New Fantasy Books

Paste links to the new fantasy releases that you think are worth reading here.

reading Rosemary and Rue right now - it looks good

I just got finished reading Twilight of Avalon by Anna Elliott. Not new new, but this year new. It was REALLY good.

What is it about?

catching fire by Suzanne Collins an excellent second book. Will be starting Fire by Kristin Cashore as soon as I am finished with the latter.

I just read Catching fire!:D awesome book!

I recently finished Elysium: Dark Secrets by Rahul Chandel . If you like fast paced action, a nice story and dialogs, then this should definitely satisfy you. The story has a nice setting and is integrating elements of science,magic,fantasy,and reality as well.

I just picked up the latest in the Repairman Jack series - Ground Zero. Ok, not strictly fantasy, but has some great fantastic and horror elements. Plus, the writing's superb.

If you haven't met Jack yet, you should. He's a fixer living off the grid. People bring him problems and he fixes them, usually involving some sort of trick on the bad guy. He's also involved in a cosmic war between two supernatural alien beings using the Earth as a minor battleground. Of course, a minor skirmish for them means total annihilation for us, and Jack's our defense...If you want to give him a try, start with Legacies.

#4 - spoiledfornothing, Twilight of Avalon is a loose retelling of the story of Tristan and Isolde, casting it against the backdrop of Arthurian legend. It's set several years after Arthur's death and... let's just say rule is not entirely stable.

That said, this is the first book in a trilogy (and I can barely wait for the second to be released spring next year!) and the biggest flaw with the whole book, in my opinion, is the fact that the blurb on the first book is a blurb for the whole series. The first book is about Isolde trying to keep her crown/bring the murderers of her husband to trial/setting up the politics and backhistory. (Don't let my rubbish summary fool you, though! It's filled with action and has a nice, fast pace.) So a lot of what the blurb leads you to suspect just... ain't gonna happen in this volume. It's a debut novel to kill for. (Again, in my opinion, but I may be a little biased my reaction being "Gimme the other two books now! *wailwailpoutsulkwail*".)

Some things the book does deliver on, but only very subtlely so. (Like the romance. Twilightnocturne will tell you there isn't any. I'll happily disagree. It's just very subtle. The kind where you reread and go "Oh, I see it now!" several rereads in a row before you catch it all, if you do.)

I want the second now too! =(.

And true, there were probably certain subtle things I missed on the first read -- I always do. A re-read will surely bring them to light. Though I think we can both agree, it definitely wasn't a romance novel :P.

Actually, we don't agree on that. Romance doesn't have to be blatant. It can be subtle too.

Another example is Cotillion by Georgette Heyer - not fantasy and more obviously romance, so the example is clearer. Yet, for all that, it's still of a similar kind of subtlety to Twilight of Avalon because it's the smaller, subtler, underplayed gestures and moments that contain the romance. And then you reach the end of the book (or in this case part of the trilogy) and you go "Oh, wait, now I see it!" and all those little things that you read over/took for granted suddenly have a far stronger meaning.

Uhm, at least I'm presuming that'll happen. You know, with the other books not yet being published and all...

Thing is, the very fact that we're told the trilogy retells the story of Tristan and Iseut/Isolde predetermines the romantic involvement of the main characters. Their story is this epic, tragic, three-way love story. (I simplify, of course. It's a little, okay a lot, more complex than that and it's more accurate to say that the story is a medieval romance and focuses more on Tristan's adventures/behaviour than the love between them. The original versions already possess a scope well beyond the 'simple' love-triangle.)

You can't tell their story without including the love story because the latter is integral to the former, the reason why everything happens the way it does. If there wasn't the romance it'd no more be a retelling of Tristan & Isolde as a retelling of Romeo and Juliet without the main characters being in love. (Er, unless you're retelling it from Mercutio's pov or something.)

*rambles and goes hide under a blanket*

Do Sci-Fi Fantasies count???

Don't see why they shouldn't if the books overlap in genre. There's no fuss about romantic fantasy or historic fantasy and those're combination of two types of genre (technically speaking).

#11 :P

I haven't read a lot of romance novels so I guess I shouldn't judge it from that angle. Though.. when I think of romance .. I think of romance centered plots..with lots of..mushy romance. You know..the stuff you get in the romance section at the book stores..the section that I generally avoid. Lol. I understand what you mean though. There is subtle romance, and I'm sure in the future books there will be more...but the plot revolving around it, or it being at the center of this particular novel? I didn't really see that. Though this is the first of three, so in many ways this is just the shaping of a much larger picture.

But yeah..I'm only judging the first book without any prior knowledge of the future ones, as well as any prior knowledge of even the Trystan and Isolde legends. You know far more about it than I do, so I won't even go there, and will certainly stand corrected :P. I'm sure my review reflects my lack of familiarity of the story. As you said though..and swiftly corrected me..the story itself overall is a medieval romance..and by the end of the trilogy I'm sure it will be far more apparent. But just judging it by the first book alone, from someone who knows nothing of Trystan/Isolde, it didn't seem very romancy (is that a word?). Not enough for me anyway, to consider it by itself (the first novel alone) a romance novel. More of a fantasy/medieval/adventure novel.

Though that's just coming from my perspective, of course.

No, it's a fair assessment - I'm just pointing out the reasons I disagree. ^-~ It's very much a fantasy/medieval/adventure novel on the surface, but there's so much in there... A lot of it which probably won't be picked up unless in a reread.

To be fair, Elliott is following the tradition of *gropes for a word* 'realising' that seems to be in vogue nowadays - making the world into a real place and the people into real people, not superhumans and the most beautiful of beautiful - so she's already deviated from the legend (as I know it, and there's a few versions) quite a lot. It's just that, if people know of Tristan/Isolde, it'll be in the way of "Theirs is a tragic love story", the same way those who aren't into Arthuriana might still pick up on the whole Arthur/Lancelot/Guinevere triangle going on without ever reading a book featuring Arthur and company.

It's a book written in a way that not knowing the legends involved doesn't matter. But, at the same time, for those people who do know of the legend some things need to remain or they'll just end up feeling betrayed. I remember my cousin complaining that the movie Tristan + Isolde cut out the love potion. (Yes, of all the things wrong with that movie, that was the deal-breaker for her.)

So you've really got to balance a lot of things in the making of a story like this: make sure people familiar with the legend won't want to strangle you for butchering it, make sure the people unfamiliar with them don't need a course on the books drawn from, make sure the book works internally... It's a lot to juggle and Elliott does so wonderfully. I'd say that our differences in opinion just prove that point. ^-^

Oh good points and I agree! She did a great job at making it accessible for those who don't know the legend (at least for me), which is nice..though still obviously did enough to please most fans of the Trystan/Isolde stories. I was a bit scared that I'd be totally confused when starting it, but I wasn't. A few areas were perhaps a bit unclear to me..but for the most part I didn't feel lost. It also sparked my interest to check out more novels on the Arthurian Legends..which is another good trait :).

Actually, after I finished I was looking for other books from Anna Elliott, but she doesn't seem to have much else published? Is she a new writer?

Anywho..it was interesting to compare my perspective (being new) to yours..(knowing of the legend). She definitely did something right if it pleased both new and old fans alike. I'll have to take your suggestions though and re-read it when I get the chance. I know I'll definitely pick up on things I missed. I always do. Hmm..now though I want to check out the movie..but I'm not sure if it will spoil the upcoming books or not? Hmm..lol. *exits and tries to quit clogging up this thread..lol!*

This was her debut novel. ^-^

*blinks* Oh, no, no, no. The movie and the books are wholly unrelated, no worries. I just brought it up because it's the only example I could think of with people who know the legend being annoyed at what's been done to it. Bonus points for it being the same legend being retold in the bargain. It won't spoil anything for you, don't worry.

(Another example might be the BBC's Merlin, but there it depends a lot on your ability to let go and enjoy a good old romp. Kind of like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, maybe. I suppose. Possibly. But wholly different.)

9: Shanra - It is been awhile since I read any autherian type retellings. The last one was Marian Zimmer Bradley in high school. I swore then I would never read another one. So far, I haven't.

More's the pity - you're missing out on some great books.

19: Shanra - i guess. i read a lot of autherian types in junior high and 9/10th grade. think i burned out on them

Oooooh, that's a different story. Twilight of Avalon isn't really an Arthurian legend retelling, though. It's mostly just backdrop because - from a more historical/realistic pov - the two legends fit in roughly the same time/era. (Some medieval writers present Tristan as a knight of the round table, but said legend predates the Arthurian one and, some say, even served as the model for the later Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot triangle.) If the book sounds interesting aside from the Arthurian involvement, if you spot it in a bookstore, you might do well to check out the Q&A section at its end and get a better idea of the sources Elliott used and what she tried to do.

I burned out on horror stories myself, but that's because I'm a wuss and decided I'd better stop reading them since they kept on giving me nightmares. (Some of them still surge up in my brain on occasion. *twitch*)

I just finished reading this mortal mountain. It's fantasy, sf & biography, being the third of the collected works of Roger Zelazny. If you like his work, it's a must-read. It touches on a lot of other writers, the process of writing & some of the most fantastic leaps of imagination.

It's supposed to be a 6 volume set, but I heard a 7th might also be coming out early next year. Books 5 & 6 are due in Dec09. I plan to start book 4 shortly.

21: Shanra - i got that it is not retelling because a retelling would involve arthur and Guinevere, not his knights. i read the tristan story in an english class and that certainly didn't have arthur in it. i never heard it predated the arthur one . . . it could be. There is a Q&A in the back? Sounds interesting. I will check that out.

I haven't read horror books since 6th grade when I saw that movie about chuck on tv and decided I never wanted to see or read horror ever again. The closest I get these days are the vampires and werewolves in urban fantasy.

*ruffles hair* Sorry. I think I've been coming across all wrong. I'm sorry.

I've fallen into the horror story reading once or twice since I was about ten, but... Mostly they didn't feel/read like horror books. Odd experience, so I have a few, very few, books lying around which are more leaning towards that to see if I've really got to a point where I can read it and not suffer nightmares or whether I've just been lucky in the book department.

24: Shanra - horror stories that don't feel like horror? what books are these?

Nothing as mysterious as all that. They're just books classified (somewhere) as horror and just... aren't scary.

Mister B. Gone is pretty high on my list, there. (And the only one I recall off-hand, which with my cruddy memory says something. To me at least.)

I can see how the book is supposed to work, but it... just isn't scary. But I don't want to go into a lengthy rant, so I'll leave it at that. ^-^

ohh by clive barker . . . i've never read anything by clive barker.

If you ever feel like reading Clive Barker, try The Hellbound heart. It's one of his best!

truthfully, i have always clive barker with horrer and horrer with the nightmares horrer movies used to give me as a child. :P

I just finished reading Drops from the Kingdom: The Silver Arrow (Volume 1) enjoyed it eventhough it is a teen novel

Read Six Weeks To Yehidah by Melissa Studdard. It debuted on August 7th,2011 and it is a marvelous book full of stunning imagery and fascinating characters. It is a feel good book and the heroine, Annalise's magical voyage of self discovery.

The Sword of Truth series
Terry Goodkind
Book 1 is Wizard's First Rule