Score

Thank you for the invitation, but I only have the haziest idea of what urban fantasy even is, and I'm pretty certain I haven't read any.

If you're interested try some of Jim Butcher's Dresden books and/or Ben Aaronovitch's Rivers of London books. That will give you a good idea.

Clouds, my message would be almost identical to Antonomasia's. I have read 1Q84, and although it's good, it's not a favourite. I do believe there are three parts to it though. You might like to check into that. But it's an interesting list.

I am much more of a standalone reader than a reader of series, so I'm afraid I've only read a couple of these.

I did add one to the list that intrigues me because I've enjoyed the author's non-UF fantasy and science fiction in the past - Tad Williams.

Antonomasia, Richard, Candiss...
I'm sure there will be more GR friends bemused at my invitation to come vote on this list! I must confess - I blanket invited all my GR friends as this is my first attempt at a GR list and I was (am) easily excitable.

I'm not a *huge* UF series reader myself. I love the Dresden Files and Felix Castor (which my wife introduced me to when we first met) and I've recently read the first book in each series for Peter Grant, Matt Swift and Greywalker (all three also at my wife's recommendation).

This is not a genre of 'quality' writing - but it's a genre of really, really, 'fun' reading!

I decided to start the list because there wasn't one like it out there. The biggest UF list on GR includes all books in a series, so it's gotten swamped by the many books in the most popular series. It also has a very broad/unedited definition of what UF is, so I'm happier to start one myself and have some control.

So - if you're not currently (or ever) a UF series reader, no problem! Thanks for stopping by and checking out my latest little project :-)

You're right that the only other list about UF here is...badly degenerated. It started as UF but people have added high fantasy, low fantasy, epic fantasy and every other kind of fantasy...and in some cases nonfantasy.

I find that especially a lot of readers bleed their definitions of UF and PNR (ParAnormal Romance) together.

The listopia lists are like that.

Paranormal Romance and Urban Fantasy are close cousins and sometimes it's tough to distinguish between them. Some don't quite fit any def. For instance Hamilton's work ranges from horror, to UF, to PNR to outright erotica. One way I tend to define PNR is if the series remains, but every story has another guy/girl romance to fulfill. Usually, if the storylines feature ongoing characters it can be danged hard to maintain a real romance plot arc, so while it may be a UF subplot, it's rare that a couple continues on in PNR books from book to book unless it morphs into erotica . . . The Kate Daniels series I regard as UF, but the last book--a related character's story--is pretty much pure PNR. Noticed someone had added Beautiful Creatures. I'd challenge that based on the fact it's NOT urban.

I see Zoo City on the list, and while I definitely think it's a good, solid UF, I don't see any indication that it's part of a series.

Hi Candiss,

I know! There are several books currently on the list which don't appear to be part of any series. I thought my criteria was quite simple!

*exasperated sigh*

I've already deleted a dozen or so books that were not Book 1 in their series. Removing those that aren't part of a series AT ALL is next on the list.

My only hesitation is that I'm not certain with all of them and will have to do a bit of research. Eg - 1Q84 was originally published in 3-parts, but does that make it a series when you can buy it all in one book and it's not called an omnibus?

Clearly list admin is going to be more complex than I thought!

OK - I think I've got the list compliant with rules 2 & 3 now :-)

I even went into a couple of the books that weren't showing their series on the list and added them to the titles properly. And fixed a Lackey series that had books 1 & 2 the wrong way around.

I'm not sure where to start with making sure the list is complaint with rule 1. Where to draw the boundaries for UF? What I currently have is a list of 53 series, each of which at least 1 person believes is Urban Fantasy.

Not bad for Day 1. :-)

Added a bunch of books.

Also, The Hum & the Shiver really is part of a series. Book two is supposed to come out next year.

Clouds, what are you considering "contemporary?" Do you mean contemporary to the time the author wrote it (For example, a book written in the 1980s about a city in the 1980s would be "contemporary," whereas a book written now about a city in the 1980s would not be? Or do you have another definition in mind?)

Are books that take place in Earth cities but are not modern to be left off the list? I am guessing "yes," but I want to make sure. (I am thinking of many books here, but for example Thieftaker by D.B. Jackson, which is urban and fantasy but takes place in colonial Boston.)

I don't think I've ready any UF – I certainly haven't read anything on this list. But I did have the top three already on my to-read list (as well as another two in the top 30) so count me interested. I guess I've got some reading to do so I can vote, and if I like those at least I've got somewhere to come and look for further recommendations...

[Also, I de-duplicated three books on the list earlier today as well.]

Huh. Burning Water might be the first written of the Diana Tregarde books, but it's not the first Chronologically speaking. What's the rule on Goodreads for that?

Shanshad wrote: "Burning Water might be the first written of the Diana Tregarde books, but it's not the first Chronologically speaking. What's the rule on Goodreads for that?"

It's marked as being the first in the series, I'd assume that's the ruling. It'll be more complicated for books that belong to multiple series I guess...

Hmm . . . ah well. It's the librarian in me who's nitpicking over this.

Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "If you're interested try some of Jim Butcher's Dresden books and/or Ben Aaronovitch's Rivers of London books. That will give you a good idea."
Rivers of London would be the most likely as a few of my friends have read it already.

I had no idea that Ben Aaronovitch's Rivers of London and Midnight Riot were the same book! I guess they got released under different names (and vastly different covers) on either side of the Atlantic.

I'll have to remove one from my TBR. It looks like Midnight Riot is the US name...pity, Rivers of London is a better title - and far, far better cover - in my opinion.

Candiss wrote: "I had no idea that Ben Aaronovitch's Rivers of London and Midnight Riot were the same book!

Rivers of London is also a far more relevant title as one of the story strands is about the river spirits of Mr & Mrs Thames... no idea why they renamed for the US release.

Candiss wrote: "Clouds, what are you considering "contemporary?" Do you mean contemporary to the time the author wrote it (For example, a book written in the 1980s about a city in the 1980s would be "contemporary..."

Good question, Candiss :-) I've been struggling for a good definition of UF for a few weeks now and have been messaged a few people on here for opinions. The definition I've posted at the top is the best 'simple' phrase I've come up with.

You've specifically questioned my use of 'contemporary' - I use it in the loose sense, of the present time, or modern times. So a writer writing in the 80s, setting UF in the 80s would definitely be contemporary (to me). Likewise, a writer working now on a story set back in the 80s would still be contemporary (to me) because the 80s are still a modern era. So I guess my instinct places UF as a post 50s or 60s setting genre convention?

Always happy to debate that assertation though :-)

And yes, I'm aware we already have steampunk and alt-history UF in the list! For now I'm just going to keep an eye on rules two and three being followed and leave rule 1 up for debate.