Talk:List of fantasy authors

Untitled

This list would be more interesting and useful if each entry included a headline-length phrase mentioning the person's most notable/memorable works of fantasy. I added a few notes as a trial. Stan 04:29, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But for some authors, there's lots and lots of those most notable works of fantasy!Regeane Silverwolf 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's fine but the info shouldn't go past one line per author or the list will get too long (extra details should be in the bio anyway). Earlier, I had added many of the birth and death dates for the authors. I thought that would be good idea because I noticed that this list shows up in Yahoo and Google when you do a search for a particular author and so this tiny bit of info (plus Stan's notes) helps to make this page a one stop info shop for people who come here from Yahoo or Google. MS, 15, Dec, 03

I noted that several major fantasy authors (mostly from the 'epic' or 'high' subgenre) were not included on the list, so I have inserted R. Scott Bakker, Paul Kearney, Kate Elliott and Patrick Tilley (whose Amtrak Wars series may be set in the future and have SF elements, but is very definitely fantasy due to the presence of magic, telepathy and prophecy). I also added a link to Steven Erikson's entry for the Wiki page on his Malazan Book of the Fallen sequence and an entry for the co-creator of the Malazan series, Ian Cameron Esslemont, who has started publishing his own Malazan novels. --Werthead 00:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Science Fiction authors accidently included here

I believe some of the authors included in this list were included mistakenly, as some only write Science fiction, and have not written any fantasy. Below I have started a list of suspects. If you know of at least one fantasy book they've written, add it after their name here. If you find a suspect entry, add it... --ssd 23:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Anne McCaffrey (Pern is definately science fiction, not fantasy)
• Alan Dean Foster
• Sheri S. Tepper
• John Norman

Before entries above are deleted, they should be either

• Added to Category:Fantasy writers and their page updated to reflect their fantasy work

OR

• removed from this article as fantasy writers if someone is really sure they never wrote any fantasy material

Hmm...while McCaffrey and Norman's works may theoretically be SF, in that they are supposedly set on alien planets, rather than in some imaginary fantasy world, is that really enough to say that they are not fantasy? The work of both is discussed in Clute and Grant's Encyclopedia of Fantasy. McCaffrey it says is basically science fiction, although it notes that she uses a lot of fantasy tropes. Norman, however, is discussed as a fantasy writer, but Norman's works, as "Planetary romance" are classified as a kind of hybrid, I guess. At any rate, I think in light of that, it's appropriate to list at least Norman on the list. Foster, BTW, has definitely written fantasy - apparently he wrote the Spellsinger series, as well as novelizations of Clash of the Titans and Krull. Tepper is also listed in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy - the EofF says that the True Game series "is dramatized in terms of fantasy yet technically is sf: this readiness to conflate the conventions of distinct genres has characterized her work since, so that much of her writing is perhaps best described as technofantasy." I'd say that, based on this, all of these, with the possible exception of McCaffrey, can be listed as fantasy authors. But I dunno. Certainly Foster should be. john k 05:08, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To me, the difference between fantasy and science fiction is the pivotal role of technology in SF, and the pivotal role in supernatural forces (especially magic) in fantasy. Things get grey when you mention things like ESP which is theorized but not proven by science, and which McCaffery includes in almost all her books. (Teleportation, although perhaps less likely, is mentioned in Star Trek which is clearly hard SF, and perhaps inherited by many other SF books.) I'm not sure why, but people seem to think just because it is set in the past or on a primitive planet with limited technology, it can't be science fiction which usually is written in the future with high technology.

Anyway, my point for this list is that if authors have written fantasy, they are here because their Wikipedia page does not mention it. If they have books (or series) that are clearly fantasy, a sentence or two needs to be added to indicate such, and the first line of the article should also mention fantasy. --ssd 05:19, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...certainly that should be done with Foster. With the others, it's a bit more complicated. I mean, it is very easy to write books that are essentially fantasy books in all essential ways, save that what would normally be considered magic is explained in some quasi-scientific way. I suppose you could say that this makes it science fiction. But I don't think that you can say that this makes it not fantasy. As far as I can gather from my limited awareness of Norman's work, this would be a fairly accurate way to categorize it (to the extent that it is not just S&M porn). McCaffrey seems to be approaching that level (not with the S&M porn, but with the quasi-fantasy content). Tepper seems to be a weirder case, since it seems as though the issue is that there are fantasy tropes in her novels, so I'm not really sure on that. Perhaps someone more familiar with her work could get into that. john k 05:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look, I do believe that there plenty of people who feel that all the people on that list are fantasy and so they should stay on the fantasy list. User ssd thinks that Anne McCaffrey "is definately science fiction." Excuse me, but that is one persons opinion. I do believe there are many others who think she is definately fantasy and so that's where she should be included. I think it's better to have someone listed on too many lists than too few. It does no harm and in fact helps to better cross reference. I do appreciate the hard work users like ssd put into this site, BUT I also think they are trying too hard to find things to fix. Some things just need to be left alone. Having too much information is ALWAYS better than having too little, IMHO. --MS

Sheri S. Tepper's The True Game series is definately fantasy, as is Alan Dean Foster's Spellsinger series. Neither of them uses science to explain how "magic" work, though The True Game has high technology and magic side-by-side, so it could be considered to be both fantasy and sci-fi. -- Khym Chanur 01:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think the line between fantasy and sci-fi is blurry sometimes. Certainly there are stories which definately fall into the fantasy catagory, others which are clearly sci-fi, but some are not so clear.

Also, I think Phyllis Eisenstien should be on the list of authors also, but I am not sure the spelling is right.

Consider adding Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, I'd say. Yes, also at their page only science fiction is mentioned, but how is e.g. their "Hard to Be a God" not by far more fantasy than SF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajkoning (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

McCaffrey again

I agree with the sentiments to keep Anne McCaffrey on the list (and I've readded her.) While people can argue semantics about whether she fits one definition or another for Fantasy, people will expect to see her her, as she is often considered a fantasy author; even her memorandum on the TOR ( http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/11/anne-mccaffrey-in-remembrance ) and Del Rey ( http://sf-fantasy.suvudu.com/2011/11/a-message-from-anne-mccaffreys-family.html?wbtrak=NGZiYzAxN2UtNDU0YTE4NTg= ) sites reflect this. Beska (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because the cat had her kittens in the oven, doesn't make them biscuits. McCaffrey wrote nothing but SF, and was known to be somewhat caustic on the topic. Calling her SF set on a low-tech planet "fantasy" is nonsense and original research; you will not find any competent critics calling it fantasy, because it is not. Calling it "fantasy" or "science fantasy" will not change that. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the kittens thing...to the point where I would say that just because she was insistent that it wasn't fantasy, doesn't mean it wasn't. You claim that there are "no competent critics calling it fantasy"; any references? You call my point original reasearch: I added two references to the talk page, from publishers, who refer to her as a fantasy writer. But you know what? Whatever. I don't think I'm going to convince you, and I'm not interested in an edit war. So you "win". Beska (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless McCaffrey wrote some short fiction which is fantasy, which may be possible, I'd have to look in Get Off the Unicorn, I wouldn't include her on the list. She does use the tropes of fantasy, but with a science fictional underpinning (as evidenced that even the early Dragonrider stories were originally published in Analog, known for only publishing science fiction.Shsilver (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding author photos, cover art etc. to perk up the list

I've been doing this to the List_of_science_fiction_authors, but couldn't resist this cute picture of Fiona Mcintosh I came across. I may do more later , or you may want to join in the fun! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tags

I will add the sources here so that there aren't just random citations:

• He is notable. David Forbes - sales rank shows that he has shifted a few copies.Same as above.This man definitely exists and has sold fantasy. Re-adding.
• A review on a well known site for Robert Wayne McCoy.This shows both numerous reviews and such. Re-adding.Another well known site for fantasy.
• I have outlined the reasons for keeping Richard Monaco on TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page. He is a pulitzer prize nominee for christ sake.
• Janna Nickerson. Up for a Pacific Northwest book award. Ok, it isn't a Pulitzer, but it shows notability. This shows some notability as well as a couple of reviews.
• I agreed to remove Rodriguez and Thomas on RedPen's talk page (see above).
• C. Lee Tocci.see this for Booklist reviewShows importance of Booklist

Regards. Alan16 ^talk_count 09:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability is more than a blurb in Amazon - show actual notability exists for these authors by actual coverage in reliable third party sources. AND wikipedia is not a promotional media for people like Tocci to pimp their own work.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. Well I don't care too much about Tocci, so she can go. However, David Forbes has clear notability. The interview by itself with SFF World (a well respected fantasy website where not everyone gets an interview) shows notability. With all due respect, I get annoyed by people who delete authors simply because they are self-published. They can be self-published and still be notable. Alan16 (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Redlinked authors?

Seems okay to have redlinked works, but I think redlinked authors should be kept off the list. Authors on this list should have an entry already. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Vehemently agree! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of fantasy-fiction. It might be useful to look at [1] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Retitling page

Should this article be re-titled "List of notable fantasy authors"? The article does not include every single fantasy author and besides, notability is the requirement, apparently. -- Billybob2002 (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Marion Zimmer-Bradley

Shouldn't she be on the list? -Sparkling Twilight, 1st November 2014-

She is there, under B, not Z. - I am not sure why, but the Marion Zimmer Bradley article also is sorted under Bradley, ... . Daranios (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the List of fantasy authors

• Information to be added or removed: Please add the author Vincent Hunter to the List of fantasy authors. • Explanation of issue: Vincent Hunter is not yet on the list of fantasy authors. • References supporting change: Vincent Hunter press release in Surrey Now Leader Newspaper: https://www.surreynowleader.com/entertainment/transgender-surrey-brothers-debut-fantasy-novel-as-author-duo-vincent-hastings/

Vincent Hunter author page on Amazon: https://www.amazon.ca/kindle-dbs/entity/author/B08JHF2V31?ref_=dbs_p_ebk_r00_abau_000000

The Garnet Crown: https://www.amazon.ca/Garnet-Crown-Book-Crimson-Plumes-ebook/dp/B08FLWZM1L/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?dchild=1&keywords=the+garnet+crown&qid=1602991308&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExQU9MSlIyWUJHTE1BJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMTQ1NTY3MUs5MDdKQUZTOFY5OCZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwMDM5MzExNTFVVTZZVURNNlgmd2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGYmYWN0aW9uPWNsaWNrUmVkaXJlY3QmZG9Ob3RMb2dDbGljaz10cnVl

Vincent Hunter official website: https://vincenthunterofficial.wordpress.com/blog/ FirebornMana (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi FirebornMana. I'm afraid I must decline your edit request. A prerequisite to being included on this list is [e]very entry...must have an article written in the English Wikipedia, with reliable sources to support inclusion... Vincent Hunter (the author) does not have an article on Wikipedia, so unfortunately he cannot be included in this list at this time. Best, Altamel (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"This article needs additional citations for verification"

Why should the article need additional citations for verification? This is a list, and all you have to do is to click on the name of the author or the examples of work, and there is all the verification you need. What more could anyone ask for? 46.212.117.57 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree. Looking into the history, it seems the note was introduced because the notability of some entries in the list were in question, which in turn would be solved by providing secondary sources. Now we only have entries with blue links. I think it would be overkill to require secondary sources for everyone in our very large list just to prevent the off chance that there are blue-linked entries which are not notable after all. If someone has doubts in that direction, they could better be addressed in the article of the individual entry, not here. So I am all for removing that notice. What does anyone else think? Daranios (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed. Using secondary sources where redlinks are not allowed just to prove that the various names are really fantasy authors seems pointless.

(Someone has added the same demand on List of horror fiction writers. Also on the list List of horror fiction writers; someone finds it necessarily to add that Bruno Schulz was a Holocaust victim. Didn't find it relevant, so I removed it, only to see me edit being reverted again. No additional information is mentioned in any of the others more than hundred authors.) 46.212.117.57 (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

As for the description of Bruno Schulz, I'd agree from the general structure of the List of horror fiction writers that that's a fact which should be in the article, not the list. However, to avoid conflicts in case of differing opinions, Wikipedia policy suggests the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Which means, if you still think you are right after your edit was revert, start a discussion on the talk page and act on its result.

Ah, I see that's been done already. I'll chime in there. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As for the secondary sources demand, pinging @Andrzejbanas:, who has put up the template. Maybe they would like to give us their rationale here and we can work out a decision? Daranios (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for tagging me @Daranios:. Per WP:SOURCELIST, "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well. Content should be sourced where it appears with inline citations if the content contains any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations." That said, I'm not familiar with a lot of literary fantasy works, so to my eye, any of these authors could or could not be to fantasy authors to me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Thanks for stopping by! I don't think anything on our list here falls under the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. Sure, it's about living persons, but I don't think them being fantasy writers is contentious. Rather, I think we can assume in good faith that the editors who put them here did the right thing. Also, this is a list for navigation purposes, with all entries having their own articles. So the actual information can be found, presumably with sources, in the articles proper. Taking that together I think it would be an undue effort to require transfer of all the sources from the articles here (also greatly blowing up the article size) just to prevent the small chance that we have false entries. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Cool cool. It's not so much that it's contentious, it's just that genre is subjective, and per WP:SUBJECTIVe and WP:OR, I think we should still have someone out there stating that yes, this author is primarily known for fantasy. We've had similar discussions in the past for directors like Alfred Hitchcock, who surely has directed films close to or are horror films, but he's not primarily known for the genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

A good example that sort of opposes this is Howard Browne, who has no information for him on a popular fantasy series. Which is fine, might just not have any popular ones. However, on his wikiarticle, it says he primarily writes Science fiction and mystery. This is why I push for sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: I see your argument, and find it has some merit. Overall I am still prefering not require the sources due to the other arguments (and the fact that it's unlikely to be done in grand style in the forseeable future, which is a very weak additional argument). Daranios (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand out of sheer convenience, but as the goal of every article on wikipedia is to be featured status, we shouldn't just turn a blind eye to sources here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)