Read it and weep: https://time.com/collection/100-best-fantasy-books/ (https://time.com/collection/100-best-fantasy-books/)
Consider, first, the missing authors: Howard, Smith, Lovecraft, Dunsany, Merritt, Blackwood, MacDonald, Eddison, Leiber, Moorcock, Wolfe, McKillip, Donaldson, Erikson, and many others.
Now here's what y'all will love. Scroll through the list and find Patrick Rothfuss' The Name of the Wind, a bit over halfway down. That was published in 2007. After that, 45 books remain (meaning, according to Time and the authors on the panel, 45% of the greatest fantasy books ever were published in the last 12 years!).
Those 45 books were written by 37 authors. Of those 37 authors, 7 are male, 6 are white, and 1 is a white man. Meaning, of the 45 books written from 2008 to the present that this article deems as among the 100 greatest of all time, only one was written by a white dude. Meaning, according to this list, white dudes stopped being able to write great books about 12 years ago.
Oh yeah, icing: the panelists all have at least one book on the list - a couple of them have 3 each.
Caveat: Unlike some here, I have no issue with trying to represent, advocate for, or prop up diverse groups and individuals. But why use such a list that is meant to represent the greatest fantasy books of all time as an opportunity to do this? It becomes yet another act of ideological proselytizing. An act of willful exclusion and bias. Why not, instead, write a different article, say "Some Great New Authors, Most of Them Not White"? Why not just be honest about it? I'd have no problem with that whatsoever, and would even approach it with interest. But this masquerade is disingenuous, transparent, and frankly, shameful.
Two of the panelists, NK Jemisin and Tomi Adeyemi, have three books each on the list. Imagine being a well-respected fantasy author and realizing that you have three books on a list at the exclusion of Lord Dunsany, RE Howard, Michael Moorcock, Stephen Donaldson, Patricia McKillip, etc. How could you sleep at night?
I can usually tolerate some degree of wokism, and even agree with some of the underlying goals of inclusivity, giving under-represented groups their due, combatting bigotry, etc. But this...display...just really irks me, probably because it is an instant of its own complaint, and because it makes a mockery of the fantasy tradition.
QuoteOne Thousand and One Nights: It's hard to ignore that, from the start, this book of short stories is deeply misogynistic; the problematic gender dynamics of its time are pervasive and often stomach churning. And it's rife with racism toward dark-skinned Africans and casual discrimination of Jews.
Mmm, yes tell me more of this problematic book rated first in the 100 best fantasy books.
It's "Time". What did you expect? There is so much garbage written and selling in today's fantasy market, why would we expect the people involved to be any more discerning about quality in earlier works?
It's a terrible list, but is this supposed to be some culture war-related outrage? Because it doesn't seem to fit. There's the Christian parable (Narnia), old school books that would be considered "problematic" (1001 Nights, Le Morte d'Arthur), the books that LeGuin had to recant because they weren't feminist enough, Robert Jordan's male eye, and even Anne "tentpost" McCaffery. It's extremely heavily weighed toward children's books, has a lot of popular books that are more notable for the number of volumes sold rather than the quality or the writing, and manages to include 1 to 3 books by every single author on the judging panel which I'm sure is a reflection of their timeless virtue not tasteless self-promotion.
Looking at the list, it could be fairly, and much more appropriately titled "The 100 Best Girls' Fantasy Books of All Time". The list is heavy on books which would appeal to female fantasy fans, mostly from the YA niche and its antecedents (with a few token unisex books). That alone is no crime.
Where it goes sideways is excluding anything that is masculine, or would appeal primarily to men. So the pulp tradition is all out, as is most of the western fantasy tradition, from Vance to Wagner, and Zelazny to Harrison. Ironically, excellent female fantasists are right out, because they did not write in the now official style, or had the wrong politics - so Leigh Brackett, Andre Norton, and C.L. Moore are not on the list. I have a slight hunch Marion Zimmeron Bradley would be present, if she didn't get unmasked as a horrible sexual predator. The result, presented as a "best of everything, all time" list, only demonstrates how bigotry and junk politics marginalises great works.
Sad!
Quote from: Mercurius on October 19, 2020, 03:08:24 AM
Two of the panelists, NK Jemisin and Tomi Adeyemi, have three books each on the list. Imagine being a well-respected fantasy author and realizing that you have three books on a list at the exclusion of Lord Dunsany, RE Howard, Michael Moorcock, Stephen Donaldson, Patricia McKillip, etc. How could you sleep at night?
Adeyemi only has 2. Gaiman is the other panelist with 3 on the list, though he's somewhat more deserving (but not 3/100 deserving). And your list isn't full of obvious misses -- Donaldson is a better writer than many people give him credit for, but he's not a top 100 fantasy novels of all time better, for instance.
Flipping through, I've read 19/100, and 0 of the books on the list after
American Gods. I don't think I've even heard of the vast majority.
Terrible list.
I would've only allowed Tolkien and Rowling one slot each (technically, Tolkien's work is a single book broken up into three sections).
I admit, I'm astonished. No Dragonlance, no Elric of Melnibone, no Conan (wat), no Beowulf?
They don't even have anything by Naomi Novik, but I guess the Temeraire series is far too manly for the list.
Quote from: Pat on October 19, 2020, 08:19:08 AM
Quote from: Mercurius on October 19, 2020, 03:08:24 AM
Two of the panelists, NK Jemisin and Tomi Adeyemi, have three books each on the list. Imagine being a well-respected fantasy author and realizing that you have three books on a list at the exclusion of Lord Dunsany, RE Howard, Michael Moorcock, Stephen Donaldson, Patricia McKillip, etc. How could you sleep at night?
Adeyemi only has 2. Gaiman is the other panelist with 3 on the list, though he's somewhat more deserving (but not 3/100 deserving). And your list isn't full of obvious misses -- Donaldson is a better writer than many people give him credit for, but he's not a top 100 fantasy novels of all time better, for instance.
Flipping through, I've read 19/100, and 0 of the books on the list after American Gods. I don't think I've even heard of the vast majority.
I think Donaldson's Thomas Covenant is an obvious miss. When I think of top 100 fantasy novels of all time, a lot of that is influence, and the first two Thomas Covenant series were hugely impactful.
Quote from: Pat on October 19, 2020, 07:51:01 AM
It's a terrible list, but is this supposed to be some culture war-related outrage? Because it doesn't seem to fit. There's the Christian parable (Narnia), old school books that would be considered "problematic" (1001 Nights, Le Morte d'Arthur), the books that LeGuin had to recant because they weren't feminist enough, Robert Jordan's male eye, and even Anne "tentpost" McCaffery. It's extremely heavily weighed toward children's books, has a lot of popular books that are more notable for the number of volumes sold rather than the quality or the writing, and manages to include 1 to 3 books by every single author on the judging panel which I'm sure is a reflection of their timeless virtue not tasteless self-promotion.
My guess is that they tried for some legitimacy in that you can't create such a list without mentioning at least some of the classics.
What is so striking to me is the shift after Rothfuss. It was as if they said, "OK, now we need to represent diverse authors and ignore any books by white men. OK, let's throw in one...David Mitchell?"
I'm not banging the drum for the poor, neglected white male. I just wish we could come to a point where we actually judged the books on their own merits, rather than which intersectional boxes can be checked off.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 19, 2020, 08:32:00 AM
Terrible list.
I would've only allowed Tolkien and Rowling one slot each (technically, Tolkien's work is a single book broken up into three sections).
I admit, I'm astonished. No Dragonlance, no Elric of Melnibone, no Conan (wat), no Beowulf?
They don't even have anything by Naomi Novik, but I guess the Temeraire series is far too manly for the list.
No CS Lewis? I was never a big fan of his but I still think he should be in there.
Quote from: Shasarak on October 19, 2020, 06:44:31 AM
QuoteOne Thousand and One Nights: It's hard to ignore that, from the start, this book of short stories is deeply misogynistic; the problematic gender dynamics of its time are pervasive and often stomach churning. And it's rife with racism toward dark-skinned Africans and casual discrimination of Jews.
Mmm, yes tell me more of this problematic book rated first in the 100 best fantasy books.
And it is so unnecessary. It's as if they know that they are writing for the benefit of morons only. I read Arabian Nights when I was, what, 12? And even then I knew there were obvious cultural differences, differences because many of the stories are from medieval times etc.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 19, 2020, 12:32:40 PM
I think Donaldson's Thomas Covenant is an obvious miss. When I think of top 100 fantasy novels of all time, a lot of that is influence, and the first two Thomas Covenant series were hugely impactful.
Thomas Covenant is the worst book that I ever tried to read.
1,000 Nights and Le Mort d'Arthur are also bizarre, because if you include them, why not include Beowulf, as someone already mentioned? Or the Song of Roland, which is even more magical. Journey to the West? Even Dante's Inferno? And why stop in the Middle Ages? How about Ovid's Metamorphoses? The Illiad and Odyssey? The Mahabharata? The Kalevala? The Mabinogion? Or go all the way back to the dawn of writing, because the epic of Gilgamesh seems just as good a fit.
At what point do you draw a line and say
this is where fantasy starts? If you go by standard convention, there shouldn't be anything earlier than the 19th century, because the modern genre of fantasy is generally considered to start with either Ruskin or MacDonald. So those two relics make it feel like the panelists don't even know how to define the genre.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 19, 2020, 12:32:40 PM
I think Donaldson's Thomas Covenant is an obvious miss. When I think of top 100 fantasy novels of all time, a lot of that is influence, and the first two Thomas Covenant series were hugely impactful.
The Thomas Convenant series were popular, but I don't see them as particularly influential. The Land is a fairly genetic fantasyland and doesn't have the depth of someone like Tolkien, and Donaldson's writing isn't as poetic or clever as a Beagle or Zelazny. His strength is generally characterization and a willingness to feature a very difficult protagonist that doesn't even fit the standard anti-hero patterns. But I don't think that's been widely imitated. He also deconstructed some fantasy tropes, but that's common; I don't think Covenant is an inflection point.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 19, 2020, 12:38:04 PM
What is so striking to me is the shift after Rothfuss. It was as if they said, "OK, now we need to represent diverse authors and ignore any books by white men. OK, let's throw in one...David Mitchell?"
I'm not banging the drum for the poor, neglected white male. I just wish we could come to a point where we actually judged the books on their own merits, rather than which intersectional boxes can be checked off.
I didn't notice any shift at Rothfuss, but his book is the 55th on the (chronological) list, and the most recent book I've read is
American Gods (#51) -- and every other book I've read is in the first 30. Which means I'm familiar with roughly 2/3rds of the first 30 books on the list, but only 1 of the last 70.
You probably hit the nail on the head when it comes to tokenism, but it's remarkably unwoke in other areas. (McCaffrey alone would elicit cries of "problematic".) Melan also has a point about the list favoring fantasy for girls, though that's just one strain -- for instance, despite being written by a woman, the Earthsea books that made the cut are clearly aimed at boys.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 19, 2020, 12:38:04 PMI just wish we could come to a point where we actually judged the books on their own merits, rather than which intersectional boxes can be checked off.
It's a good question: how
do you define the merits of the "greatest fantasy of all time"? One person's moving and beautiful insight into Truth, or unprecedented work of imagination, is another person's boring, confusing, unconvincing or offensive grind.
The degree to which a work has visibly influenced its successors used to be one, but that obviously lets out most things written within the last ten to fifteen years. (Adding:) Which as far as I'm concerned is as it should be. Nothing should be able to qualify for any kind of "of all time" list until it has been regularly read and reprinted for at least twenty years.
It's more the 'trigger warning' psychology. You might be emotionally damaged by seeing sexism or racism, etc., so they have to mention it so you don't get unsettled.
Having to mention that a book of medieval Islamic folktales had the expected prejudices of the era, well, I think people have gotten too sensitive.
They're probably trying to get a non-Western historical work on there would be my best guess--that's why they put that one in and left out Beowulf, the Odyssey, etc.
You do see the exclusion of the pulp/sword-and-sorcery tradition. Well, we've got Appendix N. ;)
Quote from: Pat on October 19, 2020, 03:46:10 PMThe Thomas Covenant series were popular, but I don't see them as particularly influential. ...He also deconstructed some fantasy tropes, but that's common; I don't think Covenant is an inflection point.
I think you can make a case for them being more influential than readers nowadays realize; the series actually started coming out in 1977, in the same year that
The Sword of Shannara became a blockbuster, and the essayist and author Tom Simon has written a lot about how Donaldson and Brooks between them completely reinvigorated the public market for fantasy with their success. I think Donaldson's deconstruction of heroic tropes goes unnoticed now simply because people don't realize the degree to which he was one of the first really successful examples of it (cf. "Seinfeld Is Unfunny" on TVTropes.org).
Now that said, just because a book was hugely
influential in this sense doesn't mean it belongs on a list of the Greatest of All Time. I have a soft spot for
Sword of Shannara myself, but it's a mediocre ripoff of LOTR which only succeeded because the audience was starved for anything like it and it had no competitors at the time. I think
Covenant must be recognized as influential, but I could understand something thinking other books deserved to beat it for quality.
I absolutely hated the whiny leprous rapist, the book was such a slog to finish.
QuoteWhile Dahl's reputed anti-Semitism has raised questions about his legacy as an author in the years since his death, James and the Giant Peach remains a favorite among kids and parents alike nearly 60 years after it was first published, thanks to its vivid imagery, vibrant characters and forthright exploration of mature themes like death and hope.
It's as if they have to mention any and all potential triggers, even if it is "reputed" and not present in the book.
Quote from: Trond on October 19, 2020, 05:17:20 PM
QuoteWhile Dahl's reputed anti-Semitism has raised questions about his legacy as an author in the years since his death, James and the Giant Peach remains a favorite among kids and parents alike nearly 60 years after it was first published, thanks to its vivid imagery, vibrant characters and forthright exploration of mature themes like death and hope.
It's as if they have to mention any and all potential triggers, even if it is "reputed" and not present in the book.
I agree. I mean, if it isn't even in the actual book, the it winds up being about subjecting every author of the past to the moral standards of the day, which is IMHO ridiculous. What's going to happen in 100 years if the population of the earth is 20 billion, everyone had to become vegan because we no longer have room to grow livestock, and they start throwing authors out because they ate meat?
I'll come clean. I'm half-Jewish (by descent, and I don't practice any religion, and as should be clear by now I am substantially less woke than your average NYT columnist). Am I supposed to not play Call of Cthulhu, because of Lovecraft's prejudices? Oh, wait, maybe I shouldn't read Shakespeare either, because of the Merchant of Venice or those lines in Macbeth. Can't read 'The Waste Land', because Eliot wrote some nasty stuff. Journey to the End of the Night (Louis-Ferdinand Celine) is out too... Maybe I should ring the Spanish Academy and have them censor the epic of El Cid because of the scene where he rips off the Jewish moneylenders...
I admit I didn't like Wagner, but I just couldn't get into the music--too slow and ponderous.
I don't know man, I'm too old. The kids all think like this, and they're the future, so what am I supposed to do?
To be fair, Howard only wrote one Conan book, The Hour of the Dragon.
Quote from: Null42 on October 19, 2020, 06:23:04 PMI'm half-Jewish (by descent, and I don't practice any religion, and as should be clear by now I am substantially less woke than your average NYT columnist). Am I supposed to not play Call of Cthulhu, because of Lovecraft's prejudices?
Exactly; not to mention, of course, that confronting a cosmically horrifying truth -- not that the universe is full of monsters who don't care about us, but that humans, both as individuals and as a species, are neither what we want to be nor mean what we'd like ourselves to mean -- is kind of the
point of the whole Mythos. In the Lovecraftian universe's eyes, our belief in ourselves as a species genetically and functionally equal among all population groups need not be any more true or relevant than our belief in ourselves as a species possessed of an immortal soul. It all depends on whose sacred cow is gored.
That said, would I play a
Call of Cthulhu game solely for the sake of fighting awesome monsters? Absolutely. Would I stick with a group that I thought was using the game as a way to browbeat me over my faith? Most likely not. But CoC is at least written so as to give players the
option of not doing that. A game where you
have to buy into a particular headspace to enjoy it at all is a profoundly limited one, I think.
Quote from: Null42 on October 19, 2020, 06:23:04 PM
I'll come clean. I'm half-Jewish (by descent, and I don't practice any religion, and as should be clear by now I am substantially less woke than your average NYT columnist). Am I supposed to not play Call of Cthulhu, because of Lovecraft's prejudices?
Lol I'm part French Canadian Catholic and Lovecraft hated them as a people too. I'm also in an interracial marriage with mixed blood children -- more huge strikes against me per Lovecraft.
He's "problematic" if you're anything but pure WASP. Or you know, you aren't a snowflake about such things.
I think that if you are in any way worried about Lovecrafts beliefs then you should at least have the strength of your convictions to not grift money from his ideas.
On a list of "most influential fantasy" a modern-day story about some of the characters from The Iliad counts, while the foundational work--read by a thousand times as many people as the modern story, does not? Is The Iliad not fantasy?
You can argue about some of the really early works as fantasy given that they were probably closer to legends--they believed in the siege of Troy but didn't really think the gods came down and made people do stuff, etc.
"Hey, tell us about great-great-great-great-granddad's getting lost again!"
"Well, he got blown offshore and ran into...a giant! With one eye! And he wanted to eat him, but first he asked granddad's name!"
"What did he say?"
"Nobody! So when granddad stuck him in the eye, and the other giants asked him who was hurting him, he said 'Nobody'! 'Well, they said, if nobody's hurting you, shut up and leave us alone!'"
(ancient greek laughter)
"All right, that's pretty good, give him supper."
Quote from: Trinculoisdead on October 23, 2020, 12:51:19 PM
On a list of "most influential fantasy" a modern-day story about some of the characters from The Iliad counts, while the foundational work--read by a thousand times as many people as the modern story, does not? Is The Iliad not fantasy?
If you're a librarian, do you file the Illiad under mythology, or fantasy?
Fantasy is a genre, not an adjective. It doesn't mean anything with fantastic elements, it means things associated with the fantasy genre.
I personally think the Iliad, Gilgamesh, etc, belong on a "root texts of fantasy" list, not as actual fantasy (genre) books.
One thing that is often missed is that many/most/all stories had fantastical elements until the rise of science and secularism around the late Middle Ages. It was the default genre, so to speak.
If we consider the Gothic romance of around the turn of the 18th-19th century to be a separate genre, among fantasy historians, George MacDonald is often considered the first modern fantasist, with his books Phantastes (1858), The Princess and the Goblin (1872) and Lilith (1895), while William Morris' Wood Beyond the World (1894) is thought to be the first book set in an entirely imaginary world. Around the turn of the century and early 20th century, you had lost civilization fantasists like H Rider Haggard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Rudyard Kipling, and a bit later, Abraham Merritt. Alongside those were horror fantasists like Arthur Machen, William Hope Hodgson, Algernon Blackwood, and eventually HP Lovecraft, and then a third sub-genre of children's fantasy with Lewis Carroll, JM Barrie, and L Frank Baum.
However, perhaps the seminal fantasist of the early 20th century was Lord Dunsany, who influenced just about everyone who came after him, including Tolkien and Le Guin. The fact that he, alone, is not on that list utterly invalidates as worthy of serious consideration.
Other important pre-Tolkien fantasists include pulp writers RE Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, and Fritz Leiber (whose long career bookends Tolkien), as well James Branch Cabell, ER Eddison, Hope Mirrlees, and David Lindsay.
Anyhow, almost none of these authors are mentioned on that list, even though they were instrumental in establishing the nature and expanse of the genre.
Fantasy is a modern genre through-and-through; I would not put any pre-Victorian texts on the list. Maybe not even Dracula. Lost world novels, colonial fantasies, planetary romance, and early 1900s Arthurian reconstructions is where it starts.
Quote from: Pat on October 23, 2020, 02:36:39 PM
Quote from: Trinculoisdead on October 23, 2020, 12:51:19 PM
On a list of "most influential fantasy" a modern-day story about some of the characters from The Iliad counts, while the foundational work--read by a thousand times as many people as the modern story, does not? Is The Iliad not fantasy?
If you're a librarian, do you file the Illiad under mythology, or fantasy?
Fantasy is a genre, not an adjective. It doesn't mean anything with fantastic elements, it means things associated with the fantasy genre.
Quite correct. Beyond the Illiad, consider that the Bible (and many other religious texts too) has fantastic elements too. I don't think too many people would consider it a part of the fantasy genre unless they're trying to fling shit.
Quote from: Melan on October 24, 2020, 01:49:48 PM
Fantasy is a modern genre through-and-through; I would not put any pre-Victorian texts on the list. Maybe not even Dracula. Lost world novels, colonial fantasies, planetary romance, and early 1900s Arthurian reconstructions is where it starts.
Which is why some start with MacDonald's Lilith (1895) rather than Phantastes (1858). Or Morris' Wood Beyond the World (1894).
Of course, like most things--or at least cultural traditions--there is no clear starting point, or at least none that is widely agreed upon by scholars. Fantasy, as a literary tradition, was in many ways the child of Romanticism, which itself was a reactive movement to the rise of empiricism. Thus it makes sense that the genre exploded into form within the context of the Second Industrial Revolution (1870-1914).
There are also some significant benchmarks that signify different eras. Lord of the Rings (1954-55) is the most obvious one, as it influenced just about everything that came after--if only in terms of the shadow it cast, and its popularity--but I think you could find other texts that are "pins" in the map of fantasy tradition.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 24, 2020, 02:11:40 PM
Which is why some start with MacDonald's Lilith (1895) rather than Phantastes (1858). Or Morris' Wood Beyond the World (1894).
Of course, like most things--or at least cultural traditions--there is no clear starting point, or at least none that is widely agreed upon by scholars. Fantasy, as a literary tradition, was in many ways the child of Romanticism, which itself was a reactive movement to the rise of empiricism. Thus it makes sense that the genre exploded into form within the context of the Second Industrial Revolution (1870-1914).
There are also some significant benchmarks that signify different eras. Lord of the Rings (1954-55) is the most obvious one, as it influenced just about everything that came after--if only in terms of the shadow it cast, and its popularity--but I think you could find other texts that are "pins" in the map of fantasy tradition.
You missed Ruskin, but I think a wider point is that when it comes to a top 100 list, the precise location of the dividing line isn't important. Fantasy isn't defined by the foundational texts of the genre; the greatest works aren't the first. If a panel wants to add a borderline Victorian work or two, it won't significantly affect the list. The more important distinction is excluding everything from Gilgamesh to Arabian Nights. There are many of them worthy of consideration, but a list dominated by them is not what the audience is looking for in a list of fantasy books.
I'll also note that influence or "pinning" shouldn't be the primary metric by which a work is judged. You mentioned Eddison several times, and I think his
The Worm Ourborous is one of the iconic examples. It's a spectacular piece of work, one of the few early epics that can be compared favorably with Middle-earth, but it had very little direct influence on the direction of the fantasy genre. A similar work in the sister genre of sf is
A Canticle for Leibowitz, which also stands alone in inimitable majesty.
Quote from: Pat on October 24, 2020, 03:48:09 PM
Quote from: Mercurius on October 24, 2020, 02:11:40 PM
Which is why some start with MacDonald's Lilith (1895) rather than Phantastes (1858). Or Morris' Wood Beyond the World (1894).
Of course, like most things--or at least cultural traditions--there is no clear starting point, or at least none that is widely agreed upon by scholars. Fantasy, as a literary tradition, was in many ways the child of Romanticism, which itself was a reactive movement to the rise of empiricism. Thus it makes sense that the genre exploded into form within the context of the Second Industrial Revolution (1870-1914).
There are also some significant benchmarks that signify different eras. Lord of the Rings (1954-55) is the most obvious one, as it influenced just about everything that came after--if only in terms of the shadow it cast, and its popularity--but I think you could find other texts that are "pins" in the map of fantasy tradition.
You missed Ruskin, but I think a wider point is that when it comes to a top 100 list, the precise location of the dividing line isn't important. Fantasy isn't defined by the foundational texts of the genre; the greatest works aren't the first. If a panel wants to add a borderline Victorian work or two, it won't significantly affect the list. The more important distinction is excluding everything from Gilgamesh to Arabian Nights. There are many of them worthy of consideration, but a list dominated by them is not what the audience is looking for in a list of fantasy books.
I'll also note that influence or "pinning" shouldn't be the primary metric by which a work is judged. You mentioned Eddison several times, and I think his The Worm Ourborous is one of the iconic examples. It's a spectacular piece of work, one of the few early epics that can be compared favorably with Middle-earth, but it had very little direct influence on the direction of the fantasy genre. A similar work in the sister genre of sf is A Canticle for Leibowitz, which also stands alone in inimitable majesty.
Yes, good point (and I like the comparison to Canticle), although I still think it belongs on a top 100 list for a variety of reasons, perhaps as--along with the follow-up Zimiamvia trilogy--the first example of a big epic fantasy story told in multiple parts. For a top 100 list, I would emphasize influence in the genre first, but also consider secondary factors like cultural zeitgeist, quality, originality, etc -- all the factors that make something a "classic," which Ouroborus certainly is (I'll I've heard some say the later books are better...haven't read them).
Some of the recent books mentioned on the TIME list might end up as classic works and have a legitimate place on a future list. I read the Fifth Season and think it is arguably a top 100 book now, for a number of reasons. But the main think I dislike about the list--aside from the irritating wokeness of it--is that it doesn't seem to care about the fantasy tradition at all, about the story it tells about the history of fantastical ideas.
re: Ruskin. Yeah, his King of the Golden River predates Phantastes by a few years (1850) and is a candidate for the first "true" fantasy novel, but may also be considered a "proto-fantasy." Others I didn't mention: George Meredith, F Marion Crawford, and Charles Kingsley.