Better to read the initial Salvatore, Eddings, Feist, Brust, etc. of the suggestions above, then decide. They all have one thing in common--the early books are mostly better than the later books. Brust has the least fall-off and writes in two completely different styles in different series. Feist has a very slow fall-off, and the "Nakor" character almost makes up for it. Eddings wrote the same series 5 times, with each one worse than the last (with a few key exception in the initial Sparhawk trilogy). I read Salvatore way past the point where I should have quit, and can confirm that it never turns around.
Eddings you pretty much read for the characters. The story is pablum. If you like the characters, it's worth the ride. Brust is the only talented writer in the bunch. Feist is workman-like and knows how to put together a plot--a skill not to be despised compared to most current fantasy writers.
Pratchett is better than all of them, but also not the same kind of stories. Certainly should read him.
Greetings!
Excellent observations, Steve. I agree. I always thought that Feist, Edddings, Salvatore, Brust--were all pretty decent authors. I never quite understood the ocean of hate and derision for them as writers.
However, I must have read the first three or four books from each of them.
I can't really explain why I didn't keep up with reading further books written by them--I somehow just got involved in reading other stuff. I probably got even more into reading Non-Fiction History books, and kind of left off from reading Fantasy Fiction.
I always enjoyed David Gemmel, Harry Turtledove, Bernard Cornwell, and Jack Whyte, as well. As you may know from such authors, they definitely have a more historical style than the earlier group--more history, war, religion, politics, and drama, and less fantasy and magic for sure.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK