SFF Novellist of the Decade

[The Pita]

If the decade were 1996-2005, it would be GRRM, no question. But due to the arbitrary nature of our calendar, two books alone isn't enough for me to rank him among the best.

He wrote more than two books. Check my last post to see a small amount of books he's written/edited.

What's the big deal about Gaiman again? He seems to have a lot of fans, but American Gods was mildly entertaining at best. The only other thing I've read by him was a short story in Legends 2, which wasn't that great. Am I missing one of his major works?

I thought American Gods was the worst of his. My absolute favorites were Sandman volume 2 and Smoke And Mirrors. Try the latter first. If you like comic books, start getting Sandman. None of those are recent, but they're his best and they're amazing.

[Werthead]

What's the big deal about Gaiman again? He seems to have a lot of fans, but American Gods was mildly entertaining at best. The only other thing I've read by him was a short story in Legends 2, which wasn't that great. Am I missing one of his major works?

Gaiman's masterpiece is Sandman. All of his other works are secondary to that, although still very good. Neverwhere and Good Omens (both 1990s) are probably his next-finest works, with American Gods and Anansi Boys coming in a little below them in quality.

If people are going to keep including in incredibly non-prolific George R.R. Martin, then I feel compelled to nominate J.R.R. Tolkien, whose 2007 book The Children of Hurin is still better than most of the stuff I read this decade. :)

The Children of Hurin is drawn from material that was all published pre-2000, thus would be ineligible.

Or are we among numerate people, who think this decade is 2001–2010? Then Pullman and Chabon are out, and Martin has only released a single book.

I think we're going by popular definition, which is that the decade has a name like the 'twenties' or 'thirties' it incorporates all of the years with that number in it. Thus the 'noughties' consists of 2000-2009. If it was 2010 then we'd be doing this twelve months from now, obviously, and whilst we'd lost ASoS we'd (hopefully) gain ADWD.

Chabon's Yiddish Policemen's Union, which is genre, was only published a couple of years ago wasn't it? Or were you talking about a different book of his?

I nominate Phillip Pullman, whose Dark Materials were actually only finished this decade. Thematically, this work stands head and shoulders above almost anything else I’ve read in the genre, excepting Bakker, Mievielle, Duncan.

Only The Amber Spyglass was published this decade and it was lame. A very badly muddled ending in which Pullman almost successfully completely undid all the good work he did in the first two novels. A textbook example of how not to conclude your trilogy. The most brilliant thing about the ending was the 'needless cruelty' he inflicted on the main two characters at the end, which is fantastic because it's almost the same thing he railed on Lewis for doing in The Last Battle.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

I have recently fallen in love with Tim Powers. While I haven’t read a lot of SFF (to include Bakker) I am really surprised no one has mentioned Tim Powers yet. His writing is top notch, his stories and characters captivating, and it is very hard to put his books down.

From the last Decade he has : Night Moves and Other Stories (2000); Dinner at Deviant’s Palace (2001); Declare (2002); Powers of Two (2004); Strange Itineraries (2005); Three Days to Never (2007); A Soul in a Bottle (2007); Expiration Date (2007); On Stranger Tides (2008); The Ship of Isthar (2008);

[Werthead]

I think some of those are reprints (On Stranger Tides came out in 1988, for example). This decade he seems to have published Declare (2001), Powers of Two (2004), The Bible Repairman (2005), Three Days to Never (2006) and A Soul in A Bottle (2007), plus four short story collections.

Definitely a strong body of work from what I've heard though

[Jaqen the FatManderly]

IMO Gene Wolfe is so far above the field as to make it no contest, no matter if he published his napkin scribblings. As it happens, he's been busy:

[book of the Short Sun]

In Green's Jungles (2000)

Return to the Whorl (2001)

[The Wizard Knight]

The Knight (2004)

The Wizard (2004)

[soldier series]

Soldier of Sidon (2006)

Pirate Freedom (2007)

An Evil Guest (2008)

[short Story Collections]

Strange Travelers (2000)

Innocents Aboard (2004)

Starwater Strains (2005)

[Chapbooks]

Talk of Mandrakes (2003)

Christmas Inn (2005)

Strange Birds (2006)

Memorare (2008)

[Procrastimancer]

Gaiman's masterpiece is Sandman. All of his other works are secondary to that, although still very good. Neverwhere and Good Omens (both 1990s) are probably his next-finest works, with American Gods and Anansi Boys coming in a little below them in quality.

I would argue that Gaiman's "next-finest" works consists of his short fiction (and therefore the collections they can be found in). His novels are just fine, they are very good and very entertaining, but his short fiction stands head and shoulders above them.

---

I am hard pressed to name someone for this, but when it comes down to it I would likely nominate Mieville as well.

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

Well, Mieville is credited as starting a movement. He was actually just in the right place at the right time just as a bunch of authors doing similar stuff came out. He didn't even coin the buzzword (that was VanderMeer, IIRC).

You know, I'm pretty convinced that it was Miéville who came up with the "New Weird" label, but having spent the better part of an hour trying to google up a quote to prove it, I have to admit that I have been unable to find any mention of who invented the name at all. The closest I've got is M. John Harrison mentioning that he first heard it in a conversation with Miéville, but that's not conclusive of course.

As for his role in the New Weird movement, he's always been the poster boy for the genre and he was always the one who seemed most keen on using the label. Also, most other New Weird writers were at first only published by small presses and it was probably the commercial success of Miéville that gave them a chance with the bigger publishers.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

I think some of those are reprints (On Stranger Tides came out in 1988, for example). This decade he seems to have published Declare (2001), Powers of Two (2004), The Bible Repairman (2005), Three Days to Never (2006) and A Soul in A Bottle (2007), plus four short story collections.

Definitely a strong body of work from what I've heard though

Thanks. I am a new fan, so I still have that new love glow. ;)

I have both older and newer stuff and had no idea which were which so I just listed what was on the internet ;)

[Happy Ent]

Chabon's Yiddish Policemen's Union, which is genre, was only published a couple of years ago wasn't it? Or were you talking about a different book of his?

I was primarily think about Kavalier and Clay (A Guige of Golems?), which is from 2000. (Pulitzer Prize 2001.)

[williamjm]

I think some of those are reprints (On Stranger Tides came out in 1988, for example). This decade he seems to have published Declare (2001), Powers of Two (2004), The Bible Repairman (2005), Three Days to Never (2006) and A Soul in A Bottle (2007), plus four short story collections.

If we're talking novels then he's only published two new novels this decade - Declare and Three Days To Never. Powers of Two is a compilation of his first two novels from the 1970s and the rest is short fiction.

[Larry.]

M. John Harrison is generally credited with coining the phrase - he first used it in October 2002 as "China Miéville & the New Weird" in the introduction to the PS Publishing edition of Miéville's The Tain and then in January 2003 to start a rather (in)famous thread (now archived) at TTA's boards that began: "The New Weird. Who writes it?"

VanderMeer just reproduced this thread in part of his The New Weird anthology that was released last year. If anything, VanderMeer has been rather ambivalent about the term ever since it gained currency in 2003.

[Calibandar]

I think in the end I have to go with Bakker as well. He started his series this decade, is now 4 books in with a 5th one supposedly due next year and I really love his series, you can really immerse yourself in it.

With more output I would still have said Martin. I have to disqualify Hobb simply because the Soldier Son is 3 subpar books and that in some way negates The Tawny Man Trilogy's excellent quality. Farseer & Liveship were from the 90's and the Rain Wild Chronicles is basically one big book that doesn't come out until Spring next year.

Kay, I think most people would agree, though actually no one besides myself has even mentioned his name in this thread, that his work from the 90's has looked stronger than Ysabel, Last Light of the Sun. Still a brilliant writer though.

Mieville I see mentioned a lot and I can see why, I just cannot pick him myself because I'm not that big a fan of his style. I like elements of it, but a book like City & The City for instance does absolutely nothing for me. OTOH there are great strengths in Perdido and the Looking for Jake collection.

I still think Dan Simmons is a very strong pick. I'm not that big on Hamilton though the Void Trilogy is most interesting to me. Reynolds, well I like what I have read of House of Suns but his earlier books I tried flat out disappointed me.

I cannot pick Wolfe because too much he has done this decade has been of no interest to me. Abercrombie and Lynch were good but it feels too lightweight to consider best of the decade.

So yes, I'll go with Bakker.

[MattD]

Ultimately, Mieville seems to me the top choice, when you combine the quality and quantity of his work over the decade, his influence within the genre, and his role as a spokesman and opener of genre to those outside. (Kelly Link would deserve a place on the list for similar reasons, except per the thread title she's not a novelist.)

One other name I would toss into the mix of those mentioned so far is Catherynne Valente: she's had a very impressive decade in terms of both quantity (six published books with an additional novella to be published before the end of the year, plus two online novels -- not to mention four volumes of poetry and enough short stories to fill a collection) and quality (winner of the Tiptree and Mythopoeic Awards for her fiction, the Rhysling for her poetry, and nominated for the World Fantasy Award); she's been a Tiptree judge; was recently selected to be an editor for a volume of the Best American Fantasy anthology series; and she seems to have been at the forefront of many trends like upcoming authors using blogs to build an audience, pay-for-access online works, short story membership clubs, multimedia author performance tours, alternate reality games, professional authors using crowdfunding, etc. So again, quality, quantity, and a sense of being connected to the zeitgeist of the decade.

There are plenty of other authors who have had very good decades -- Wolfe, Simmons, etc. -- but these seem to me generally cases of writers who had already established a high level of work continuing to do what they were already known for, and thus none to me really feel like they're connected to this particular decade.

[Datepalm]

....a sense of being connected to the zeitgeist of the decade.

Agreed. Maybe not inherent to what the OP had in mind, but to mine that has to be a criterion. So I find it hard to go with Martin (or Jordan/Erikson/Hobb) as their books, regardless of date and objective quality*, strike me as continuations of earlier trends rather than emblematic of the 00's.

My vote is definitely with Meiville over Bakker, and i'll second Alastair Reynolds who's work is not without its significant flaws but definitely better than what i've read of Hamilton, who's best series (Which I haven't read, but that seems to be the general concensus) was in the 90s anyway.

I've liked what i've read of Valente too, but haven't read enough to call author of the decade, though MattD's comments wrt marketing and presence make a lot of sense. I'd add Naomi Novik to that category, and also for a good bunch of good quality books. I think Temeraire has a reputation for being fun but lightweight, but i've become more and more impressed with them on re-reads.

*I recognize that this is somewhat stupid. If the most of the best books of the, um, "Big Epic Yet Gritty Multivolume Fantasy" trend were actually published in the 00's, surely that makes it an 00's thing. But you know what I mean. (Unless you don't, I guess.)

[DrBloodmoney]

Fantasy:

Mieville

Bakker

Erikson

(all tied, let's face it, each has had one hell of a decade)

Science Fiction:

Alastair Reynolds hands down

[dornish prince]

george is a contender for me, solely, for storm.

christopher moore is in for me because of lamb and my absolute love for the absurd. i also like laughing.

richard morgan continually challenges me. i like his level of output and his well written stories, something he shares with moore, IMO. i have yet to read steel but i'll get around to it soon.

bakker is simply amazing. no judging eye yet but his talent is undeniable. i don't think that i've ever disliked characters that i love as much as i have reading his work.

lynch is on the list for lies. that book hit me like a ton of bricks. i discount him because of his output.

i've yet to read abercrombie but opinions greater than mine consider him so i'd be foolish to not include him.

i've only read perdido but that puts mieville on my list. like abercrombie, the people on this board that have literary views that i take, on their face, as valid helps him make this list.

so, all things considered, i can't decide between morgan and moore. it goes without saying that i'm not as well read as many of you but i'll say it anyway. i'm not as well read as many of you. :P

lamb and altered carbon top my list and they have both written other books that would be in my, after week 5 ;), top 25 list.

i can't decide.

[Caligula_K]

My choices are between:

Gene Wolfe: This decade has seen some of his best work- from the concluding two novels of the Short Sun trilogy, to the Wizard Knight, to Soldier of Sidon, the last Latro book. Pirate Freedom is also a pretty good book, and while I didn't like an Evil Guest, I think he's done a pretty spectacular job, especially considering his age. Since many don't like The Wizard Knight, it's understandable that he'd be off their list.

R. Scott Bakker: See, The Prince of Nothing is one of my favourite trilogies- dark and twisted, original, with excellent characterization and good use of philosophy. But his two works since then have been average- Neuropath had an interesting idea but far too many problems for me to like it, and The Judging Eye was just a pretty boring book, most of the time. So, 3/5 is definitely good, but I don't think he's the best of the decade.

Guy Gavriel Kay: Lord of Emperors is my favourite book by Kay, and I also love The Last Light of the Sun- but he's only had three books all decade, and Ysabel was pretty average.

Joe Abercrombie Not a bad or average book in his output- The Blade Itself is his worst, but is still a pretty good setup novel, and after that they just get better and better.

So, my choice would have to be Wolfe, followed by Abercrombie.

[Kat]

Mieville, definitely. I am continually impressed by the creativity and scope of his novels, and his prose is delectable.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I would rank Bakker as #2, but pretty far behind. It's not really a secret that I think his series is overrated, and it's also not a secret that I think he failed at whatever he was trying to do with his female characters. But really, I'm impressed with the worldbuilding and the craft of his novels, and that's almost enough to make up for their deficiencies, but not quite. And then I read TJE with a very open mind (since I thought Bakker would be in Montreal and I was afraid of getting drunk and embarrassing myself in front of an author without actually having read the latest book) and instead of being annoyed with the women, I was annoyed with the plot. (I just saw the movie in 2002, did I not?) A resounding "Meh." I'll consider Bakker for series of the decade if he finishes it within a decade and GRRM stays on this schedule, but...not right now.

And Abercrombie? I mean, he's a nice guy, but seriously?

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

In fantasy it is a close race between Bakker and Mieville for me. I think all four volumes of Second Apocalypse are excellent, Neuropath is somewhat weaker, but IMHO nor so bad as some say (just not as good as it is trying to be). Mieville had bigger impact, all his Bas-Lag books are excellent as well and at least one of them (The Scar) is IMHO better than anything Bakker did. OTOH his two latest novel (Un Lun Dun and The City & The City) were IMHO subpar. All in all I would go for a tie between those two authors. GRRM seems to have stalled, Gene Wolfe and Guy Gavriel Kay are very good, but their best work was published in previous decades, and Susanna Clarke has published only one novel, otherwise all of them would be contenders as well.

In science fiction situation is more complicated.. My favorite novels of the decade would be Blindsight and Anathem, but I think one novel is not enough to give an author first place (Rifters trilogy was good, but not outstanding, IMHO, and Baroque Cycle is only marginally SpecFic) I think I will go with Ian McDonald who has produced three outstanding novels (if we count Ares Express).

[Indigo Cloak]

Stephenson, for the Baroque Cycle and Anathem.