What’s this? Two blog posts in two days? I must be sick, or at least procrastinating like crazy. But whichever the case should turn out to be (I’m rooting for both), I just wanted to drop by to share with you my results on this nifty test I took. It tells you which fantasy author you’re most like (or at least how you compare to the content of the fantasy author’s work), and I ended up being the recently deceased David Eddings, which I guess is like being a more pulpy version of JRR Tolkien.
I’m okay with that though, ’cause I remember liking Eddings’ work when I was a youngster, and even though I’ve since noticed how it’s… you know, not all that great, really, I should also try to remember that it was aimed at a certain demographic, and was quite successful at doing what it did.
If you do take the test, please drop your results in the comment section. I would dearly like to make fun of you if you turned out to be something like Terry Goodkind or Robert Stanek 
David Eddings (b. 1931)
-1 High-Brow, 11 Violent, -1 Experimental and 17 Cynical!
Congratulations! You are Low-Brow, Violent, Traditional and Cynical! These concepts are defined below.
David Eddings is the best-selling author of several series of fantasy novels, the most famous being The Belgariad (1982-84) and The Malloreon (1988-92). These books have become almost epitomic of the kind of fantasy that is fast-paced, full of humorous dialogue and written to entertain. And entertain they do. Few other writers have Eddings’ ability to create characters that not only makes the reader feel as if he or she knows them, but are also very likeable. Perhaps this is due to Eddings unusual path to writing fantasy: He had tried writing in other genres with moderate success when he discovered that fantasy, a genre he had hitherto not been interested in, sometimes sells very well, and therefore started turning an old sketch of a map into a series of books. Without an interest in experimenting with form or pushing the boundaries of the genre, Eddings created the penultimate light entertainment instead, trusting his readers to keep reading because of charming characters and exotic, though not particularly original, environments.
After the success of The Belgariad and The Malloreon, Eddings turned to writing fantasy which was, supposedly, aimed at a more adult audience. The tendency towards violence as entertainment that had been present through-out his early works grew more prominent in the series of The Elenium (1989-91)and The Tamuli (1992-94). It was also around this time that David Eddings wife, Leigh Eddings, was credited as the co-author of his books, though they admitted that she had been contributing from the very beginning.
Though Eddings isn’t the most high cultured of fantasy writers, few would dispute that when it comes to charm, he has no rivals.
You are also a lot like J R R Tolkien.
If you want something more gentle, try Robert Jordan.
If you’d like a challenge, try your exact opposite, Tove Jansson.
17 Comments
The link to the test doesn’t work, at least not on my computer.
And yes, you’re very Eddings, I can get behind that result. You like the violent stuff, you like the cynical stuff, you like the sarcastic stuff, and you’re more about shoving it in the face than about doing it subtly and realistically. Don’t really think that has any bearing on what type of literature you’d enjoy, but if you were a character in a fantasy book, or if you were to write one, I think you’d probably resemble Eddings a lot. After all, your adored Scott Lynch reminds me of nothing so much as Eddings successfully aimed at an older crowd.
Hey, that makes a lot sense. I think.
I dunno what I was hoping for, really. Neil Gaiman perhaps, but the test didn’t seem to include non-epic/magical realism fantasy authors.
Apparently, I’m your exact opposite. Don’t know how accurate this is, as I quite enjoyed Eddings when I read it, but was less than thrilled by Pullman.
Eddings is awesome at drawing in the YA-crowd, I’m so thrilled I checked out his books when I was on my post-LotR high in lower secondary school.
I just saw that Susan Cooper was a possible outcome, and shall now proceed to grieve because I’m not like her.
Finally, the page worked. And once again, Erlend, the world proves that there is nothing you can want that I cannot have (man, paraphrasing Belloq makes you feel good about yourself) : I AM a lot like Susan Cooper – though I got another one as my main result.
Ursula K Le Guin (b. 1929)
13 High-Brow, -3 Violent, -3 Experimental and 21 Cynical!
Congratulations! You are High-Brow, Peaceful, Traditional and Cynical! These concepts are defined below.
Ursula Kroeber Le Guin is definitely one of the most celebrated science fiction and fantasy writers of all times. Her most famous fantasy work to date is the Earthsea suite of novels and short stories, in which Le Guin created not only one of the most believable societies in fantasy fiction, but also managed to describe a school for wizards almost three decades before Harry Potter. Although often categorized as written for young adults, these books have entertained and challenged readers of all ages since their publication.
Le Guin is no stranger to literary experiments (see for example Always Coming Home(1985)), but much of her story-telling is quite traditional. In fact, she makes a point of returning to older forms of story-telling, which, at her best, enables her to create something akin to myth. One shouldn’t confuse myth with faerytale, though. Nothing is ever simplified in Le Guin’s world, as she relentlessly explores ethical problems and the moral choices that her characters must make, as must we all. While being one of those writers who will allow you to escape to imaginary worlds, she is also one who will prompt you to return to your actual life, perhaps a little wiser than you used to be.
You are also a lot like Susan Cooper. [hehehehehee!]
If you want some action, try Michael Moorcock.
If you’d like a challenge, try your exact opposite, C S Lewis.
Your score
This is how to interpret your score: Your attitudes have been measured on four different scales, called 1) High-Brow vs. Low-Brow, 2) Violent vs. Peaceful, 3) Experimental vs. Traditional and 4) Cynical vs. Romantic. Imagine that when you were born, you were in a state of innocence, a tabula rasa who would have scored zero on each scale. Since then, a number of circumstances (including genetical, cultural and environmental factors) have pushed you towards either end of these scales. If you’re at 45 or -45 you would be almost entirely cynical, low-brow or whatever. The closer to zero you are, the less extreme your attitude. However, you should always be more of either (eg more romantic than cynical). Please note that even though High-Brow, Violent, Experimental and Cynical have positive numbers (1 through 45) and their opposites negative numbers (-1 through -45), this doesn’t mean that either quality is better. All attitudes have their positive and negative sides, as explained below.
High-Brow vs. Low-Brow
You received 13 points, making you more High-Brow than Low-Brow. Being high-browed in this context refers to being more fascinated with the sort of art that critics and scholars tend to favour, rather than the best-selling kind. At their best, high-brows are cultured, able to appreciate the finer nuances of literature and not content with simplifications. At their worst they are, well, snobs.
Violent vs. Peaceful
You received -3 points, making you more Peaceful than Violent. This scale is a measurement of a) if you are tolerant to violence in fiction and b) whether you see violence as a means that can be used to achieve a good end. If you aren’t, and you don’t, then you are peaceful as defined here. At their best, peaceful people are the ones who encourage dialogue and understanding as a means of solving conflicts. At their worst, they are standing passively by as they or third parties are hurt by less scrupulous individuals.
Experimental vs. Traditional
You received -3 points, making you more Traditional than Experimental. Your position on this scale indicates if you’re more likely to seek out the new and unexpected or if you are more comfortable with the familiar, especially in regards to culture. Note that traditional as defined here does not equal conservative, in the political sense. At their best, traditional people don’t change winning concepts, favouring storytelling over empty poses. At their worst, they are somewhat narrow-minded.
Cynical vs. Romantic
You received 21 points, making you more Cynical than Romantic. Your position on this scale indicates if you are more likely to be wary, suspicious and skeptical to people around you and the world at large, or if you are more likely to believe in grand schemes, happy endings and the basic goodness of humankind. It is by far the most vaguely defined scale, which is why you’ll find the sentence “you are also a lot like x” above. If you feel that your position on this scale is wrong, then you are probably more like author x. At their best, cynical people are able to see through lies and spot crucial flaws in plans and schemes. At their worst, they are overly negative, bringing everybody else down.
Philip Pullman (b.1946)
21 High-Brow, -17 Violent, 1 Experimental and 3 Cynical!
Congratulations! You are High-Brow, Peaceful, Experimental and Cynical! These concepts are defined below.
Philip Pullman was already a prominent author of children’s books when he published his most praised work to date, the trilogy known as His Dark Materials (1995-2000). In this work, set both in parallel worlds and our own, Pullman made a courageous attempt to write a book for young readers which incorporated a whole vision of the universe, as well as a discussion of ethical issues. He managed to combine this with a burst of thought-provoking and entertaining imagination, bringing to life a Europe where the church is still in control, “souls” that have been externalised as animal presences, intelligent, sentient polar bears and much more. The series have been described as a sort of “anti-Narnia”, as Pullman’s attempt to write an updated variant of the kind of books C S Lewis, whom Pullman has criticized for having racist, misogynic and preaching tendencies, wanted to write. His Dark Materials has also spawned some controversy among Christians, who see the the work as an attack against Christianity, Pullman being one of Britain’s most outspoken atheists. Other Christians have, however, claimed to have found spirituality in the books.
Either way, Pullman’s combination of renewal and expansion of the genre, his profound messages on the value of life and his refusal to under-estimate his young readers’ ability to see life as it is makes Pullman one of the most interesting and important writers of modern fantasy.
You are also a lot like Tove Jansson.
If you want something some action, try Gene Wolfe.
If you’d like a challenge, try your exact opposite, J R R Tolkien.
A bit disappointing, really. I always thougt I clearly was a cynic. This is just a little bit cynic. Oh well, I’m high brow.
Mary Gentle (b. 1956)
19 High-Brow, 9 Violent, 29 Experimental and 17 Cynical!
Congratulations! You are High-Brow, Violent, Experimental and Cynical! These concepts are defined below.
Mary Gentle is a UK author whose work has received some acclaim. Her great break-through came with 1984 fantasy novel Golden Witchbreed, which depicts the travels of a UK envoy on a planet, Orthe, where the inhabitants have, by choice, abandoned a high-tech society for a seemingly less advanced way of life. Though nominally science fiction, the novel is generally called fantasy, partly because Orthe has the feel of a fantasy world. Nothing is what it first seems to be on Orthe, however, and the envoy’s journey across the planet gradually reveals a vividly imagined alternate society, where nothing is ever over-simplified or, for that matter, easy. Gentle revisited Orthe in 1987, when the sequel Ancient Light was published.
Since then Gentle has written the White Crow sequence, starting with Rats and Gargoyles (1990), which has received some acclaim, not least from other writers; China Miéville, for example, put it on his list of “50 science fiction and fantasy novels socialists should read”. She has also written Grunts! (1992), a novel set in a Tolkien-like fantasy world, but told from the point of view of the orcs, as well as several other books.
Gentle is not one to shun away from difficult issues in her works and is equally unafraid of discussing and depicting violence. Neither has she settled to writing the same kind of story over and over, and, while being at her best a great entertainer, she has the ability of twisting and bending fantasy environments and themes at her will, making unafraid a key-word of her career as a writer.
You are also a lot like Gene Wolfe.
If you want something more gentle (no pun intended), try Philip Pullman.
If you’d like a challenge, try your exact opposite, J K Rowling.
Hm, have never even heard of her. Oh well, I never take these kind of tests seriously anyway. I quite enjoy taking them though.
Never heard of her either. The comparison to Gene Wolfe, though, combined with what I know of your TV-tastes and your scores in the four categories, makes me think it could probably be worthwhile for you to check her out. And if for no other reason – “exact opposite of J. K. Rowling” is quite the high praise.
Can’t say I have heard of Gene Wolfe either, though I kind of have a feeling I should. But I’ll hopefully remember to check both of them out next time I’m looking for something to read.
I am a wee bit disturbed by my high score in the experimental catagory. Probably because when I read “experimental” I automatically think “sexually ambigious”.
So, Ursula K Le Guin huh? Never heard of her either (my ignorance astounds even me). Are you familiar with her work?
Gene Wolfe is HEAVY, be warned. But it’s sort of that heaviness that should appeal to you – I mean, you scored 19 High Brow and 29 Experimental, for crying out loud.
Have you read any Steven Erikson? Well, Wolfe is sort of heavy like he is (meaning the contrived way he does exposition, for instance), only with a strong feel of Ancient to it that makes it read as really bloody old stuff. And which of course makes it even heavier. *Hopes this sort of made sense* Anyway, you like Heavy Shows like The Wire and The Sopranos, which might not be AS heavy as really heavy books, but still as close to that type of literature as TV has ever gotten. So you might easily enjoy it. Or you might easily find it boring beyond belief. What the heck do I know.
Le Guin, I know very well who she is, she’s the woman with the famous Earthsea-books, but I only read one of those books once, back in eight grade. Remember very little of it now. It was a little too slow-paced for me back then, and the library had lost book number two to some water damage, so I never kept going. I’ve had a professor in English Literature a couple of years back, though, who told me I should try her out again. So I might, some day.
I did give Steven Erikson’s Malazan series a go a year back. However, I couldn’t quite get into it, and yielded after a few chapters. I’m not entirely sure what the problem was, but I just didn’t get a feel for the Malazan universe.
It might be because it felt like I had started reading in the middle of an ongoing story, and was thus hurled into a world that I could not adapt to.
I suppose I would feel differently if I had kept on reading. I did after all read the A Game of Thrones prologue a dozen times before managing to read on.
Erikson’s first book is vastly inferior to his second and third, if my experience is anything to judge by. But it is his exact “throw you head first into plot, setting, cast and world”-approach I figured you’d like, so he might not be for you after all, then.
(Which would likely also make Gene Wolfe a poor choice)
I LOVE Eddings, but I’m also rather pleased with my result, scarily spot on considering my likes/dislikes
Philip Pullman (b.1946)
3 High-Brow, -3 Violent, 13 Experimental and 17 Cynical!
I got Michael Moorcock (5 High-Brow, 5 Violent, -1 Experimental and 29 Cynical).
Which is all right, I guess. I thought Elric was a bit dull at times, but it was generally quite fascinating, especially the world building. Glorianna was… not exactly *fun*, you know, but… hmm. Perhaps “interesting” is a diffuse enough word to use? Of course they both failed to deliver what they promised.
And the fun thing is, every one of these kinda make sense, when applied to me.
As for Ursula LeGuin, I’m diappointed they failed to mention her The Dispossessed, one of the best sci-fi novels I’ve read. Both the high-brow and the experimental ratings of that one ought to be much higher that what Earthsea earned her, but I guess that’s sci-fi for you.