I have issues with the separation of anything really. Everyone ought to go watch Pan's Labyrinth. If you insist on the written word, track down the film script if you can. I haven't read it, but if it's anything near the finished product, it's worth the effort.

EDIT: I forgot! How could I forget? Milton. Go purr your way through Milton. Paradise Lost... oh it's wonderful...

Yes, Milton, Dante, (parts of) Old Testament- but do try to get an edition with the Gustave Dore engravings. *Well* worth it.

And of course Iliad, Odyssey, Morte d'Arthur (don't feel guilty about skipping some- Malory became a better author as he went along), and maybe Aeneid (in places reads too much like second-rate Homer, or naked Julian propaganda).

To be rather more populist, though I do think him a wonderful writer, how about Terry Pratchett? He uses his created world to say the unsayable about our own rather than to create a mythology and is delightfully irreverent but discworld is the only "created world" that has a fraction of the appeal of Arda.

Lalwende,

Regarding this question.....if you want to see a different side of Lewis, try reading Till We Have Faces. I always felt it was the best piece of fantasy/myth that C.S. Lewis attempted. His depiction of the two sisters shows a depth of understanding that isn't apparent in the Narnia series. Till We Have Faces was composed after the marriage to Joy (Narnia was before). His understanding of women seems to have taken a giant step forward in the interim.

When I first read Narnia, the Susan stereotype did not bother me. I was a young teenager and knew a lot of girls who exactly fit the Susan stereotype. I righteously consoled myself with the fact that I was not one of these airheads but a "Lucy" who definitely merited entry to Narnia :D . However, looking backwards from a different vantage point, I am less comfortable with how Lewis depicted women, whether in the Narnia series or in his sci/fi--their roles seem so limiting. Still, the feeling is not so visceral that I can't get around it to read and enjoy his stories.

I will put in another word for T.H. White and the Once and Future King. Shippey once talked in an interview how Tolkien and White were unique--both the product of a particular education system and world view that had now vanished from the world--so there couldn't possibly be anyone to take their places. At the time I hoped he was wrong but now I am beginning to believe him. The interview was fascinating, and I wish I could find that link, which has somehow disappeared in the shadowlands of the internet.

Cheers Child! I did suspect that Narnia was the product of his bachelor days - only a man who has got used to living without women could produce a character like Susan.

Fea - Pan's Labyrinth - good call. :) I reckon you might like Isabel Allende's The House Of The Spirits if you liked that - book, not film, as the film was pants.

I've got it on my bookshelf. It was assigned for a class I walked out of just before it was actually due for discussion, so I've read about half of it, but never got around to finishing. I'll scoot it up my to-read list.

If anybody wants to torment themselves with names (like reading the Silm, I swear), take a stab at Gabriel Garcia Marquez's A Hundred Years of Solitude. Sixteen illegitimate Aurelianos in one family! :cool:

But what of his portrayals of Polly, Jill, or Aravis? Especially Aravis who shows a lot of resourcefulness and a take charge attitude with respect to her life, refusing to settle for her arranged marriage and venturing off on her own. The Susan who is discussed in "The Last Battle" doesn't represent the norm for his female characters.

I believe in many cases during The Once and Future King White surpasses Tolkien in the depth of his characterizations. He certainly has the better wit, I should think (the whole dialogue between Pelinore and Grummursum which consists mostly of 'wots' is particularly humorous, or the Hedgehog referring to 'His Majesty' as 'Maggie's Tea' or later just 'Tiggy'). But both offer a profundity and heightened sense of sadness that transcends the bounds of fantasy, and is sorely missing in many of the other works mentioned in this thread.

Certainly, they go about presenting their ideas differently (White's overt anti-war sentiment is offered without apology, whereas Tolkien's Christian ethic is subsumed in his work); however, one can still tell they are cut from the same cloth.

Regarding classic literature (Mallory, et al), I have just finished reading Gargantua and Pantagruel by Rabelais for the first time since college (hence the epithets in my sig line), and I would heartily recommend it for anyone that has no fear of earthy language and a myriad classical allusions. Voltaire's savage satire of Leibnizean philosophy, Candide, although not a fantasy, is surreal enough to warrant mention with these other works.

Megan Whalen Turner published the third in her series, which is in the Youth section of the library, but is too good to be limited to that audience. The three titles are "The Thief", "The Queen of Attolia", and "King of Attolia". Its template is ancient Greek culture and geography but the story is not historical fiction, rather fantasy that happens to use certain aspects of the real world. Very well written, fun to read, and deep enough to make one think. Highly recommended!

It's not just the lipstick stockings and invitations stuff, with Lewis. Look at Eustace's parents, for example. Their great crime seems to be that they have installed progressive views in their son (feminism, republicanism, vegetarianism, lack of corporal punishment etc) and this has made him the whiny, pompous little coward he is at the start of Dawn Treader. I did like the Narnia books as a child, but I didn't like the way that Lewis involves the reader in snide asides about liberal values, rather than just presenting his case and letting the reader make up his/her own mind.
(Although there is a rather amusing Oxonian dig at the Other Place in Dawn Treader - Eustace's ghastly trendy parents live in Cambridge....)

Oh and I second the recommendations for Norrell and Strange....brilliant...and south American magic realism. Marquez and Allende are great. I also recommend - slightly different but wonderful, intellectually rigorous fantasy nonetheless, Jorge Luis Borges.

I don't know. Pullman had me weeping helplessly like a child several times: the 'severed child' found clutching a pickled fish; what happens to Lyra not long afterwards; what Lyra has to do in order to enter The Land of the Dead; Lee Scoresby and his daemon Hester. I feel weepy just thinking about those scenes now...what I will be like in the cinema if they have these scenes, doesn't bear thinking about.

You just cannot write about people who have 'visible souls' in the form of sentient animals and their fates without stirring up emotions. I felt Pullman had tapped into something deep-rooted by showing how vulnerable life really is. Every death in Lyra's world is tinged with sadness, even the deaths of bad guys.

Not even Tolkien managed to wring such a response out of me - maybe if he had killed off dear Bilbo, but even that wouldn't come close....

And if you want the same kind of thing, wait until you get to the closing chapters of The House Of The Spirits...