I don't really read sci-fi or fantasy and I think I should, especially after reading the LRB piece on Game of Thrones ( http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n07/john-lanchester/when-did-you-get-hooked ) and Ross Douthat on that piece ( http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/games-of-thrones-and-the-fantasy-authors-challenge/ ).
I generally like genre fiction. I enjoy thrillers, mysteries, comic books and some historical novels but generally avoid sci-fi or fantasy. I don't think writing's the issue either, I don't enjoy a badly written, clunky thriller either.
I think Douthat's right that I normally think I many be interested in a book, look it up online and see it's one of seven in an epic series which worries me. If it gets poor in the middle that seems like a lot of wasted effort and I just may not enjoy it to begin with; though I normally always finish books I start I'm not really keen on reading two books before the author gets into it.
I've read most of the Game of Thrones books (no spoilers, please :P) and recently read Hyperion. I enjoyed Game of Thrones a lot. In the end I liked Hyperion but I found bits of it a slog and won't be reading the next book. The only other fantasy-ish book I've recently read was the Rivers of London which I liked.
So I know there's lots of people here who read fantasy and sci-fi. What's good?
Edit: And I've got Cryptonomicon waiting to go, because loads of people have mentioned Stephenson here. I really enjoyed Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell too.
I think there are a lot more better written thrillers, mysteries, and historical novels then there are well written fantasy and sci-fi. That's partly a function of there simply being more of those types of books written then sci-fi and fantasy and partly because sci-fi and fantasy are often judge by the originality of the ideas rather then the quality of the writing. Many of the best known authors of Science fiction are only hum-drum in style. Some are (at least in my opinion) down right terrible. Philip K. Dick had a lot of original ideas but often reads disjointedly like it was written by man with schizophrenia. Which is also happened to be true.
I like Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy. Nasty characters though.
I like Glen Cook's black company and dread empire books. dread empire isn't for everyone and Black company peters out after the first three. His Garrett books are good is you like fantasy mystery type books. They get way too silly after awhile.
Whew, there's a lot of stuff out there.
Try;
Dune
Mote in Gods Eye
Elric series
Enders Game series
Black Company
Thrawn Trilogy
Fafthrd/Grey Mouser
God's Demon
etc
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 30, 2013, 07:59:14 PM
I like Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy. Nasty characters though.
I like Glen Cook's black company and dread empire books. dread empire isn't for everyone and Black company peters out after the first three. His Garrett books are good is you like fantasy mystery type books. They get way too silly after awhile.
:yes: those first three are great.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2013, 07:59:30 PM
Whew, there's a lot of stuff out there.
Try;
Dune
Mote in Gods Eye
Elric series
Enders Game series
Black Company
Thrawn Trilogy
Fafthrd/Grey Mouser
God's Demon
etc
He's asking for what's
good. Elric novels are dreadful, and the Thrawn Trilogy is some Star Wars tie in.
If you've never read any Conan you should start there.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2013, 08:06:53 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2013, 07:59:30 PM
Whew, there's a lot of stuff out there.
Try;
Dune
Mote in Gods Eye
Elric series
Enders Game series
Black Company
Thrawn Trilogy
Fafthrd/Grey Mouser
God's Demon
etc
He's asking for what's good. Elric novels are dreadful, and the Thrawn Trilogy is some Star Wars tie in.
They are
good ,maybe not to you, but to a lot of other folks they are.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2013, 08:02:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 30, 2013, 07:59:14 PM
I like Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy. Nasty characters though.
I like Glen Cook's black company and dread empire books. dread empire isn't for everyone and Black company peters out after the first three. His Garrett books are good is you like fantasy mystery type books. They get way too silly after awhile.
:yes: those first three are great.
The third one [spoiler]when the black company was hiding in the desert with the weird creatures[/spoiler] wasn't the best either.
Shit on the fat man. His writing is turbid and turgid, a double-down of disaster.
I recommend continuing with Hyperion. Cryptonomicon is good, but I would recommend The Diamond Age as well.
Gene Wolfe's stuff is uniformly excellent. I would stick with the Book of the New Sun (Shadow of the Torturer, etc.); four volumes, taut writing with florid vocabulary. Also, the Wizard Knight series is good.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 30, 2013, 08:09:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2013, 08:02:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 30, 2013, 07:59:14 PM
I like Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy. Nasty characters though.
I like Glen Cook's black company and dread empire books. dread empire isn't for everyone and Black company peters out after the first three. His Garrett books are good is you like fantasy mystery type books. They get way too silly after awhile.
:yes: those first three are great.
The third one [spoiler]when the black company was hiding in the desert with the weird creatures[/spoiler] wasn't the best either.
I enjoyed his writing style.
Mars Trilogy.
Now if you wan't some horrid recommendations, I can do that too.
Fire Lance by Christopher Mace. Brit leftist drivel about nuclear war
Orcs! By Mary Gentle. Why did I read this shit?
Left Behind. LEFT BELOW
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2013, 07:47:26 PM
So I know there's lots of people here who read fantasy and sci-fi. What's good?
Til your hearts content
http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/3.Best_Science_Fiction_Fantasy_Books
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 30, 2013, 08:14:14 PM
Orcs! By Mary Gentle. Why did I read this shit?
I read one called either Orcs or Grunts. It was pretty funny at times.
Besides the books mentioned in the OP and Tolkien, I'd recommend:
Foundation
Ender's Game
Mote in God's Eye
Sailing to Sarantium
Avoid Heinlein at all costs.
I always like it when the hero saves the day thanks to the clever application of college-level physics along with a can-do attitude and some human ingenuity. I read a lot of 60s, 70s and 80s sci-fi, before the internet sort of ruined everything.
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2013, 08:25:47 PM
I always like it when the hero saves the day thanks to the clever application of college-level physics along with a can-do attitude and some human ingenuity. I read a lot of 60s, 70s and 80s sci-fi, before the internet sort of ruined everything.
Tom Swift?
I liked the Ryiria Chronicles.
http://www.michaelsullivan-author.com/MichaelSullivan_Book.html
It's pure fantasy with ridiculous tropes.
I'm reading the Chathran Voyages Trilogy by Robert V.S. Reddick but I doubt anyone here would like it, it's kinda weirdly written.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2013, 07:47:26 PM
I don't really read sci-fi or fantasy and I think I should, especially after reading the LRB piece on Game of Thrones ( http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n07/john-lanchester/when-did-you-get-hooked ) and Ross Douthat on that piece ( http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/games-of-thrones-and-the-fantasy-authors-challenge/ ).
I generally like genre fiction. I enjoy thrillers, mysteries, comic books and some historical novels but generally avoid sci-fi or fantasy. I don't think writing's the issue either, I don't enjoy a badly written, clunky thriller either.
I think Douthat's right that I normally think I many be interested in a book, look it up online and see it's one of seven in an epic series which worries me. If it gets poor in the middle that seems like a lot of wasted effort and I just may not enjoy it to begin with; though I normally always finish books I start I'm not really keen on reading two books before the author gets into it.
I've read most of the Game of Thrones books (no spoilers, please :P) and recently read Hyperion. I enjoyed Game of Thrones a lot. In the end I liked Hyperion but I found bits of it a slog and won't be reading the next book. The only other fantasy-ish book I've recently read was the Rivers of London which I liked.
So I know there's lots of people here who read fantasy and sci-fi. What's good?
Edit: And I've got Cryptonomicon waiting to go, because loads of people have mentioned Stephenson here. I really enjoyed Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell too.
If you liked Star Wars, the original trilogy, there are some pretty decent books. Some pretty bad too.
There is the Sword of Truth wich was apparently good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth
This will be my next reading after the 5th GoT book. I liked the TV show in the end.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2013, 08:28:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2013, 08:25:47 PM
I always like it when the hero saves the day thanks to the clever application of college-level physics along with a can-do attitude and some human ingenuity. I read a lot of 60s, 70s and 80s sci-fi, before the internet sort of ruined everything.
Tom Swift?
Larry Niven.
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:35 PM
There is the Sword of Truth wich was apparently good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth
That series has 14 books & they were not created equal. The first one is pretty good tho.
Michel Houellebecq. You can read French, can't you? The English translations are also fine, but reportedly the prose is blunter, which I think fits it. Possibility of an Island is the truly SFnal one, with something like a third of the book taking place in the future and another third involving one of the protagonist's involvement with super-science, but Elementary Particles, while largely about some fat guy's sexual relationships, is framed as a transhuman origin story, and Platform involves a quasi-SFnal business plan.
Or Arthur C. Clarke. That's good stuff.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2013, 09:00:14 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:35 PM
There is the Sword of Truth wich was apparently good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth
That series has 14 books & they were not created equal. The first one is pretty good tho.
books 3-14 are repeated attempts to get right what Ayn Rand got wrong in Atlas Shrugged.
Shelf for British writers might I recommend Brian Aldiss for 'sci-fi', Robert Holdstock for 'fantasy' and Christopher Priest as written some nice cross-genre stories.
Some sci-fi:
Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
Altered Carbon by Richard K. Morgan
Hyperion by Dan Simmons
Ilium by Dan Simmons (though skip the sequel and just come up with your own ending, because the sequel was complete and utter shit)
For fantasy, you might like some Neil Gaiman. You may also like Game of Thrones by GRR Martin (though be aware he might die before the series is finished) or The Blade Itself by Joe Abercrombie (the first book of the First Law trilogy). There's a lot of urban fantasy stuff (usually set in London) you might like.
Of course, it's all subjective (and it really depends on what you're looking for); many of the books that others have already recommended to you were books that I thought were terrible. ;)
I like the Culture novels by Iain Banks. Sadly the poor man has the cancer so no new ones will be written.
Slaughterhouse 55 by Vonnegut, cool but is it really SF?
I like some of the Heinlein novels. Starship Troopers is fun. The moon is a harsh mistress is quite good. Glory Road has is good. Citizen of the galaxy is ok.
Larry Niven's Ringworld series is quite good. Or at least I thoought so when I was 15, maybe I should re-read them.
I like Guy Gavriel Kay, but he almost verges on historical fiction. I also rate Ursula Le Guin highly - both her fantasy (the Wizard of Earthsea series) and sci-fi (Left Hand of Darkness among others). Asimov, of course, is solid as well in the sci-fi department.
Terry Pratchett's Discworld is good if you like something more light-hearted; it's the closest you'll get to Wodehouse in fantasy.
Personally, I quite like Neil Gaimann's work as well, and Jonathan Norrell & Mr. Strange by Susanna Clarke is quite good.
Dr. Norrell and Mr. Strange.
Robert E. Howard's stuff is great as well, including Conan as mentioned, and shows a lot of the foundational tropes of fantasy genre. Tolkien too, of course, and C. S. Lewis' Narnia series if you didn't read them as a youth.
Gene Wolfe's Dying Earth is worth reading. And if you haven't read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it's worth giving that seminal work a look.
Ian Gibson and Bruce Sterling have written some good sci-fi books too, in my opinion - Neuromancer and the Difference Engine.
Personally I'm not a fan of Abercrombie at all.
Quote from: Viking on May 30, 2013, 09:07:08 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2013, 09:00:14 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:35 PM
There is the Sword of Truth wich was apparently good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth
That series has 14 books & they were not created equal. The first one is pretty good tho.
books 3-14 are repeated attempts to get right what Ayn Rand got wrong in Atlas Shrugged.
If he attempted that, he'd dispense with the ridiculous ideology. Instead he simply keeps wallowing in that particular failure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2013, 08:28:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 30, 2013, 08:25:47 PM
I always like it when the hero saves the day thanks to the clever application of college-level physics along with a can-do attitude and some human ingenuity. I read a lot of 60s, 70s and 80s sci-fi, before the internet sort of ruined everything.
Tom Swift?
You ever wonder what TASER was an acronym for?
Mote in God's Eye is probably the best "pure science" kind of SF book written in living memory. Don't expect much character development or the like, though; its about the science and some truly alien aliens.
Shielbh, I think you'd like David Brin's work a lot. Lotsa high-concept stuff there. Again, not much character-driven stuff. Start with Startide Rising (a Hugo and Nebula Award winner). If you don't like that, you won't like Brin.
One of the most memorable books I read was Melissa Scott's The Roads of Heaven. It is pretty much completely character-driven and features a unique concept of what FTL travel would consist of.
If you like space opera, the first five or six books in the Honor Harrington series will scratch that itch. There are more in the series, but you will probably tire of them long before you finish the increasingly-silly last six or eight books.
The Conan stories are, as mentioned, good reads and short. Howard had a way with words that no one has quite matched. Don't bother with the non-Howard stuff.
For Classic Era SF, you con't go wrong with anything by H. Beam Piper. Read Piper and you will never have to touch a Henlein book - Piper did everything Henlein did, but much better. But he is a classic era author; nothing modern about his work.
I'll note my dissent on the opinions generally expressed about Pratchett, Card, and Ambercrombie. The former two really write juevies, and the latter is just too heavy-handed (though he does create very memorable characters and locations).
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2013, 09:00:14 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:35 PM
There is the Sword of Truth wich was apparently good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth
That series has 14 books & they were not created equal. The first one is pretty good tho.
Oh, for fuck's sake! That book was most misogynistic crap I've seen! AVOID! AVOID!
Has anyone read any of the Recluse books by LE Modesitt?
I read the first 7-8 in a row back 8-9 years ago, then was burned out and never went back, even though I own some others. I thought it was an interesting world he created.
Mote Had an interesting alien race in it, but suffered because the "secret" was reveled about two-thirds of the way through to a bunch of guys who get killed soon after and the rest of the characters sit around trying to figure out the the big reveal for the last third of the book despite the reader already knowing it. The Forever War was a good novel. A much less pro-military version of star ship troopers. The main character is a bit Mary Sueish though. I found it fairly melancholy, and you seem to like that.
I would add Lovecraft for Fantasy/Horror and PK Dick for Sci-Fi. For the obligatory gay author, Samuel Delaney, especially the 'post-apocalypse meets magical realism' novel, Dhalgren (http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/65111/). To quote New York Magazine, "It's like Gertrude Stein: Beyond Thunderdome".
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2013, 10:36:52 PM
Mote Had an interesting alien race in it, but suffered because the "secret" was reveled about two-thirds of the way through to a bunch of guys who get killed soon after and the rest of the characters sit around trying to figure out the the big reveal for the last third of the book despite the reader already knowing it. The Forever War was a good novel. A much less pro-military version of star ship troopers. The main character is a bit Mary Sueish though. I found it fairly melancholy, and you seem to like that.
Have you read Old Man's War?
Quote from: grumbler on May 30, 2013, 10:18:37 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2013, 09:00:14 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:35 PM
There is the Sword of Truth wich was apparently good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth)
That series has 14 books & they were not created equal. The first one is pretty good tho.
Oh, for fuck's sake! That book was most misogynistic crap I've seen! AVOID! AVOID!
Really? How so?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2013, 10:40:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2013, 10:36:52 PM
Mote Had an interesting alien race in it, but suffered because the "secret" was reveled about two-thirds of the way through to a bunch of guys who get killed soon after and the rest of the characters sit around trying to figure out the the big reveal for the last third of the book despite the reader already knowing it. The Forever War was a good novel. A much less pro-military version of star ship troopers. The main character is a bit Mary Sueish though. I found it fairly melancholy, and you seem to like that.
Have you read Old Man's War?
Nope.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2013, 07:59:30 PM
Thrawn Trilogy
I read that when I was a teenage Star Wars fanboi. I tried reading it again recently and ... ugh.
I second Forever War.
For something lighter, try Toby Frost's Space Captain Smith series. It's kinda like Futurama meets Flashman (for the colonial setting, not the womanizing, unfortunately). It mocks a lot of sci-fi, but the references are usually well known enough, so that non-supernerds can also enjoy them (Blade Runner, Matrix, Clockwork Orange, Thomas the Tank Engine etc.).
I concur with grumbler that Pratchett is juvenile-young adult skewed, and the same for C.S. Lewis' Narnia and Le Guin's Wizard of Earthsea; that doesn't stop me from enjoying them, though.
Quote from: grumbler on May 30, 2013, 10:18:37 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2013, 09:00:14 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:35 PM
There is the Sword of Truth wich was apparently good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth
That series has 14 books & they were not created equal. The first one is pretty good tho.
Oh, for fuck's sake! That book was most misogynistic crap I've seen! AVOID! AVOID!
The prose was so bad I never made it to the promised rape scenes.
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2013, 11:03:23 PM
Really? How so?
Did you read it? The power that the "wise women" (or whatever they were called) was to make men "love" them (the author's term, not mine) helplessly, and what they did with this power of "love" was to make men rip off their penises and eat them. Add the fact that the way for men to neutralize this power was to gang-rape the shit out of the woman.
That's about as sick as sick gets.
Plus, the writing is crap, but that's kinda beside the point.
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2013, 12:42:07 AM
I concur with grumbler that Pratchett is juvenile-young adult skewed, and the same for C.S. Lewis' Narnia and Le Guin's Wizard of Earthsea; that doesn't stop me from enjoying them, though.
There's nothing wrong with Pratchett, I agree, except that the humor isn't aimed at adults and the story reveals are all visible a mile away if you are an adult. He really doesn't work his humor on two levels like, say, Douglas Adams.
Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2013, 05:50:49 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2013, 11:03:23 PM
Really? How so?
Did you read it? The power that the "wise women" (or whatever they were called) was to make men "love" them (the author's term, not mine) helplessly, and what they did with this power of "love" was to make men rip off their penises and eat them. Add the fact that the way for men to neutralize this power was to gang-rape the shit out of the woman.
That's about as sick as sick gets.
Plus, the writing is crap, but that's kinda beside the point.
My interest you have gotten. Yes.
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2013, 07:47:26 PM
I don't really read sci-fi or fantasy and I think I should, especially after reading the LRB piece on Game of Thrones ( http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n07/john-lanchester/when-did-you-get-hooked ) and Ross Douthat on that piece ( http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/games-of-thrones-and-the-fantasy-authors-challenge/ ).
I generally like genre fiction. I enjoy thrillers, mysteries, comic books and some historical novels but generally avoid sci-fi or fantasy. I don't think writing's the issue either, I don't enjoy a badly written, clunky thriller either.
I think Douthat's right that I normally think I many be interested in a book, look it up online and see it's one of seven in an epic series which worries me. If it gets poor in the middle that seems like a lot of wasted effort and I just may not enjoy it to begin with; though I normally always finish books I start I'm not really keen on reading two books before the author gets into it.
I've read most of the Game of Thrones books (no spoilers, please :P) and recently read Hyperion. I enjoyed Game of Thrones a lot. In the end I liked Hyperion but I found bits of it a slog and won't be reading the next book. The only other fantasy-ish book I've recently read was the Rivers of London which I liked.
So I know there's lots of people here who read fantasy and sci-fi. What's good?
Edit: And I've got Cryptonomicon waiting to go, because loads of people have mentioned Stephenson here. I really enjoyed Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell too.
If you liked Star Wars, the original trilogy, there are some pretty decent books. Some pretty bad too.
There is the Sword of Truth wich was apparently good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth
This will be my next reading after the 5th GoT book. I liked the TV show in the end.
It's ok, but that series is on the whole terrible. Also, there are only 12 books in it.
For Stephenson I wouldn't start with Cryptonomicon unless the setting/story in particular appeals to you. It was the first of his novels that suffered from story bloat. Tons of semi-entertaining asides, but with a consequent loss of focus and energy. I'd start with Diamond Age, Snow Crash or Zodiac, all works that keep the story going but are still geeky interesting. After that Anathem, Cryptonomicon, the Baroque cycle and Reamde in that order assuming you get that far.
Other authors:
William Gibson: Neuromancer, Burning Chrome. Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive if you want more.
Roger Zelazny: Lord of Light.
Quote from: grumbler on May 30, 2013, 10:18:37 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2013, 09:00:14 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2013, 08:56:35 PM
There is the Sword of Truth wich was apparently good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth
That series has 14 books & they were not created equal. The first one is pretty good tho.
Oh, for fuck's sake! That book was most misogynistic crap I've seen! AVOID! AVOID!
Too friggin right. It's trash.
Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2013, 05:50:49 AM
Did you read it?
I said that I did not. I saw the tv series and I liked the second season :)
Weird. I do not remember any gang rape of the confessors.
For some newer hard sci-fi i'd suggest Greg Egan: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/182-4577466-1414124?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=greg+egan
Jack Vance died.
1- The Change series, by S M Stirling. The world laws of physics change and people cannot use electricity or gunpowder.
2- The Safehold series, by David Drake. Planet safehold is the last human outpost surviving the Gbaba onslaught, but the humans there have been brainwashed into believing they have just been created by the Archangels (the leaders of the colonial expedition) and a medieval tech civilization have been forced on the planet under an opressing religion led by the inquisition.
3- The Destroyermen series by some dude. A WW2 destroyer, the USS Walker, crosses through a wormhole to an alternate Earth in which there are no humans, but a primitive reptile civilization is trying to conquer a primitive lemur-like civ.
4- Honorverse crap. Still mildly interesting, now that the Star Kingdom of Manticore have allied with the bastards of the Republic of Haven against the corrupted Solarian alliance.
Safehold is David Weber.
I liked The Destroyermen. It is interesting.
Honverse was fun for awhile, but it is beginning to show its age.
My impression of Honorverse is that I'd puke all over it. This may or may not be deserved.
My suggestions Sheilbh:
- All the Tolkien material on Middle-Earth - including the Silmarillion and the 12 volumes of the History of Middle-Earth - these last for the fascinating evolution of Tolkien's ideas and writing style;
- The Dune Chronicles - that is the 6 books written by Frank Herbert - *nothing* by his son Brian and that hack Kevin J. Anderson as it's utter crap;
- The Prince of Nothing and the Aspect Emperor trilogies by Scott Bakker - the first one is complete - the second one has 2 books out with the 3rd and last to come out next year - a brilliant rehash of both the above. That is he clearly was inspired by both Tolkien and Herbert but managed to make it his own in a fresh new way. And the prose - if you like lyricism - is fantastic;
- the Mars Trilogy from Kim Stanley Robinson - his best work IMO - and quite a compelling argument to explore and colonize Mars;
- The Stone Dance of the Chameleon trilogy by Ricardo Pinto, something different when it comes to fantasy, set in the Cretaceous period in Antarctica according the the author - with an Aztec feel to it. I should re-read it in fact;
- The Monarchies of God by Paul Kearney, an alternate Europe in the late XV-XVIth century with mages and werewolves - and above all with a Napoleon/Frederick the Great like character... very moving;
- CS Friedman who writes both fantasy and sc-fi has made some very compelling characters in : This Alien Shore - The Coldfire Trilogy and The Magister Trilogy;
- CJ Cherryth for her gift at creating alien mindsets in the Chanur Saga, The Deep Beyond and other works - where humans are mostly secondary characters;
- David Gemmel for his Troy Series, a re-imagining of the Trojan War.
G.
How could I forget!
Guy Gavriel Kay - all his alternate universe work - especially the Sarantium duology (Byzantium) and Under Heaven (medieval China). All his work is laced with nostalgia which personally I find very compelling. Incidentally he was co-editor of Tolkien' Silmarillion alongside Tolkien' son Christopher.
G.
Shielbh,
I'd suggest looking at the goodreads and similar lists and ignoring the recommendations here. There has been some good stuff recommended, but also a lot of shit.
Quote from: Siege on May 31, 2013, 04:53:31 PM
2- The Safehold series, by David Drake. Planet safehold is the last human outpost surviving the Gbaba onslaught, but the humans there have been brainwashed into believing they have just been created by the Archangels (the leaders of the colonial expedition) and a medieval tech civilization have been forced on the planet under an opressing religion led by the inquisition.
The first book is okay, but the series sinks quickly under turgid prose. Too much pure good and pure evil.
Yeah, Safehold crapped out is a whole lot of filler. I second Guy Gavriel Kay. Sarantium and the Fiovanar Tapestry are both worth a read or a re-read.
Also, the Mistborn books.
You know, I've enjoyed some of Stirling's work, but the idea of the laws of physics changing in such a way that electricity and gunpowder don't work, but life on earth can survive is silly.
I liked the Raj Whitehall books, basically Belisarius on a colony world int he future.
Quote from: Neil on May 31, 2013, 08:26:51 PM
You know, I've enjoyed some of Stirling's work, but the idea of the laws of physics changing in such a way that electricity and gunpowder don't work, but life on earth can survive is silly.
I thought it was silly that SCA nerds would take over.
Since Grallon mentioned Mars: Ray Bradbury for some classic sci-fi!
Also, H.P. Lovecraft. It's hard to appreciate how novel his work was, since a lot of it has been tread and retread into the point of cliché, but many of his stories still make for good reading. Penguin has a few small books with his short stories, annotated by T.S. Joshi, one of the best scholars on Lovecraft. I especially loved the The Colour Out Of Space, Innsmouth Horror, and especially At The Mountains Of Madness.
In a similar vein: the original Conan stories by R.E. Howard. They're less "classic fantasy", but share some characteristics with Lovecraft's universe (e.g. the existence of "Elder Gods" etc.).
Quote from: Neil on May 31, 2013, 08:26:51 PM
You know, I've enjoyed some of Stirling's work, but the idea of the laws of physics changing in such a way that electricity and gunpowder don't work, but life on earth can survive is silly.
That's a premise? That's really, really, really, really dumb. Then again, it's not like hyperdrives can exist.
Conan is pretty nice BUT if you want insane Texans Languish should be enough for you.
I was thinking about the essay shelf posted. There is one other area where the general public will willing engage in reading fantasy without any problem and that's horror fiction. Horror is typically a type of fantasy, though a dark and nasty one. Ghosts, curses, demons and the like are fantasy and these abound in horror fiction.
Horrible fiction is depressingly real.
We have enough of that listed in this thread. :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on June 01, 2013, 12:36:43 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 31, 2013, 08:26:51 PM
You know, I've enjoyed some of Stirling's work, but the idea of the laws of physics changing in such a way that electricity and gunpowder don't work, but life on earth can survive is silly.
That's a premise? That's really, really, really, really dumb. Then again, it's not like hyperdrives can exist.
It's also written poorly, has annoying characters, and has implausible events.
Peter F. Hamilton: has a good number of SF books written now. Usually mixes his SF with a good detective-type story.
the Greg Mandell books (trilogy, earlier work though) is a good starting point (and in a near future England too)
His most recent book is the "Great North Road".
Quote from: Syt on May 31, 2013, 11:41:53 PM
Also, H.P. Lovecraft.
Mentioned on page three. ;)
"Courtship Rite" (or "Geta" as I think was its UK title) by Donald Kingsbury is one of my recommendations as a "must read". Good luck finding it though (and no, you're not having my copy. :P)
The "Gap" series by Stephen Donaldson (his foray into science fiction) is also a surprisingly good read. As is his "Mordant's Need" duology on the Fantasy side. Avoid any and all of his "Thomas Covenant" books like the plague, however.
As for the more obscure books recommended previously, I'd second the recommendation for the "Monarchies of God" series (now out in a two-volume compilation.) Although I do have an issue with the final book - the ending feels rushed as if the author either couldn't get a contract for another book or was determined to make it a five book sequence (for which I think there may have been something of a vogue at the time.)
Peter Hamilton, as has been mentioned, is a good author of science fiction - however, his "stand-alones" tend to suck and the Mandell books, while enjoyable, are his first novels and show it. Read either the "Night's Dawn" trilogy or the "Commonwealth Saga".
As for S M Stirling - I must confess that my mother likes his works; a lot. Personally, I think his best (and only really decent book) is "The Peshawar Lancers"; most of the rest of his oeuvre should be ignored.
On a lighter note, The "Belisarius" saga by Eric Flint and David Drake is by no-means a masterpiece; what the six books are, however, is compulsively readable (and re-readable.)
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 30, 2013, 08:33:02 PM
I liked the Ryiria Chronicles.
http://www.michaelsullivan-author.com/MichaelSullivan_Book.html
It's pure fantasy with ridiculous tropes.
I'm reading the Chathran Voyages Trilogy by Robert V.S. Reddick but I doubt anyone here would like it, it's kinda weirdly written.
I have to tentatively endorse Riyria Chronicles. It's not actively stupid, which puts it miles ahead of most modern fantasy drivel.
A fellow Brit, J.G. Ballard.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 01, 2013, 12:36:43 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 31, 2013, 08:26:51 PM
You know, I've enjoyed some of Stirling's work, but the idea of the laws of physics changing in such a way that electricity and gunpowder don't work, but life on earth can survive is silly.
That's a premise? That's really, really, really, really dumb. Then again, it's not like hyperdrives can exist.
I dunno. I read his work in the Man-Kzin Wars books, so none of that nonsense there.
Yeah, I really like sci-fi that features slower-than-light interstellar space travel.
Owen Deathstalker was a fun series. Demented, certainly, but fun.
Quote from: citizen k on June 01, 2013, 07:31:38 PM
A fellow Brit, J.G. Ballard.
Ah, I love Ballard. I should've said he's probably the only sci-fi author I've read a lot.
Thanks for the recommendations. There's a few books on my list now, but I'm going to get some of these for the summer and see how I go :)
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts once you've read a few of the books :)
Okay.
I've just finished Lord of the Rings which I'd never managed to finish before, but for some reason, I really, really enjoyed it this time. Very good.
Also read Dune which I thought was pretty meh to be honest.
And I read Hyperion which I didn't like.
I haven't read the latest Game of Thrones (his writing is degenerating, or is that just me?) but I enjoyed the rest and will get to that shortly.
I'm just about to start the Hunger Games series (I don't mind young adult fiction, I'm the generation that got Harry Potter and His Dark Materials, so...), but then I think I'm going to give Guy Gavriel Kay and Brin a go after that. Maybe Ender's Game too. Cheers again for the recommendations, this thread is a resource :)
I don't get why Dune was consider all that good either.
Kay was awesome.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2013, 06:54:32 PM
I don't get why Dune was consider all that good either.
Dune's good, but (even though I've got all 5 of the original series) I never really got the spooge over them. Actually, I can take that back- fans tend to go gaga over Children of Dune. For my part, I probably enjoyed the last two (Heretics of Dune, Chapterhouse: Dune) more than the others, though Children of Dune runs closely behind them.
For sci fi, I do tend to read some heavily serialized authors- Jack L. Chalker (Well of Souls), Lois McMaster Bujold (Miles Vorkosigan series), Timothy Zahn (Cobra; he's actually done pretty well outside of his Star Wars books).
took several tries before I finished Dune. Once I had I realized I had quite enjoyed it. Never read the rest of the books though. Never cared to.
For unserious silly stuff try the Amazon Kindle store.
Or John Ringo's early works.
The trouble with "Dune" is that the first book is a cut above the rest.
"Dune Messiah" is short and forgettable (as I suspect has happened in the case of a certain poster only a few posts above me.)
"Children of Dune" suffers from "annoying brat" and "underused characters" syndrome
"God Emperor of Dune" is probably the second best book, but suffers from a degree of tonal dissonance compared to Dune. It's really hard to care for the characters in "God Emperor" which is not the case with "Dune".
"Heretics of Dune" and "Chapterhouse:Dune" show clear signs, unfortunately, of an author in decline, writing books from his most popular series because he was running out of ideas. Plus they form a pair of set-up books whose denouement was left to inferior hacks due to the death of the author.
I didn't think much of Dune either. Certainly not enough to want to read any more in the series.
On the verge of giving up trying to find any decent fantasy novels. I liked Abercrombie and Martin's earlier books in the series but nothing since has been any bettter than mediocre. Tigana by Kay was just about OK. Magician by Feist was so badly written I couldn't stomach more than 100 pages. Just started the mistborn series by Sanderson. Seems quite promising. The writing is servicable which is as about as much as you can hope for from a fantasy writer.
I thought Dune itself was great, and very innovative. I never finished the sequel, due to its lack of originality (and, really, its being completely unnecessary) and never tried the subsequent novels in the series, nor was seriously tempted to do so.
I think of the Dune series like I think of the Martrix movie series: the original would be remembered fondly if they hadn't attempted to exploit its popularity by adding dreck with an associated name.
Anyone else read Atwood's Oryx and Crake trilogy?
Quote from: Queequeg on October 28, 2013, 10:07:26 AM
Anyone else read Atwood's Oryx and Crake trilogy?
I have the first 2 but I've yet to read them.
Oryx & Crake is excellent. Year of the Flood is quite good. Haven't read the last one.
Dune was quite good. Dune Messiah suffered from being fairly plotless, serving as a setup for Children of Dune and further description of the Dune universe. The final few pages of actual plot are the only really important bits. Children of Dune was easily the second best book. The "annoying brat" was at least understandably annoying, having a [spoiler]torrent of previous memories and the difficulty of being in a young boy's body[/spoiler]. God Emperor of Dune was way worse, with the [spoiler]"annoying brat" now a huge asshole jerking everyone else around for no good purpose[/spoiler].
Heretics and Chapterhouse are completely forgettable, non-elder Herbert Dune books should be expunged.
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2013, 09:27:57 AM
I thought Dune itself was great, and very innovative. I never finished the sequel, due to its lack of originality (and, really, its being completely unnecessary) and never tried the subsequent novels in the series, nor was seriously tempted to do so.
I think of the Dune series like I think of the Martrix movie series: the original would be remembered fondly if they hadn't attempted to exploit its popularity by adding dreck with an associated name.
This.
Dune was good. Never bothered with the sequels.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2013, 11:14:00 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2013, 09:27:57 AM
I thought Dune itself was great, and very innovative. I never finished the sequel, due to its lack of originality (and, really, its being completely unnecessary) and never tried the subsequent novels in the series, nor was seriously tempted to do so.
I think of the Dune series like I think of the Martrix movie series: the original would be remembered fondly if they hadn't attempted to exploit its popularity by adding dreck with an associated name.
This.
grumbler's centuries of experience let's him be very perceptive every now and again.
I think we can recommend Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood, then.
I generally agree with Grumbler's thesis, but I like God Emperor a great deal, and Herbert's The Jesus Incident, while not as well written as Dune, was HUGELY influential, perhaps as much as Dune.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 28, 2013, 07:44:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2013, 06:54:32 PM
I don't get why Dune was consider all that good either.
Dune's good, but (even though I've got all 5 of the original series) I never really got the spooge over them. Actually, I can take that back- fans tend to go gaga over Children of Dune. For my part, I probably enjoyed the last two (Heretics of Dune, Chapterhouse: Dune) more than the others, though Children of Dune runs closely behind them.
For sci fi, I do tend to read some heavily serialized authors- Jack L. Chalker (Well of Souls), Lois McMaster Bujold (Miles Vorkosigan series), Timothy Zahn (Cobra; he's actually done pretty well outside of his Star Wars books).
I never even tried to read the other books. I found the first one dull, and not well written. We are frequently told
about a character's personality or abilities or traits rather then shown them. We are told a guy is a traitor before he betrays anything, we are told the Baron and the Emperor are adept politicians but never really shown that. In fact their plot to destroy their mutual political rival is absurd. We are told a guy is a tyrant and inept and a "Beast" but we really only have the main characters word on that. I also found a lot of the plot points underwhelming. We are told ahead of time that a character has has been conditioned to be incapable of causing any harm, but the bad guys found a way around that. What is it? They kidnap his wife. Nobody else in the thousand years of prior to this thought of that?
I finished Directive 51, and going now into the second book, Daybreak Zero.
This trilogy is called the Daybreak series or somzing.
Daybreak core idea is about the US Constitution and the possible constitutional crisis when the POTUS, the Vice-POTUS, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate leader dude, are taken out simultaneously.
Siege forgot to add the "A modern plague destroys the industrial world" selling point.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2013, 12:29:36 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 28, 2013, 07:44:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2013, 06:54:32 PM
I don't get why Dune was consider all that good either.
Dune's good, but (even though I've got all 5 of the original series) I never really got the spooge over them. Actually, I can take that back- fans tend to go gaga over Children of Dune. For my part, I probably enjoyed the last two (Heretics of Dune, Chapterhouse: Dune) more than the others, though Children of Dune runs closely behind them.
For sci fi, I do tend to read some heavily serialized authors- Jack L. Chalker (Well of Souls), Lois McMaster Bujold (Miles Vorkosigan series), Timothy Zahn (Cobra; he's actually done pretty well outside of his Star Wars books).
I never even tried to read the other books. I found the first one dull, and not well written. We are frequently told about a character's personality or abilities or traits rather then shown them. We are told a guy is a traitor before he betrays anything, we are told the Baron and the Emperor are adept politicians but never really shown that. In fact their plot to destroy their mutual political rival is absurd. We are told a guy is a tyrant and inept and a "Beast" but we really only have the main characters word on that. I also found a lot of the plot points underwhelming. We are told ahead of time that a character has has been conditioned to be incapable of causing any harm, but the bad guys found a way around that. What is it? They kidnap his wife. Nobody else in the thousand years of prior to this thought of that?
It's a product of it's era, and how it helped to re-define that era of sci-fi. Much of what made Dune unique is now commonplace. The very far-future setting, the epic scope, the detailed world-design.
Warhammer 40k (the world). :wub:
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2013, 02:09:38 PM
Warhammer 40k (the world). :wub:
40K was very obviously inspired in some part by Dune (it also came out 20 years later).
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2013, 02:14:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2013, 02:09:38 PM
Warhammer 40k (the world). :wub:
40K was very obviously inspired in some part by Dune (it also came out 20 years later).
Indeed. I mean heresy.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2013, 01:59:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2013, 12:29:36 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 28, 2013, 07:44:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2013, 06:54:32 PM
I don't get why Dune was consider all that good either.
Dune's good, but (even though I've got all 5 of the original series) I never really got the spooge over them. Actually, I can take that back- fans tend to go gaga over Children of Dune. For my part, I probably enjoyed the last two (Heretics of Dune, Chapterhouse: Dune) more than the others, though Children of Dune runs closely behind them.
For sci fi, I do tend to read some heavily serialized authors- Jack L. Chalker (Well of Souls), Lois McMaster Bujold (Miles Vorkosigan series), Timothy Zahn (Cobra; he's actually done pretty well outside of his Star Wars books).
I never even tried to read the other books. I found the first one dull, and not well written. We are frequently told about a character's personality or abilities or traits rather then shown them. We are told a guy is a traitor before he betrays anything, we are told the Baron and the Emperor are adept politicians but never really shown that. In fact their plot to destroy their mutual political rival is absurd. We are told a guy is a tyrant and inept and a "Beast" but we really only have the main characters word on that. I also found a lot of the plot points underwhelming. We are told ahead of time that a character has has been conditioned to be incapable of causing any harm, but the bad guys found a way around that. What is it? They kidnap his wife. Nobody else in the thousand years of prior to this thought of that?
It's a product of it's era, and how it helped to re-define that era of sci-fi. Much of what made Dune unique is now commonplace. The very far-future setting, the epic scope, the detailed world-design.
People could write better in the 1960's. Far future settings, epic scope and detailed world design were all done before this (I question the detailed world design. You have desert world, water world, prison world etc). Olaf Stapledon and E.E. Doc Smith both proceeded Dune by quite a bit, and covered many of the same ideas. The Lensman series takes place over a billions years in the future.
Wow. A billion years? Has this ever been bettered? Maybe in 20-30 years we'll be able to write stories about 10 billion years from now (!).
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2013, 01:59:50 PM
It's a product of it's era, and how it helped to re-define that era of sci-fi. Much of what made Dune unique is now commonplace. The very far-future setting, the epic scope, the detailed world-design.
What made Dune so fresh was its future mix of science and "magic" psychological effects. While the writing included a lot of "telling, not showing" elements, much of what the audience was told was false and many of the narrators unreliable. I enjoyed the way that Herbert had the reader and the characters discover a number of misapprehensions together.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2013, 02:23:28 PM
Wow. A billion years? Has this ever been bettered? Maybe in 20-30 years we'll be able to write stories about 10 billion years from now (!).
People didn't know you could count to a billion before 1930. By 1960, the limit was 30 billion. This was discovered by having everyone on Earth count to ten which made about 30 billion. I've head at CERN they are working on a program to find the highest number possible by having everyone in the world count to a hundred, but they have run into a lot of problems due to large swaths of the population being unable to count beyond the number of fingers and toes they have.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2013, 02:31:57 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2013, 02:23:28 PM
Wow. A billion years? Has this ever been bettered? Maybe in 20-30 years we'll be able to write stories about 10 billion years from now (!).
People didn't know you could count to a billion before 1930. By 1960, the limit was 30 billion. This was discovered by having everyone on Earth count to ten which made about 30 billion. I've head at CERN they are working on a program to find the highest number possible by having everyone in the world count to a hundred, but they have run into a lot of problems due to large swaths of the population being unable to count beyond the number of fingers and toes they have.
This is why most successful mathematicians are Kentuckians.
The tendency to use lose their digits in youthful games of Possum Ball, has caused them to discard the crutch of counting on their fingers.
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2013, 02:28:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2013, 01:59:50 PM
It's a product of it's era, and how it helped to re-define that era of sci-fi. Much of what made Dune unique is now commonplace. The very far-future setting, the epic scope, the detailed world-design.
What made Dune so fresh was its future mix of science and "magic" psychological effects. While the writing included a lot of "telling, not showing" elements, much of what the audience was told was false and many of the narrators unreliable. I enjoyed the way that Herbert had the reader and the characters discover a number of misapprehensions together.
Never cared for space wizards, but that's a personal thing.
Languish is the mind killer.
What about some British authors other than Tolkien and CS Lewis?
It's not wizardry, exactly. Actually, wasn't a lot of Dune's science kind of trendy in the mid-60s?
Quote from: mongers on October 28, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
What about some British authors other than Tolkien and CS Lewis?
Michael Moorcock.
"The fly smiled at him." :wub:
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2013, 03:08:55 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 28, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
What about some British authors other than Tolkien and CS Lewis?
Michael Moorcock.
"The fly smiled at him." :wub:
Some Moorcock can be fun and entertaining, though a lot, as he'd probably admit was written for rent money etc.
That's not to say he isn't a real talent; I'd be happy to string together lines like some of his lesser sentences. :(
Quote from: mongers on October 28, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
What about some British authors other than Tolkien and CS Lewis?
What about Peake?
I know it won't be popular in these parts, but I love Gormenghast. :)
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2013, 03:13:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 28, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
What about some British authors other than Tolkien and CS Lewis?
What about Peake?
I know it won't be popular in these parts, but I love Gormenghast. :)
:mad:
Since Shelf started this thread, what about this one, set around 10 miles from his family ancestral seat:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Dream-Wessex-Christopher-Priest/dp/057512153X/ref=pd_cp_b_0/278-4424391-6112363 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Dream-Wessex-Christopher-Priest/dp/057512153X/ref=pd_cp_b_0/278-4424391-6112363)
Don't read the positive reviews, as they seem to give away too many key plot points. :rolleyes:
Quote from: mongers on October 28, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
What about some British authors other than Tolkien and CS Lewis?
J.K. Rowling :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2013, 03:25:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 28, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
What about some British authors other than Tolkien and CS Lewis?
J.K. Rowling :P
All kidding aside Harry Potter is a fine recommendation to sci-fi/fantasy fans who haven't read it yet.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2013, 03:47:33 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2013, 03:25:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 28, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
What about some British authors other than Tolkien and CS Lewis?
J.K. Rowling :P
All kidding aside Harry Potter is a fine recommendation to sci-fi/fantasy fans who haven't read it yet.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Queequeg on October 28, 2013, 03:07:42 PM
It's not wizardry, exactly. Actually, wasn't a lot of Dune's science kind of trendy in the mid-60s?
I think the Soviets had abandoned the search for a killing word by that point.
I've never read Dune, and there's a good chance I never will. There's still like twenty Arthur C. Clarke novels I haven't read yet. I'll probably listen to "Big Battle" on the proper occasion, however.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 28, 2013, 05:32:27 PM
I've never read Dune,
You haven't read about Kareem Gom Jabbar? :blink:
I'm not a big sports fan. I thought he was hilarious in Airplane.
Quote from: Siege on October 28, 2013, 01:00:31 PM
Daybreak core idea is about the US Constitution and the possible constitutional crisis when the POTUS, the Vice-POTUS, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate leader dude, are taken out simultaneously.
Secretary of State becomes President. Constitutional crises over. Cut the head off the Soviet chicken.
I would like the read the culture.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 28, 2013, 08:47:14 AM
The trouble with "Dune" is that the first book is a cut above the rest.
"Dune Messiah" is short and forgettable (as I suspect has happened in the case of a certain poster only a few posts above me.)
"Children of Dune" suffers from "annoying brat" and "underused characters" syndrome
"God Emperor of Dune" is probably the second best book, but suffers from a degree of tonal dissonance compared to Dune. It's really hard to care for the characters in "God Emperor" which is not the case with "Dune".
"Heretics of Dune" and "Chapterhouse:Dune" show clear signs, unfortunately, of an author in decline, writing books from his most popular series because he was running out of ideas. Plus they form a pair of set-up books whose denouement was left to inferior hacks due to the death of the author.
I am going to go against the grain on this one. I thought he was hitting his stride In Heretics and Chapterhouse. Its too bad he wasnt able to finish the story. It was going in a very interesting direction. Something that was entirely lost on the son.
I am currently wading through Judge Dredd comics, and I didn't know before that Warhammer 40k was so heavily influenced by it. In the Cursed Earth story they drive a Land Raider (that looks a lot like the 1st ed Games Workshop Land Raider), a mutie has a power sword (that looks an awful lot like a 40k power sword), the last POTUS lies in suspended animation under tons of gold in Fort Knox and he needs constant vampiric sustenance (the Emperor on the Golden Throne on Holy Terra). Fairly interesting.
I think Warhammer's Emperor is pretty similar to Emperor Leto II, actually.
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2013, 11:44:04 AM
I am currently wading through Judge Dredd comics, and I didn't know before that Warhammer 40k was so heavily influenced by it. In the Cursed Earth story they drive a Land Raider (that looks a lot like the 1st ed Games Workshop Land Raider), a mutie has a power sword (that looks an awful lot like a 40k power sword), the last POTUS lies in suspended animation under tons of gold in Fort Knox and he needs constant vampiric sustenance (the Emperor on the Golden Throne on Holy Terra). Fairly interesting.
Adding to the list:
Litany of hate (very common term in 40k, not extremely common in average text)
Old One Eye the monster Tyrannousaurus (Old One Eye the monster Tyranid)
Thanks, that is interesting. :)
Whoa, Brain has a brain?
Read a third of the first Mistborn novel by Sanderson and have ditched it.
It's the same old story. Crap writing, a plot so implausible it is impossible to suspend disbelief and characters with as much depth as a paddling pool.
I think I'm done with fantasy. I like teh idea but with only a very few exceptions the books are aimed at a readership which is so undiscriminating that the writers can just ring it in.
Quote from: frunk on October 28, 2013, 10:13:36 AM
non-elder Herbert Dune books should be expunged.
Eh, House Harkonnen made for a decent read if you could mentally substitute other names and forget that it was the Dune universe. Other than that, I'll completely and totally agree.
House Atreides and House Corrino read like terrible fan fiction (LOL DUNCAN IDAHO), and Butlerian Jihad was so pointless and bloody for the sake of being bloody that I haven't touched another entry since.
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 04:05:19 AM
Read a third of the first Mistborn novel by Sanderson and have ditched it.
It's the same old story. Crap writing, a plot so implausible it is impossible to suspend disbelief and characters with as much depth as a paddling pool.
I think I'm done with fantasy. I like teh idea but with only a very few exceptions the books are aimed at a readership which is so undiscriminating that the writers can just ring it in.
Try some of Robert Holdstock's books.
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 04:05:19 AM
Read a third of the first Mistborn novel by Sanderson and have ditched it.
It's the same old story. Crap writing, a plot so implausible it is impossible to suspend disbelief and characters with as much depth as a paddling pool.
I think I'm done with fantasy. I like teh idea but with only a very few exceptions the books are aimed at a readership which is so undiscriminating that the writers can just ring it in.
It's the same with any other type of "genre" fiction. There are a few real innovators, a few who have serious writing chops, and a whole lot of writers capitalizing on the fact that every genre has a built-in audience.
Did I say Gor yet?
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 09:18:47 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 04:05:19 AM
Read a third of the first Mistborn novel by Sanderson and have ditched it.
It's the same old story. Crap writing, a plot so implausible it is impossible to suspend disbelief and characters with as much depth as a paddling pool.
I think I'm done with fantasy. I like teh idea but with only a very few exceptions the books are aimed at a readership which is so undiscriminating that the writers can just ring it in.
It's the same with any other type of "genre" fiction. There are a few real innovators, a few who have serious writing chops, and a whole lot of writers capitalizing on the fact that every genre has a built-in audience.
I dunno. The quality of fantasy fiction seems significantly lower than in other genres I read. There's a number of very good writers in sci-fi, westerns, thrillers, historical fiction, crime.
Is there really anyone in high fantasy apart from Tolkien and arguably Peake. I mean, even competent writers like Abercrombie and Martin are hard to find.
Romance and horror may be as bad - I don't read either - but I'm struggling to think of any other genres as badly served as fantasy.
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 09:45:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 09:18:47 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 04:05:19 AM
Read a third of the first Mistborn novel by Sanderson and have ditched it.
It's the same old story. Crap writing, a plot so implausible it is impossible to suspend disbelief and characters with as much depth as a paddling pool.
I think I'm done with fantasy. I like teh idea but with only a very few exceptions the books are aimed at a readership which is so undiscriminating that the writers can just ring it in.
It's the same with any other type of "genre" fiction. There are a few real innovators, a few who have serious writing chops, and a whole lot of writers capitalizing on the fact that every genre has a built-in audience.
I dunno. The quality of fantasy fiction seems significantly lower than in other genres I read. There's a number of very good writers in sci-fi, westerns, thrillers, historical fiction, crime.
Is there really anyone in high fantasy apart from Tolkien and arguably Peake. I mean, even competent writers like Abercrombie and Martin are hard to find.
Romance and horror may be as bad - I don't read either - but I'm struggling to think of any other genres as badly served as fantasy.
I suspect the problem with "high fantasy" is that Tolkein defines and dominates the field so completely.
There are certainly unrivaled masters who use fantastic elements in their writing, but they are not within the genre tradition of dragons, elves, etc. and so are not counted as "fantasy" - guys like, for example, Bugalikov and
The Master and Margarita, or Borges or Calvino.
In fantasy, more than other genres, those writers who stray into literary territory while using elements of the fantastic are considered "not fantasy". This winnows the field. On the other hand, literary writers writing Science Fiction may decry the label, but they are still considered to be writing science fiction - witness my aunt.
I also don't know that such is a fair comment to make. There is also a lot of dreck in science fiction, thrillers, crime, general fiction.
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 09:18:47 AM
It's the same with any other type of "genre" fiction. There are a few real innovators, a few who have serious writing chops, and a whole lot of writers capitalizing on the fact that every genre has a built-in audience.
I think I agree with Gups. There's great genre writers in sci fi, crime and historical fiction and there's great 'literary' writers like Michael Chabon or Hilary Mantel who also write genre novels. Even the level of mediocre seems to be a lot higher with other genres.
But fantasy doesn't seem to have anything like that. As I said I enjoy the Game of Thrones books, but I'm not up to date, but the quality drops a lot which makes the later books more difficult going. It seems a bit like male chick lit.
Having said that I think there's great young adult fantasy writers like Rowling and Pullman. Maybe because they need to drag their readers in a bit more, rather than having an audience that's willing to put up with it if they're convinced there's a good story/world to get into.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2013, 10:02:40 AM
I also don't know that such is a fair comment to make. There is also a lot of dreck in science fiction, thrillers, crime, general fiction.
Definitely, but I'd still say there's more brilliant genre writers in those fields - like Ellroy for example or a number of sci fi writers. There's also more 'literary' writers who use those genres. And I think the average seems to be higher too.
As someone who likes the idea of fantasy I'm far more reluctant to pick up one of those books than a sci fi novel or a thriller, because normally it's worse and not only that but it's one of a series of 8 novels :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2013, 10:04:32 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 09:18:47 AM
It's the same with any other type of "genre" fiction. There are a few real innovators, a few who have serious writing chops, and a whole lot of writers capitalizing on the fact that every genre has a built-in audience.
I think I agree with Gups. There's great genre writers in sci fi, crime and historical fiction and there's great 'literary' writers like Michael Chabon or Hilary Mantel who also write genre novels. Even the level of mediocre seems to be a lot higher with other genres.
But fantasy doesn't seem to have anything like that. As I said I enjoy the Game of Thrones books, but I'm not up to date, but the quality drops a lot which makes the later books more difficult going. It seems a bit like male chick lit.
Having said that I think there's great young adult fantasy writers like Rowling and Pullman. Maybe because they need to drag their readers in a bit more, rather than having an audience that's willing to put up with it if they're convinced there's a good story/world to get into.
The problem is that the great "literary" fantasy writers aren't considered "fantasy", while the great "literary" historical and science-fiction writers are still considered to write historical and science-fiction.
There are plenty of entertaining fantasy writers with no literary ambition - guys like Fritz Leiber.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2013, 10:06:59 AM
Definitely, but I'd still say there's more brilliant genre writers in those fields - like Ellroy for example or a number of sci fi writers. There's also more 'literary' writers who use those genres. And I think the average seems to be higher too.
More recognized authors certainly, and those that are are recognized more in the mainstream. When I think of mainstream fantasy authors, I think of Le Guin (who straddles the line), Anne McCaffrey (also does sci fi), Peter S. Beagle, George R. R. Martin, and the only real literary "heavyweights" are Tolkien and Lewis.
As opposed to sci fi, where you can pretty much start the list with Asimov, Clarke, and then get into the contemporary big names like Card, McCaffrey's sci fi stuff, Andre Norton, Bujold, etc., etc.
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 10:11:51 AM
The problem is that the great "literary" fantasy writers aren't considered "fantasy", while the great "literary" historical and science-fiction writers are still considered to write historical and science-fiction.
There are plenty of entertaining fantasy writers with no literary ambition - guys like Fritz Leiber.
But that's because the works aren't really fantasy works - they simply contain some element of magic or otherwordlyness. I'm not trying to be semantic. The Master & Margerita is a political literary work using magical elements as metaphors.
But anyway, that's not really my point. It's that the average standard of fantasy works is so utterly bereft of any quality. I've recently read a couple of genre westerns - True Grit, the Searchers and Lonesome Dove and a few fantasy books - the Sanderson mistborn, the first Feist one and Tigana by Kay. All were selected on the same basis - reading reviews on Amazon and seeing what was highly recommended. The westerns are by no means works of great literature but they have interesting characters, they are well-placed and plotted and the writing is solid, at the very least. The fantasy is just pap. The authors don't even try to write well (Kay is an exception, although he doesn't succeed). The characters are cliched, predictable and one-dimensional.
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 10:25:06 AM
The fantasy is just pap. The authors don't even try to write well (Kay is an exception, although he doesn't succeed). The characters are cliched, predictable and one-dimensional.
Languish isn't fantasy.
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 10:11:51 AMThe problem is that the great "literary" fantasy writers aren't considered "fantasy", while the great "literary" historical and science-fiction writers are still considered to write historical and science-fiction.
I'm not sure though, I blame a lot of this on Latin Americans for inventing magic realism :P
I think what I'd identify as fantasy isn't necessarily Tolkienishness, but basically building up a world that isn't ours. There are literary examples of that - Hesse's Glass Bead Game, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, I've heard really good things about the Lanark series too. A lot of other writers, especially following magic realism, write very clearly in our world with fantastical elements - all the midnight's children for example.
It doesn't seem that the problem's that fantasy's too narrow as I'd include everyone from Rowling to Tolkien and others.
QuoteThere are plenty of entertaining fantasy writers with no literary ambition - guys like Fritz Leiber.
I'll add him to the list :P
Literary ambition doesn't bother me. I'm a sucker for thrillers, crime or historical fiction. But so far I've really enjoyed the big fantasy writers like Tolkien, or those writing for kids like Rowling or Pullman.
I think this is why Douthat's right. For people who aren't into it there's a slight problem with fantasy in that lots of it, as with any genre, isn't great and, unlike most genres, they like to tell epic stories over multiple volumes. So people like me, who like the idea, wait for someone to become as popular as Martin because then we know it's worth starting a series of seven books.
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 04:05:19 AM
It's the same old story. Crap writing, a plot so implausible it is impossible to suspend disbelief and characters with as much depth as a paddling pool.
I'm not going to disagree with 1 and 3, but I'd be quite interested as to what particularly you found so implausible about the plot given the genre of the novel.
---
As for Feist the best books he ever wrote were his collaborations with Janny Wurts ("Daughter of the Empire", "Servant of the Empire", and "Mistress of the Empire") despite certain inconsistencies between the books that a better editor than they apparently had should have caught.
They're set in the same milieu (on Kelewan rather than Midkemia) but you don't have to have any real knowledge of the Midkemian books to enjoy them.
Admittedly, unlike you Gups, I like Feist's early "Riftwar" books (his later books, where he's supposedly developed as a writer, are much less enjoyable reads - so much so that I don't think I've touched any of his last three or four sequences.)
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2013, 10:35:08 AM
unlike most genres, they like to tell epic stories over multiple volumes. So people like me, who like the idea, wait for someone to become as popular as Martin because then we know it's worth starting a series of seven books.
I don't see how that's a problem except for the writer trying to live off their writing. Besides, isn't the trilogy more common?
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2013, 10:51:42 AM
I don't see how that's a problem except for the writer trying to live off their writing. Besides, isn't the trilogy more common?
Yeah but I think Martin's is seven.
It's not a problem. But it means if you're a casual consumer, like me, who likes the idea I'd never pick up a fantasy novel without recommendations and checking the reviews. That's a large part of the reason I started this thread. Other genre fiction is safer.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2013, 10:55:28 AM
Yeah but I think Martin's is seven.
Yeah but if that isn't the most common size, not sure of the relevance. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2013, 10:55:28 AM
It's not a problem. But it means if you're a casual consumer, like me, who likes the idea I'd never pick up a fantasy novel without recommendations and checking the reviews. That's a large part of the reason I started this thread. Other genre fiction is safer.
I don't know. Most of the fantasy authors I read, I either picked up one of their stand-alone books* or just bought the first book in a series and if I found that good picked up other things. I don't generally by hardcover (though things are now starting to change for me with e-readers), so generally you know if the 2nd book is really going to come out if you are purchasing in paperback.
Besides, checking reviews are trivially easy these days...
*a great many when I was a teen and would by a random book for the plane. :D
I liked the Riftwar books early on. Later as he (and I guess me) aged I found his newer writings harder and harder to enjoy.
Quote from: Agelastus on November 01, 2013, 10:47:11 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 04:05:19 AM
It's the same old story. Crap writing, a plot so implausible it is impossible to suspend disbelief and characters with as much depth as a paddling pool.
I'm not going to disagree with 1 and 3, but I'd be quite interested as to what particularly you found so implausible about the plot given the genre of the novel.
As I say I've got a third of the way through before chucking it. The idea that you attempt you start a civil war/uprising under the nose of a super-powerful, immortal ruler and you tell thousands of people that you are going to do it was my main objection.
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 09:59:59 AM
On the other hand, literary writers writing Science Fiction may decry the label, but they are still considered to be writing science fiction - witness my aunt.
Just finished her latest. Enjoyed it greatly.
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 10:25:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 10:11:51 AM
The problem is that the great "literary" fantasy writers aren't considered "fantasy", while the great "literary" historical and science-fiction writers are still considered to write historical and science-fiction.
There are plenty of entertaining fantasy writers with no literary ambition - guys like Fritz Leiber.
But that's because the works aren't really fantasy works - they simply contain some element of magic or otherwordlyness. I'm not trying to be semantic. The Master & Margerita is a political literary work using magical elements as metaphors.
But anyway, that's not really my point. It's that the average standard of fantasy works is so utterly bereft of any quality. I've recently read a couple of genre westerns - True Grit, the Searchers and Lonesome Dove and a few fantasy books - the Sanderson mistborn, the first Feist one and Tigana by Kay. All were selected on the same basis - reading reviews on Amazon and seeing what was highly recommended. The westerns are by no means works of great literature but they have interesting characters, they are well-placed and plotted and the writing is solid, at the very least. The fantasy is just pap. The authors don't even try to write well (Kay is an exception, although he doesn't succeed). The characters are cliched, predictable and one-dimensional.
That's just a definitional game, though. When my aunt is writing about distopian futures, are they social-political literary works or are they science-fiction? Whatever she has to say on the subject, most would say the latter - ditto with Usula Leguin - because making a point has always been a part of science-fiction, from the very beginning. If they are 'allowed' as science-fiction, and yet The Master and Margarita is not 'allowed' as fantasy, that just proves my point.
I would argue that making a point through fantasy has always been a part of fantasy, from the beginning as well. What has changed, is the notion that fantasy really means stuff set on a world with magic in it that has no literary, social or political point. Much of which is derivative of Tolkien. That limits the genre to stuff more likely to be crap. Mind you, I'd still not conclude it's all crap on a random sample size of 3.
Have to agree with Malthus here. We also "allow" a lot of things that are fantasy to get by as some other genre. For instance, horror. A lot of horror is fantasy. A weird type of fantasy, but involve magic and monsters. Lots and lots of novels and stories get by with some sort of magic and avoid get tossed in the Fantasy ghetto.
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 11:17:20 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on November 01, 2013, 10:47:11 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 04:05:19 AM
It's the same old story. Crap writing, a plot so implausible it is impossible to suspend disbelief and characters with as much depth as a paddling pool.
I'm not going to disagree with 1 and 3, but I'd be quite interested as to what particularly you found so implausible about the plot given the genre of the novel.
As I say I've got a third of the way through before chucking it. The idea that you attempt you start a civil war/uprising under the nose of a super-powerful, immortal ruler and you tell thousands of people that you are going to do it was my main objection.
:hmm:
It's been too long since I've read it, and I think I was going through a speed-reading era as well, but I seem to recall that "telling thousands of people" was part of the plan. If I'm correct about which character you're referring to, his scheme
does not include his survival as a part of it.
I don't know if I can convince you to restart it, but the series itself has a surprisingly satisfying ending, and as you discover more and more about the world and why it's the way it is the more well constructed it (and it's background) seems.
I agree with you, Gups, and not based on a small sample size, either. I think too many aspiring authors decide to write fantasy because they think that they can get away with anything writing fantasy, because "hey, it's a fantasy, after all." Most of them seem to believe that readers read fantasy because they are attracted to the most fantastical of fantasies, or the most familiar of stories. Few bother with character development or even decent plots. Sometimes writers succeed (Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination, which is a work of fantasy despite its SF setting) doesn't have a plausible story nor any developed characters, but is a great read simply because of the fantastical nature of its world and people.), but most often we end up with a re-tread of the Lord of the Rings or a Conan ripoff.
I think the entry price for SF or even general literature is higher than it is for fantasy, because the former have to have some plausible and believable connection to the real world. You won't find 16-year-old kids who can't write getting book contracts in any genre besides fantasy.
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2013, 12:05:50 PM
I think the entry price for SF or even general literature is higher than it is for fantasy, because the former have to have some plausible and believable connection to the real world. You won't find 16-year-old kids who can't write getting book contracts in any genre besides fantasy.
I don't think that's true at all. You clearly haven't had the misfortune of reading Candace Bushnell and ilk or Kathy Reichs...both of which had their works also turned to into tv/movie productions.
Not to mention things like 50 shades of grey...dan brown...
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 11:43:33 AM
That's just a definitional game, though. When my aunt is writing about distopian futures, are they social-political literary works or are they science-fiction? Whatever she has to say on the subject, most would say the latter - ditto with Usula Leguin - because making a point has always been a part of science-fiction, from the very beginning. If they are 'allowed' as science-fiction, and yet The Master and Margarita is not 'allowed' as fantasy, that just proves my point.
Your aunt's books are both. In fact she isn't all that good at the sci-fi element, but we don't mind that too much because whe is witty, her writing is great and the points she is making are interesting.
M&M has fantasticla elements, but it's set in the real world not a fantasy one. Ditto Night Circus, Thousand Years, Midnight's Children etc. The Pullman trilogy and other steampunkie type books are somehwere in the middle.
I guess I'm talking about high fantasy genre books. If I'm reading literary fiction, it's neither here nor there to be if there's a bit of fantasy in it.
QuoteI would argue that making a point through fantasy has always been a part of fantasy, from the beginning as well. What has changed, is the notion that fantasy really means stuff set on a world with magic in it that has no literary, social or political point. Much of which is derivative of Tolkien. That limits the genre to stuff more likely to be crap.
I'd argue it's derivative of Tolkien because the writers are interested only in world-building and magic systems and not on characters, plot and pacing.
QuoteMind you, I'd still not conclude it's all crap on a random sample size of 3.
Well what kind of an idiot would? That would be like assuming that because you referto your aunt's sci-fi works as an example, you've only read three sci-fi works. Even if you've reference a bunch more elsewhere.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2013, 12:17:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2013, 12:05:50 PM
I think the entry price for SF or even general literature is higher than it is for fantasy, because the former have to have some plausible and believable connection to the real world. You won't find 16-year-old kids who can't write getting book contracts in any genre besides fantasy.
I don't think that's true at all. You clearly haven't had the misfortune of reading Candace Bushnell and ilk or Kathy Reichs...both of which had their works also turned to into tv/movie productions.
Not to mention things like 50 shades of grey...dan brown...
You clearly haven't had the misfortune of reading something by Terry Goodkind or Robert Newcomb. Both make Dan Brown look like Hemingway. So do Terry Brooks, anyone who wrote any of the D&D books, David Drake, etc, etc, many of whom have had their works turned into tv/movie productions as well.
Quote from: Agelastus on November 01, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
:hmm:
It's been too long since I've read it, and I think I was going through a speed-reading era as well, but I seem to recall that "telling thousands of people" was part of the plan. If I'm correct about which character you're referring to, his scheme does not include his survival as a part of it.
I don't know if I can convince you to restart it, but the series itself has a surprisingly satisfying ending, and as you discover more and more about the world and why it's the way it is the more well constructed it (and it's background) seems.
Nope. If I find myself sneering and tutting at a book, it's time to move on!
I've downloaded Vanity Fair as replacement light reading.
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2013, 12:05:50 PM
I agree with you, Gups, and not based on a small sample size, either. I think too many aspiring authors decide to write fantasy because they think that they can get away with anything writing fantasy, because "hey, it's a fantasy, after all." Most of them seem to believe that readers read fantasy because they are attracted to the most fantastical of fantasies, or the most familiar of stories. Few bother with character development or even decent plots. Sometimes writers succeed (Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination, which is a work of fantasy despite its SF setting) doesn't have a plausible story nor any developed characters, but is a great read simply because of the fantastical nature of its world and people.), but most often we end up with a re-tread of the Lord of the Rings or a Conan ripoff.
I think the entry price for SF or even general literature is higher than it is for fantasy, because the former have to have some plausible and believable connection to the real world. You won't find 16-year-old kids who can't write getting book contracts in any genre besides fantasy.
That's true for "hard" science-fiction but it is most certainly NOT true for science-fiction in general - much of which is, in fact, functionally indistingusihable from fantasy.
To provide but one example, look at
Star Wars. Aside from being set in space with high tech, it might as well
be fantasy. It makes no pretentions at having any plausible and believable connection to the real world.
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 12:46:37 PM
That's true for "hard" science-fiction but it is most certainly NOT true for science-fiction in general - much of which is, in fact, functionally indistingusihable from fantasy.
Much of what some called Sf is, in fact, fantasy.
QuoteTo provide but one example, look at Star Wars. Aside from being set in space with high tech, it might as well be fantasy. It makes no pretentions at having any plausible and believable connection to the real world.
Agree. Star Wars is fantasy, not SF.
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2013, 01:02:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 12:46:37 PM
That's true for "hard" science-fiction but it is most certainly NOT true for science-fiction in general - much of which is, in fact, functionally indistingusihable from fantasy.
Much of what some called Sf is, in fact, fantasy.
QuoteTo provide but one example, look at Star Wars. Aside from being set in space with high tech, it might as well be fantasy. It makes no pretentions at having any plausible and believable connection to the real world.
Agree. Star Wars is fantasy, not SF.
Is it science fiction that only a true Scotsman could love? :D
I'm reading the Dunk and Egg stories.
Pretty cool.
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 01:06:16 PM
Is it science fiction that only a true Scotsman could love? :D
Since you are the one who made the argument, ask yourself the question! :lol:
Well, if you look at Fantasy from a certain angle, it could be interpreted as Science Fiction.
After all, if the tech gap is wide enough, tech looks like magic to the folks at the lower end of the gap.
Take nanotech, for example. If you have a full 3.0 full nanobot composite body, whether orgbots or inorgbots, your body could transform in the air into dust, to reassemble somewhere else, in a diferent body shape if you so desire, so to the lowtech observer, it would be like a vampire transforming in the air into dust, or an animal, or rat pack.
The possibilities for a post technological singularity civilization are endless.
It even answers the Fermi Paradox and promise to complete the Drake Equation.
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2013, 01:11:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 01:06:16 PM
Is it science fiction that only a true Scotsman could love? :D
Since you are the one who made the argument, ask yourself the question! :lol:
I assume you got my quip. ;)
Point here is that, conciously or not, you guys are defining the category of "fantasy" in such a way that
good stuff other people think is fantasy lies outside it, and
bad stuff other people classify as non-fantasy gets included within it. Given that, it is then no surprise whatsoever that you don't like "fantasy".
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 01:21:57 PM
Point here is that, conciously or not, you guys are defining the category of "fantasy" in such a way that good stuff other people think is fantasy lies outside it, and bad stuff other people classify as non-fantasy gets included within it. Given that, it is then no surprise whatsoever that you don't like "fantasy".
I'm not saying I don't like fantasy. I do. I want to read it but, in general, I find the quality of the writing is poor and in some cases bad enough that I can't finish a book I've started. There are great fantasy writers who I've enjoyed and 'literary' fantasy fiction too like Glass Bead Game. But the average seems lower than other genres I enjoy. Which is a shame because they ones I like, I like a lot but they seem a lot rarer.
As I say I think there's something to the Douthat post I linked at the top:
Quote'Game of Thrones' and the Fantasy Author's Challenge
Just in time for this weekend's premiere of season 3 of "Game of Thrones," John Lanchester has a fine London Review of Books essay on the show, the George R.R. Martin books, and fantasy fiction's place in literary culture today. I recommend reading the whole piece (so long as you don't mind significant spoilers), but I was struck by this meditation on fantasy's longstanding segregation from more respectable forms of fiction:
QuoteGiven permission to read books of this kind – permission derived from the books' success – people have shown that they are willing to wolf them down by the millions ... This surely implies that there is nothing innate to fantasy which puts people off reading it. But there does appear to be something off-putting about fantasy as an idea. The fact that people are willing to read fantasy novels in practice emphasises the parallel fact that, most of the time, they aren't willing to read them in principle. They're only willing to read the freak mega-sellers: fantasy itself is off limits to large sections of the general reading public.
... When you ask people why they don't read fantasy, they usually say something along the lines of, 'because elves don't exist'. This makes no sense as an objection. Huge swathes of imaginative literature concern things that don't exist, and as it happens, things that don't exist feature particularly prominently in the English literary tradition. We're very good at things that don't exist. The fantastic is central not just to the English canon – Spenser, Shakespeare, even Dickens – but also to our amazing parallel tradition of para-literary works, from Carroll to Conan Doyle to Stoker to Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, Pullman. There's no other body of literature quite like it: just consider the comparative absence of fantasy from the French and Russian traditions. And yet it's perfectly normal for widely literate general readers to admit that they read no fantasy at all. I know, because I often ask. It's as if there is some mysterious fantasy-reading switch that in many people is set to 'off'.
Of course some of this is part of the general disdain for "genre" in all its forms that permeates the respectable literary world. But I also suspect that there is a particular obstacle with fantasy that doesn't exist with, say, horror novels or murder mysteries: The sheer immensity of the standard-issue fantasy saga, and the fact that committing to a bestselling fantasy author takes much more, well, commitment than reading Dean Koontz or Peter Straub, Michael Connelly or Tana French.
Fantasy, by design, is an exercise in world-building, and many of the most famous examples of the genre, from Lord of the Rings and Narnia and the Gormenghast novels and Earthsea down to Martin and Pullman and Rowling and so many others in the present day, are multi-volume affairs that require a serious investment to actually finish. (The multi-volume expectation has an unfortunate tendency to encourage today's bestselling authors to never ... actually ... finish their stories, which as Lanchester notes is the great fear gripping Martin's fans today.) So it would make sense that there would be a higher bar for mass success than in many other genres: Reading a bad murder mystery only sets you back a day or two, and the satisfaction of finding out whodunit can compensate for lousy prose, whereas I've definitely found myself flagging at page 300 or so even in many highly-regarded fantasy novels I've dipped into. (My apologies, Steven Erikson.) It would make sense that certain readers would be more likely to commit only in cases where the books in question are already mega-sellers, and thus pre-approved by millions of other readers. And it would also make sense that adolescents, who have more time on their hands (especially, ahem, the somewhat awkward ones) and more empty headspace waiting to be filled, would be more likely to gravitate toward the sprawl of mediocre fantasy than adults ... which then, in turn, ratifies the perception that the genre is just for teenage Dungeons and Dragons dorks, and not for grown-up readers.
Lanchester comes up with several reasons (besides, of course, the whole HBO thing) why Martin has managed to break out of the ghetto, including his ruthless willingness to kill his darlings (the major characters, that is) and the fact that his world is "low magic" and thus more accessible to people allergic to magic rings and wizard's orbs. These are excellent points, to which I'd add that the whole "Wars of the Roses"-style frame that Martin's story uses — the emphasis on gritty dynastic politics — lets him exploit what I've always thought was fantasy's most underappreciated advantage as a genre: It's ability to benefit from feudalism's gift to fiction — the intermingling of family relationships and political machinations that so many historical stories, from Shakespeare's York-Lancaster plays down to Hilary Mantel's books today, rely on for their power — but with the added narrative bonus that even the best-informed the reader won't have any idea how the fantasist's story of betrayals and beheadings ultimately turns out.
But maybe these are all just ways of saying that Martin is simply, well, a better writer than most of his fellow fantasists, and that the path out of the fantasy ghetto is always there: It just takes a special kind of talent to walk down it.
Also I think we just disagree on what is fantasy. I've not read enough Calvino to comment but I'd certainly include Borges. For me the defining feature of fantasy is making another world, as distinct from this world with fantastical stuff - like magic realism. Had I started this thread and got a Marquez and Bulgakov reading list I'd be annoyed :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2013, 01:48:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 01:21:57 PM
Point here is that, conciously or not, you guys are defining the category of "fantasy" in such a way that good stuff other people think is fantasy lies outside it, and bad stuff other people classify as non-fantasy gets included within it. Given that, it is then no surprise whatsoever that you don't like "fantasy".
I'm not saying I don't like fantasy. I do. I want to read it but, in general, I find the quality of the writing is poor and in some cases bad enough that I can't finish a book I've started. There are great fantasy writers who I've enjoyed and 'literary' fantasy fiction too like Glass Bead Game. But the average seems lower than other genres I enjoy. Which is a shame because they ones I like, I like a lot but they seem a lot rarer.
As I say I think there's something to the Douthat post I linked at the top:
Quote'Game of Thrones' and the Fantasy Author's Challenge
Just in time for this weekend's premiere of season 3 of "Game of Thrones," John Lanchester has a fine London Review of Books essay on the show, the George R.R. Martin books, and fantasy fiction's place in literary culture today. I recommend reading the whole piece (so long as you don't mind significant spoilers), but I was struck by this meditation on fantasy's longstanding segregation from more respectable forms of fiction:
QuoteGiven permission to read books of this kind – permission derived from the books' success – people have shown that they are willing to wolf them down by the millions ... This surely implies that there is nothing innate to fantasy which puts people off reading it. But there does appear to be something off-putting about fantasy as an idea. The fact that people are willing to read fantasy novels in practice emphasises the parallel fact that, most of the time, they aren't willing to read them in principle. They're only willing to read the freak mega-sellers: fantasy itself is off limits to large sections of the general reading public.
... When you ask people why they don't read fantasy, they usually say something along the lines of, 'because elves don't exist'. This makes no sense as an objection. Huge swathes of imaginative literature concern things that don't exist, and as it happens, things that don't exist feature particularly prominently in the English literary tradition. We're very good at things that don't exist. The fantastic is central not just to the English canon – Spenser, Shakespeare, even Dickens – but also to our amazing parallel tradition of para-literary works, from Carroll to Conan Doyle to Stoker to Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, Pullman. There's no other body of literature quite like it: just consider the comparative absence of fantasy from the French and Russian traditions. And yet it's perfectly normal for widely literate general readers to admit that they read no fantasy at all. I know, because I often ask. It's as if there is some mysterious fantasy-reading switch that in many people is set to 'off'.
Of course some of this is part of the general disdain for "genre" in all its forms that permeates the respectable literary world. But I also suspect that there is a particular obstacle with fantasy that doesn't exist with, say, horror novels or murder mysteries: The sheer immensity of the standard-issue fantasy saga, and the fact that committing to a bestselling fantasy author takes much more, well, commitment than reading Dean Koontz or Peter Straub, Michael Connelly or Tana French.
Fantasy, by design, is an exercise in world-building, and many of the most famous examples of the genre, from Lord of the Rings and Narnia and the Gormenghast novels and Earthsea down to Martin and Pullman and Rowling and so many others in the present day, are multi-volume affairs that require a serious investment to actually finish. (The multi-volume expectation has an unfortunate tendency to encourage today's bestselling authors to never ... actually ... finish their stories, which as Lanchester notes is the great fear gripping Martin's fans today.) So it would make sense that there would be a higher bar for mass success than in many other genres: Reading a bad murder mystery only sets you back a day or two, and the satisfaction of finding out whodunit can compensate for lousy prose, whereas I've definitely found myself flagging at page 300 or so even in many highly-regarded fantasy novels I've dipped into. (My apologies, Steven Erikson.) It would make sense that certain readers would be more likely to commit only in cases where the books in question are already mega-sellers, and thus pre-approved by millions of other readers. And it would also make sense that adolescents, who have more time on their hands (especially, ahem, the somewhat awkward ones) and more empty headspace waiting to be filled, would be more likely to gravitate toward the sprawl of mediocre fantasy than adults ... which then, in turn, ratifies the perception that the genre is just for teenage Dungeons and Dragons dorks, and not for grown-up readers.
Lanchester comes up with several reasons (besides, of course, the whole HBO thing) why Martin has managed to break out of the ghetto, including his ruthless willingness to kill his darlings (the major characters, that is) and the fact that his world is "low magic" and thus more accessible to people allergic to magic rings and wizard's orbs. These are excellent points, to which I'd add that the whole "Wars of the Roses"-style frame that Martin's story uses — the emphasis on gritty dynastic politics — lets him exploit what I've always thought was fantasy's most underappreciated advantage as a genre: It's ability to benefit from feudalism's gift to fiction — the intermingling of family relationships and political machinations that so many historical stories, from Shakespeare's York-Lancaster plays down to Hilary Mantel's books today, rely on for their power — but with the added narrative bonus that even the best-informed the reader won't have any idea how the fantasist's story of betrayals and beheadings ultimately turns out.
But maybe these are all just ways of saying that Martin is simply, well, a better writer than most of his fellow fantasists, and that the path out of the fantasy ghetto is always there: It just takes a special kind of talent to walk down it.
Also I think we just disagree on what is fantasy. I've not read enough Calvino to comment but I'd certainly include Borges. For me the defining feature of fantasy is making another world, as distinct from this world with fantastical stuff - like magic realism. Had I started this thread and got a Marquez and Bulgakov reading list I'd be annoyed :P
How would you have felt if you started this thread and got "Spenser, Shakespeare, even Dickens" and "Carroll to Conan Doyle to Stoker", like the author of the article you quote with approval here? ;)
What the article is complaining of, is the modern multi-volume fantasy series, which is a specialized subset. If I think typical swords and sorcery -type fantasy, I think of stuff like the Fafhurd & Grey Mouser series, which has many books admittedly but does not have an overall story arc - much of it is written, in fact, as short stories or novellas.
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 01:21:57 PM
Point here is that, conciously or not, you guys are defining the category of "fantasy" in such a way that good stuff other people think is fantasy lies outside it, and bad stuff other people classify as non-fantasy gets included within it. Given that, it is then no surprise whatsoever that you don't like "fantasy".
Oh? How have I defined fantasy at all?
Does Malthus consider Star Wars to be bad stuff? :hmm:
Look for my fantasy novel Big breasted chick knights fight the evil big boobed Witch on Amazon Kindle.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2013, 04:55:28 PM
Look for my fantasy novel Big breasted chick knights fight the evil big boobed Witch on Amazon Kindle.
:cool:
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2013, 04:51:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 01:21:57 PM
Point here is that, conciously or not, you guys are defining the category of "fantasy" in such a way that good stuff other people think is fantasy lies outside it, and bad stuff other people classify as non-fantasy gets included within it. Given that, it is then no surprise whatsoever that you don't like "fantasy".
Oh? How have I defined fantasy at all?
Not going down the grumbler rabbit-hole, sorry. :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2013, 04:55:14 PM
Does Malthus consider Star Wars to be bad stuff? :hmm:
Yeah, I don't get that at all. The last three movie (and, probably, many or most of the books, though I haven't read any of them) are not very good, but they aren't bad on the scale of Goodkin or Brooks (or the kid who wrote that apparently successful ripoff of LOTR with the dragons in it).
My problem with much of the published fantasy stuff isn't that it is multi-volume, it is that the bar for entry into the field seems so low. There is a lot of fantasy published that would never make it if the fantasy elements were transformed into, say, SF terms.
Eragon. God, what a shitty movie.
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 05:00:44 PM
Not going down the grumbler rabbit-hole, sorry. :lol:
:lmfao: I didn't think you had thought about what you were saying to me. Try to avoid responding to what I write about fantasy from now on, okay?
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2013, 05:04:30 PM
Eragon. God, what a shitty movie.
That's the one! Thanks.
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2013, 04:59:27 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2013, 04:55:28 PM
Look for my fantasy novel Big breasted chick knights fight the evil big boobed Witch on Amazon Kindle.
:cool:
One of these days, I'm actually going to write a book. And yes, it will be suitably wacky.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2013, 05:10:35 PM
One of these days, I'm actually going to write a book. And yes, it will be suitably wacky.
Funny you should switch to that avatar just as I am showing parts of
Gung Ho to my econ class to demonstrate differences in working cultures. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2013, 05:05:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 05:00:44 PM
Not going down the grumbler rabbit-hole, sorry. :lol:
:lmfao: I didn't think you had thought about what you were saying to me. Try to avoid responding to what I write about fantasy from now on, okay?
Gods, so predictable. I could have written your script. :(
In future, let me summarize what Grumbler says, he never disagrees or mocks me or anything.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2013, 05:10:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2013, 04:59:27 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2013, 04:55:28 PM
Look for my fantasy novel Big breasted chick knights fight the evil big boobed Witch on Amazon Kindle.
:cool:
One of these days, I'm actually going to write a book. And yes, it will be suitably wacky.
Can I have the TV rights?
Gor's Anatomy.
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2013, 06:14:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2013, 05:10:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2013, 04:59:27 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2013, 04:55:28 PM
Look for my fantasy novel Big breasted chick knights fight the evil big boobed Witch on Amazon Kindle.
:cool:
One of these days, I'm actually going to write a book. And yes, it will be suitably wacky.
Can I have the TV rights?
Gor's Anatomy.
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 05:56:17 PM
Gods, so predictable. I could have written your script. :(
As I could have written yours.
Someone: makes a point
Malthus: You are defining things so I am wrong and you are right.
Someone: I haven't defined anything
Malthus: Nope, I am not going to play the "definitions" game.
Board: :rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2013, 05:18:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2013, 05:10:35 PM
One of these days, I'm actually going to write a book. And yes, it will be suitably wacky.
Funny you should switch to that avatar just as I am showing parts of Gung Ho to my econ class to demonstrate differences in working cultures. :lol:
I just assumed Ed was between a rock and a hard on.
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2013, 08:20:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2013, 05:56:17 PM
Gods, so predictable. I could have written your script. :(
As I could have written yours.
Someone: makes a point
Malthus: You are defining things so I am wrong and you are right.
Someone: I haven't defined anything
Malthus: Nope, I am not going to play the "definitions" game.
Board: :rolleyes:
I could have written one.
Malthus: You are redefining what I say!
Grumbler: No I'm not, I never... Oh God, I think a bee has flown has flown into my ear!
Malthus: That's right, in time you will all learn to fear Bug-Jew! Ha Ha Ha!
Grumbler: Help me, it's stinging my brain!
Malthus: Now you'll know what all the 'buzz' is about! No wait, that sucks. Gimmie a moment and I'll think of a good one.
Grumbler: I don't have a moment! I'm dying, tell everyone on Languish that... that Raz was right, cause he's always right.
<drops dead>
Fin
Shouldn't it be a mosquito instead of a bee?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2013, 08:45:55 PM
Shouldn't it be a mosquito instead of a bee?
"Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon
Raz is not my enemy. At least, I hope not. :unsure:
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2013, 08:47:56 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2013, 08:45:55 PM
Shouldn't it be a mosquito instead of a bee?
"Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon
"Je Suis Napoleon"
-Napoleon
Also, I think Malthus would play the "buzz" line unashamedly and with gusto.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2013, 08:45:55 PM
Shouldn't it be a mosquito instead of a bee?
I don't think a bee Mosquito can fly from the ear canal to the brain either. Who cares?
Quit faggoting up the threads, grumbler.
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2013, 05:03:38 PM
Yeah, I don't get that at all. The last three movie (and, probably, many or most of the books, though I haven't read any of them) are not very good, but they aren't bad on the scale of Goodkin or Brooks (or the kid who wrote that apparently successful ripoff of LOTR with the dragons in it).
Goodkind is, if not the worst author I've ever come across, certainly a member of the top three worst. I tried reading his first book many years ago and gave up somewhere around page 100 or so. By which point I already disliked both of his main characters, let alone his "prose".
Everything I've heard since makes me glad of that decision.
Brooks, however, I've always found to be readable even if his early books are derivative tosh and his later books seem determined to contradict bits of his earlier books. I'd certainly rate him on a level with a good deal of the Star Wars EU (and actually better than at least 20% of it, particularly the bits of the EU that the EU itself has airbrushed from history.)
Never tried Paolini (?); never wanted to. The jacket blurb on his first book failed to make it sound worth my time.
Brooks is indeed very bad. I'm not sure that I like him better for having suckered me into reading a whole book.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2013, 08:49:00 PM
Raz is not my enemy. At least, I hope not. :unsure:
And Napoleon probably didn't originate that quote.
Quote from: Neil on November 01, 2013, 10:21:45 PM
Quit faggoting up the threads, grumbler.
Oops. Sorry. I didn't mean to steal your schtick.
Quote from: Agelastus on November 02, 2013, 03:35:05 AM
Goodkind is, if not the worst author I've ever come across, certainly a member of the top three worst. I tried reading his first book many years ago and gave up somewhere around page 100 or so. By which point I already disliked both of his main characters, let alone his "prose".
Everything I've heard since makes me glad of that decision.
Brooks, however, I've always found to be readable even if his early books are derivative tosh and his later books seem determined to contradict bits of his earlier books. I'd certainly rate him on a level with a good deal of the Star Wars EU (and actually better than at least 20% of it, particularly the bits of the EU that the EU itself has airbrushed from history.)
Never tried Paolini (?); never wanted to. The jacket blurb on his first book failed to make it sound worth my time.
What you say kinda goes to my point, though: it seems that the bar for getting published in fantasy is very low, which is why so much of it seems so bad. I am sure that, in absolute numbers, there are more bad writers in general fiction than in fantasy, but in relative numbers, fantasy seems the genre with the greatest problem with "derivative tosh" and horrible writing.
Which isn't to say that there isn't lots of great fantasy books out there. It's just that its a minefield.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2013, 09:03:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 01, 2013, 10:21:45 PM
Quit faggoting up the threads, grumbler.
Oops. Sorry. I didn't mean to steal your schtick.
Whoa. There's a mouth on this one.
I don't know who locked this or why.
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2013, 09:13:41 AM
I don't know who locked this or why.
Yeah, I was confused about that too.
I suspect it was Sheilbh, because he thought it was drifting off topic.
Sheilbh, a recommendation that I would make now that I have remembered the book title is Roger Zelazny's Doorways in the Sand. It is an amusing little story about a guy who wants to remain an undergraduate forever, before he encounters an extraterrestrial, and I think you will enjoy the non-linear writing style Zelazny invents for the story.
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2013, 11:18:11 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2013, 09:13:41 AM
I don't know who locked this or why.
Yeah, I was confused about that too.
I think I did accidentally with hands like shovels and an iPhone :blush:
Just started first Sarantium novel.
I second Doorways in the Sand. Fun book.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2013, 12:29:27 PM
I think I did accidentally with hands like shovels and an iPhone :blush:
Wait, how many hands do you have?
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2013, 09:13:41 AM
I don't know who locked this or why.
It was pre-emptively blocked in case I made a recommendation. <_<
I like Niven's Known Space. Ringworld is great.
Molly. :wub:
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 11:17:20 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on November 01, 2013, 10:47:11 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 01, 2013, 04:05:19 AM
It's the same old story. Crap writing, a plot so implausible it is impossible to suspend disbelief and characters with as much depth as a paddling pool.
I'm not going to disagree with 1 and 3, but I'd be quite interested as to what particularly you found so implausible about the plot given the genre of the novel.
As I say I've got a third of the way through before chucking it. The idea that you attempt you start a civil war/uprising under the nose of a super-powerful, immortal ruler and you tell thousands of people that you are going to do it was my main objection.
IIRC he didn't expect to be successful, it was basically a martyrdom operation that was meant to inspire future rebellions. Can't exactlly send in your video to CNN in this kind of setting he had to spread the word.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2013, 09:08:51 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on November 02, 2013, 03:35:05 AM
Goodkind is, if not the worst author I've ever come across, certainly a member of the top three worst. I tried reading his first book many years ago and gave up somewhere around page 100 or so. By which point I already disliked both of his main characters, let alone his "prose".
Everything I've heard since makes me glad of that decision.
Brooks, however, I've always found to be readable even if his early books are derivative tosh and his later books seem determined to contradict bits of his earlier books. I'd certainly rate him on a level with a good deal of the Star Wars EU (and actually better than at least 20% of it, particularly the bits of the EU that the EU itself has airbrushed from history.)
Never tried Paolini (?); never wanted to. The jacket blurb on his first book failed to make it sound worth my time.
What you say kinda goes to my point, though: it seems that the bar for getting published in fantasy is very low, which is why so much of it seems so bad. I am sure that, in absolute numbers, there are more bad writers in general fiction than in fantasy, but in relative numbers, fantasy seems the genre with the greatest problem with "derivative tosh" and horrible writing.
Which isn't to say that there isn't lots of great fantasy books out there. It's just that its a minefield.
So is Goodkind as good as this?
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2013, 12:02:08 PM
So is Goodkind as good as this?
No, not nearly.
QuoteHissing, hackles lifting, the chicken's head rose. Kahlan pulled back. Its claws digging into stiff dead flesh, the chicken slowly turned to face her. It cocked its head, making its comb flop, its wattles sway. "Shoo," Kahlan heard herself whisper. There wasn't enough light, and besides, the side of its beak was covered with gore, so she couldn't tell if it had the dark spot, But she didn't need to see it. "Dear spirits, help me," she prayed under her breath. The bird let out a slow chicken cackle. It sounded like a chicken, but in her heart she knew it wasn't. In that instant, she completely understood the concept of a chicken that was not a chicken. This looked like a chicken, like most of the Mud People's chickens. But this was no chicken. This was evil manifest.
Evil manifest? Amazing! :D
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
Evil manifest? Amazing! :D
Sadly that's also the best line of the excerpt Grumbler posted.
I do have a question though. The text as written implies that some of the "Mud People's" chickens
don't look like chickens...is this the case, and, if so, what do they look like? :hmm:
If anyone knows, of course.
This is one of the rare areas of knowledge where I don't think that my desire to know exceeds my desire to keep people from Goodkind's writings.
Is that...real?
It doesn't help that he's also a huge fan of Ayn Rand and his stuff is apparently infused with that loony bullshit. Also he's an arrogant prick by most accounts.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 05, 2013, 12:52:34 PM
Is that...real?
Iirc there is no evidence of any evil corrupting the chickens of the Mud People.
Goodkind is a hack with a rape fixation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 05, 2013, 12:52:34 PM
Is that...real?
Yes. Unbelievable as it sounds, the phrase "in that instant, she completely understood the concept of a chicken that was not a chicken" was actually paid for and published. And purchased, though the latter is of less interest to me than the former.
Schoolchildren have been familiar with that concept since the dawn of school lunches.
I know that this is beating a dead horse, but someone else posted another bit of Goodkin goodness, in which the hero faces a bunch of pacifists "armed only with a hatred of moral clarity" and kills them all:
Quote"No war! No war! No war!" the people shouted as Richard led the men up the street at a dead run.
"Out of the way!" Richard yelled as he closed the distance. This was no time for subtlety or discussions: the success of their attack depended in large part on speed. "Get out of the way! This is your only warning! Get out of the way or die!"
"Stop the hate! Stop the hate!" the people chanted as they locked arms.
They had no idea how much hate was raging through Richard. He drew the Sword of Truth. The wrath of its magic didn't come out with it, but he had enough of his own. He slowed to a trot.
"Move!" Richard called as he bore down on the people.
A plump, curly-haired woman took a step out from the others. Her round face was red with anger as she screamed. "Stop the hate! No war! Stop the hate! No war!"
"Move or die!" Richard yelled as he picked up speed.
The red-faced woman shook her fleshy fist at Richard and his men, leading an angry chant. "Murderers! Murderers! Murderers!"
On his way past her, gritting his teeth as he screamed with the fury of the attack begun, Richard took a powerful swing, lopping off the woman's head and upraised arm. Strings of blood and gore splashed across the faces behind her even as some still chanted their empty words. The head and loose arm tumbled through the crowd. A man made the mistake of reaching for Richard's weapon, and took the full weight of a charging thrust.
Men behind Richard hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence. People armed only with their hatred for moral clarity fell bloodied, terribly injured, and dead. The line of people collapsed before the merciless charge. Some of the people, screaming their contempt, used their fists to attack Richard's men. They were met with swift and deadly steel.
I think Goodkin really intended that you cheer for the armed-and-armored guys slaughtering the unarmed-and-unarmored anti-war protesters. There is no evidence that Goodkin intended this as a spoof.
More dead-horse beating, just 'cause it is fun:
QuotePrincess Violet glared at him. "My mother says that Confessor Kahlan will come back and that we'll have a surprise for her the next time she comes here. I just want you to know because my mother said you'll be dead by then. My mother says I get to decide what to do to her. First, I'm going to cut off her hair." Her hands were in fists, her face red. "Then I'm going to let all the guards rape her, every one! Then I'm going to put her in the dungeon for a few years so they'll have someone to play with! Then when I get tired of hurting her, I'll have her head chopped off and put it on a pole where I can watch it rot!"
Richard actually felt sorry for the little Princess. The sadness for her came over him in a wave. At that feeling, he was surprised to feel the thing in him that had come awake rise up.
Princess Violet squeezed her eyes shut, stuck her tongue out far as she could.
It was like a red flag.
The strength of the awakened power exploded through him.
He could feel her jaw shatter like a crystal goblet on a stone floor when his boot came up under it. The impact of the blow lifted the Princess into the air. Her own teeth severed her tongue before they, too, shattered. She landed on her back, a good distance away, trying to scream through the gushing blood.
Yes, the phrase "he was surprised to feel the thing in him that had come awake rise up" was paid for and published. Dunno dafuq it means.
Oh, and this attack was on an eight-year-old girl. Our hero is quite heroic.
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2013, 07:29:53 AM
I think Goodkin really intended that you cheer for the armed-and-armored guys slaughtering the unarmed-and-unarmored anti-war protesters. There is no evidence that Goodkin intended this as a spoof.
So he's like Frank Miller, then?
Worse.
I cheered for the slaughter of the anti-war protesters. And that little girl had it coming. I don't take issue with this Richard guy's actions, just the odd way in which they are written.
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2013, 08:30:29 AM
I cheered for the slaughter of the anti-war protesters. And that little girl had it coming. I don't take issue with this Richard guy's actions, just the odd way in which they are written.
That should be enough though. Poor writing is poor writing. Given how expensive books are these days the editing should be decent.
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2013, 07:29:53 AM
I know that this is beating a dead horse, but someone else posted another bit of Goodkin goodness, in which the hero faces a bunch of pacifists "armed only with a hatred of moral clarity" and kills them all:
Quote"No war! No war! No war!" the people shouted as Richard led the men up the street at a dead run.
"Out of the way!" Richard yelled as he closed the distance. This was no time for subtlety or discussions: the success of their attack depended in large part on speed. "Get out of the way! This is your only warning! Get out of the way or die!"
"Stop the hate! Stop the hate!" the people chanted as they locked arms.
They had no idea how much hate was raging through Richard. He drew the Sword of Truth. The wrath of its magic didn't come out with it, but he had enough of his own. He slowed to a trot.
"Move!" Richard called as he bore down on the people.
A plump, curly-haired woman took a step out from the others. Her round face was red with anger as she screamed. "Stop the hate! No war! Stop the hate! No war!"
"Move or die!" Richard yelled as he picked up speed.
The red-faced woman shook her fleshy fist at Richard and his men, leading an angry chant. "Murderers! Murderers! Murderers!"
On his way past her, gritting his teeth as he screamed with the fury of the attack begun, Richard took a powerful swing, lopping off the woman's head and upraised arm. Strings of blood and gore splashed across the faces behind her even as some still chanted their empty words. The head and loose arm tumbled through the crowd. A man made the mistake of reaching for Richard's weapon, and took the full weight of a charging thrust.
Men behind Richard hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence. People armed only with their hatred for moral clarity fell bloodied, terribly injured, and dead. The line of people collapsed before the merciless charge. Some of the people, screaming their contempt, used their fists to attack Richard's men. They were met with swift and deadly steel.
I think Goodkin really intended that you cheer for the armed-and-armored guys slaughtering the unarmed-and-unarmored anti-war protesters. There is no evidence that Goodkin intended this as a spoof.
I'm sorta aroused.
Actually, killing the pacifists might work if it was better written and had a better context.
Maybe the mob was under the mind control of an evil wizard or lich, blocking the hero's attack on the villain. If he doesn't act swiftly, the villain will be able to complete his plan (ritual, powering up a machine, whatever) that would kill many many people or bring some other extreme evil to the world. So Richard has to take the tough decision to slay the protestors.
Which could again be a source of conflict - he's wracked with guilt (maybe he later learns that there would have been another way, or that his attempt was futile/unnecessary), increasing his burden. Friends would turn away from him, or at least change their opinions of him.
I guess what I'm saying that the hero killing unarmed civilians could work, if it was set up as a tragic low point in his character arc, not as a high point of moral fortitude.
Last time I strangled a hippie, I wasn't wracked with guilt.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 06, 2013, 09:09:45 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2013, 08:30:29 AM
I cheered for the slaughter of the anti-war protesters. And that little girl had it coming. I don't take issue with this Richard guy's actions, just the odd way in which they are written.
That should be enough though. Poor writing is poor writing. Given how expensive books are these days the editing should be decent.
Are books that expensive these days? Or does Goodkind not have mass market paperbacks?
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2013, 08:30:29 AM
I cheered for the slaughter of the anti-war protesters. And that little girl had it coming. I don't take issue with this Richard guy's actions, just the odd way in which they are written.
That's because you felt your thing had come awake rise up.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Are books that expensive these days? Or does Goodkind not have mass market paperbacks?
Even mass market paperbacks are nine or ten bucks these days.
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2013, 09:47:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Are books that expensive these days? Or does Goodkind not have mass market paperbacks?
Even mass market paperbacks are nine or ten bucks these days.
Which makes for what - a 2-3 dollar increase since the late 90s?
What I never understood about Goodkind is that he is so popular.
I mean, there are lots of bad writers out there, but the ones who are popular, you can at least see WHY they are popular, even if you don't necessarily agree. They typically have something about them that makes up for whatever failings they might have as a writer.
George Martin might have his issues, but the shit he does well, he does amazingly well.
The Wheel of Time is interminable, but that world is pretty interesting, and at least some of those characters are well done.
You maybe can see how people are willing to put up with the bad to get to the good. I would argue that for an author like Martin, the good is VERY good.
But Goodkind? Where is the pay off? What does he do well that makes up for the terrible writing, boring plots, and idiotic characters? What am I missing?
On another note, I picked up Steven Erikson's Gardens of the Moon. Again. And actually got through it this time. It is actually really quite good, once you get into it. I am looking forward to some more.
Again, an author with some obvious weaknesses in his writing, but the things he does well make the story compelling.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2013, 09:55:14 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2013, 09:47:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Are books that expensive these days? Or does Goodkind not have mass market paperbacks?
Even mass market paperbacks are nine or ten bucks these days.
Which makes for what - a 2-3 dollar increase since the late 90s?
It makes for a 2-3 dollar increase over the time since they were 2-3 dollars cheaper, yes.
I'm not sure what that has to do with poor editing. Or maybe you were starting a non sequitur contest and I just missed that fact?
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2013, 10:03:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2013, 09:55:14 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2013, 09:47:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Are books that expensive these days? Or does Goodkind not have mass market paperbacks?
Even mass market paperbacks are nine or ten bucks these days.
Which makes for what - a 2-3 dollar increase since the late 90s?
It makes for a 2-3 dollar increase over the time since they were 2-3 dollars cheaper, yes.
I'm not sure what that has to do with poor editing. Or maybe you were starting a non sequitur contest and I just missed that fact?
Wags complained that books should be better edited given that they cost so much these days. I guess I could agree with the idea that books should have better editing but not because they have become so expensive.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2013, 10:09:36 AM
Wags complained that books should be better edited given that they cost so much these days. I guess I could agree with the idea that books should have better editing but not because they have become so expensive.
Well, book prices have outpaced inflation by a lot. Paperbacks were in the range of 35 cents in the 1960s, which with inflation would be in the three dollar range today, not the nine-dollar range. Books average much longer (probably twice as long) but that doesn't explain the cost increases.
Still, you are correct that prices really are not what should justify better editing.
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2013, 10:03:19 AM]
On another note, I picked up Steven Erikson's Gardens of the Moon. Again. And actually got through it this time. It is actually really quite good, once you get into it. I am looking forward to some more.
Again, an author with some obvious weaknesses in his writing, but the things he does well make the story compelling.
I've tried to get through it twice and failed. Sell me on it.
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2013, 09:45:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2013, 08:30:29 AM
I cheered for the slaughter of the anti-war protesters. And that little girl had it coming. I don't take issue with this Richard guy's actions, just the odd way in which they are written.
That's because you felt your thing had come awake rise up.
:lol:
Those are some fantastically bad passages. Korea loved those shitty books.
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2013, 10:03:19 AM
On another note, I picked up Steven Erikson's Gardens of the Moon. Again. And actually got through it this time. It is actually really quite good, once you get into it. I am looking forward to some more.
Again, an author with some obvious weaknesses in his writing, but the things he does well make the story compelling.
I couldn't get into his story because I didn't think the characters were very compelling, but at least his plot seemed to be going somewhere. Maybe not ten novels' worth, but I liked the fact that the story seemed to have a past and future and didn't feel like it started when the reader opened the book.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2013, 11:30:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2013, 10:03:19 AM]
On another note, I picked up Steven Erikson's Gardens of the Moon. Again. And actually got through it this time. It is actually really quite good, once you get into it. I am looking forward to some more.
Again, an author with some obvious weaknesses in his writing, but the things he does well make the story compelling.
I've tried to get through it twice and failed. Sell me on it.
Gardens of the Moon and the first 5-6 books of that series each start really slow, but once you get into them can be entertaining. However somewhere mid-series he switches his genre from high fantasy to horror. Sure high fantasy always has a horror element, but it eventually becomes all horror all the the time. I think I stopped reading for good about book 8.
If you like both high fantasy and horror it might be your thing.
What is "high" fantasy?
I always conceived it as fantasy where everything is made the fuck up.
I believe it is 'epic' Tolkienesque stuff. Or maybe even The Dark Tower. Endless Quest kind of stuff. Could be wrong though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2013, 12:29:27 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2013, 11:18:11 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2013, 09:13:41 AM
I don't know who locked this or why.
Yeah, I was confused about that too.
I think I did accidentally with hands like shovels and an iPhone :blush:
I've locked so many threads trying to read languish on iPhone :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2013, 01:08:04 PM
What is "high" fantasy?
From wiki:
QuoteHigh fantasy is defined as fantasy fiction set in an alternative, entirely fictional ("secondary") world, rather than the real, or "primary" world. The secondary world is usually internally consistent but its rules differ in some way(s) from those of the primary world. By contrast, low fantasy is characterized by being set in the primary, or "real" world, or a rational and familiar fictional world, with the inclusion of magical elements.
So, essentially, I was correct.
Quote from: Maximus on November 06, 2013, 12:52:01 PM
Gardens of the Moon and the first 5-6 books of that series each start really slow, but once you get into them can be entertaining. However somewhere mid-series he switches his genre from high fantasy to horror. Sure high fantasy always has a horror element, but it eventually becomes all horror all the the time. I think I stopped reading for good about book 8.
If you like both high fantasy and horror it might be your thing.
"Horror"? Well, I suppose you could argue that that's the case; I wouldn't, personally. :hmm:
However, there's nothing fundamentally different about the later books given that you've got Undead from the get-go in book 1 and headless undead slave rower corpses (with the heads still aware) in book 2.
And if you stopped at book 8 you missed a treat; books 9 and 10 are the best of the series and provide a really satisfying climax.
-----------------------
I'm fairly sure I've recommended Erikson before. There are parts of the series that drag or are otherwise hard-to-read. "Gardens of the Moon", for example, is a hard read for the first couple of hundred pages; partly, I think, because there is so much history to his world. You get the sense that so much of the story has already happened when you start and you feel a little lost. There's always a decent narrative though, and a sense of depth, of deep scheming by powers that the characters (and you as the reader) don't completely understand until the moment of denouement of the various plots. And most things do get explained eventually (some don't, but that's partly because it's a shared world; Ian C Esslemont hasn't finished his six books which, although they're not neccessary to the main storyline, do clarify some issues.)
And then there's the slight issue of the different focuses of the books which lead to some odd things. "House of Chains", the fourth book which brings together threads from the first three books chronologically begins before any of the events of the first three books. Then the fifth book (the one I had trouble getting into) jumps sideways again with a plot that's completely unrelated to the first four books - but which is important since much of the action of books 6,7,9 and 10, as things come together and the threads merge into a single storyline, is a result of the events of book 5.
Erikson is a capable plotter and a reasonable writer but where he really shines is with his characters and with his consistent pairing of triumph and tragedy. The victories his characters win are significant, but they're never easy and they're never without a cost.
The world he and Esslemont have created is complex, with non-human and pre-human races having a history a couple of hundred thousand years deep. Events of the past matter, and carry echoes into the present day. Ancient betrayals resonate (partly because some of the characters were said betrayers or betrayees - there's a few effective immortals around.) The magical system is interesting; what the settings' Mages draw power from are both power sources and worlds of their own. When we, the reader, realise what the "Imperial Warren" actually is it forms a particularly telling moment showing how the triumphs of the present of this world are built on the bones and tragedies of its past.
And, as I said above, everything has its price; there's no "free lunch" in Erikson's and Esslemont's world. Which given the nature of much "high fantasy" is a refreshing change. But it's not, to quote another modernism, "Grimdark" for the sake of "Grimdark"; most things are as they are for good reason.
If you can get by "Gardens of the Moon" you're then treated to two of the best books of the series "Deadhouse Gates" and my personal favourite "Memories of Ice". After which there's no turning back.
Well, unless you're Maximus, of course. :P
I continue to unreservedly recommend Gene Wolfe and Iain M. Banks. Also, Frank Herbert's BuSab novels are great stuff.
Roger Zelazny's writing is pure gold, even the later stuff. The Amber novels are tops, although Lord of Light is unique.
Jim Butcher is really fake sci-fi/fantasy, but he sort of embodies the Iowa Writer's Workshop school of writing in its purest form.
Anything by Neal Stephenson after The Big U and Zodiac is worth reading.
...the fit hit the Shan
Quote from: PDH on November 06, 2013, 09:17:40 PM
...the fit hit the Shan
Was this for the colonoscopy thread? :unsure:
I've had Lord of Light on my shelf for the last few years, just waiting for a chance for me to read it. I don't get into a fiction mood very often.
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2013, 09:58:29 PM
I've had Lord of Light on my shelf for the last few years, just waiting for a chance for me to read it. I don't get into a fiction mood very often.
Trivia: Allegedly, the fake movie used as a cover in the Iranian embassy hostage rescue was a film version of Lord of Light.
QuoteIn 1979 it was announced that Lord of Light would be made into a 50 million dollar film. It was planned that the sets for the movie would be made permanent and become the core of a science fiction theme park to be built in Aurora, Colorado. Famed comic-book artist/writer/editor Jack Kirby was even contracted to produce artwork for set design. However, due to legal problems the project was never completed.
Parts of the unmade film project—the script and Kirby's set designs—were subsequently acquired by the CIA as cover for the "Canadian Caper": the exfiltration of six US diplomatic staff trapped by the Iranian hostage crisis (in Tehran but outside the embassy compound). The rescue team pretended to be scouting a location in Iran for shooting a Hollywood film from the script, which they had renamed Argo.[4][5] The story of the rescue effort was later told in the 2012 film Argo.
Surely "the Iranian embassy hostage rescue" was in London? Do you mean the American embassy hostage rescue?
The Iranian embassy hostage rescue was in London. The Regiment got in trouble for wasting too many people as I recall reading.
Yes, it was the American embassy in Iran, not the Iraninan embassy. Sorry for confusing the easily confused. :P
They killed 5 of the 6 terrorists and none of the hostages. One too few, maybe but hard to see how it could be too many.
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2013, 11:36:30 AM
Yes, it was the American embassy in Iran, not the Iraninan embassy. Sorry for confusing the easily confused. :P
What is "the Iraninan embassy"? Do you mean the Iranian embassy?
Quote from: The Brain on November 07, 2013, 11:37:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2013, 11:36:30 AM
Yes, it was the American embassy in Iran, not the Iraninan embassy. Sorry for confusing the easily confused. :P
What is "the Iraninan embassy"? Do you mean the Iranian embassy?
It is sad to think you probably don't have a better source of amusement. :(
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2013, 11:48:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 07, 2013, 11:37:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2013, 11:36:30 AM
Yes, it was the American embassy in Iran, not the Iraninan embassy. Sorry for confusing the easily confused. :P
What is "the Iraninan embassy"? Do you mean the Iranian embassy?
It is sad to think you probably don't have a better source of amusement. :(
I find Jews plenty funny thank you.
Quote from: The Brain on November 05, 2013, 03:15:18 AM
Molly. :wub:
Molly Galbraith?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.niashanks.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F07%2F1311690419_2455-300x400.jpg&hash=2d40f516bfec5333d5ac891ae72e14e96785b987)
this one bettar picture:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.niashanks.com%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fniashanks%2Fimages%2FuserPics%2Ftinymce%2FMolly%2520Prep%25202006.jpg&hash=2b7831b30d1413256c05149561d67e62e937d723)
I thought you went for the 90 pounders.
Of all the places my thread could end up...
In the end they all end up with muscle chicks or stories of MB's bowel movements.
Quote from: PDH on November 07, 2013, 07:57:13 PM
In the end they all end up with muscle chicks or stories of MB's bowel movements.
I was restraining myself.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2013, 07:55:16 PM
Of all the places my thread could end up...
:lol:
Having second thoughts about having unlocked it?
Quote from: The Brain on November 07, 2013, 11:52:00 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2013, 11:48:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 07, 2013, 11:37:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2013, 11:36:30 AM
Yes, it was the American embassy in Iran, not the Iraninan embassy. Sorry for confusing the easily confused. :P
What is "the Iraninan embassy"? Do you mean the Iranian embassy?
It is sad to think you probably don't have a better source of amusement. :(
I find Jews plenty funny thank you.
Really? Do you find me funny?
What do you mean I'm funny?
What do you mean, you mean the way I talk? What?
Funny how? What's funny about it?
What did ya say? Funny how?
What?
You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you?
I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?
No, no, I don't know, you said it. How do I know? You said I'm funny. How the fuck am I funny, what the fuck is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!
You're funnier when drunk.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2013, 12:44:49 AM
You're funnier when drunk.
At first I read "furrier". I will go have a coffee now.
Wahr the fukc. Dindn I just post on this tead?
Ok, so it's Drunk > Sober > Fake Drunk. :P
Read the first of Kay's Sarantium novels. I enjoyed it. But there is that serial irritation with fantasies. I feel a little annoyed that, while things happened, it basically seem to be a book that was all about setting up another book. Also he writes around things too much. Generally it was okay but I found myself being frustrated at times. I'd read 'half a hundred candles' and think 'why not fifty?' And I think writers should generally decide that if they're going to write about sex then they'll just write about it, or not include it (sexual tension's something else entirely). I found Kay's euphemistic style quite frustrating.
I also wish I'd gone for the book based on China because I know nothing about that. I recognised way too many analogues in this. But I did enjoy it overall and I'll get the second book.
Also just finished C.J. Sansom's Dominion. I don't know if it fits in this thread. I really liked his Tudor crime series, which are mostly pretty fun (I know I found one pretty ropey, but I can't remember which). In this book Churchill gives way to Halifax and Britain negotiates a peace treaty with Nazi Germany. It's now, I think, in the 50s and Britain's along the way to becoming properly fascist and Hitler's apparently dying. A British scientist finds out something about the nuke from his brother who's been working in America, promptly goes mad and attracts the attention of the resistance (who want to get him to the US at the Americans request) and the SS who want his info to help them in their power struggle with the army.
The plot's well done - as you'd expect from a crime writer - but the characters are a bit weak and it's too long by about a hundred pages. Having said that I think the atmosphere and sort of Britain he creates is brilliant. The big political stuff, Mosley in the Home Office establishing an auxiliary police force and beefing up Special Branch with Blackshirts and the role of class, is well-done. But I also really enjoyed the little details, like that the Lyons Corner Houses are now just 'Corner Houses'. I think he gets that sort-of downbeat, depressed Britain of the 50s just made all the worse by not having won the war and creeping fascism.
Edit: Incidentally going to finish the next Sarantium book, then get some Gene Wolfe and read Cryptonicon (which I've had on my shelf for ages).
Question: I have avoided Kay after reading Fionovar and one other book (al-rassan?) because I think his settings are bland and mostly empty of anything not directly involving the plot and characters at hand. The latter is an analogue of medieval Spain that's way more boring than the real Spain. Loved the Silmarillion, but I figured that's because it's Tolkien's world. Should I continue to avoid him on that basis, or is there something more to Sarantium than there was for the previous stuff?
I read Tigana recently. Unlike most fantasy novels I've tried recently, it wasn't so horrible that I gave up on it part way through but I've no interest in reading him again.
Shelf - surprised at you. Try to mix some proper fiction in with all the crap (Stephenson excepted).
Here's a recommendation I don't think I've seen here.
Perdido Street Station by China Miéville.
Great lovecraftian horror in a steampunk & magic 19th century megalopolis.
Sheilbh, I don't know if you are interested in time travel SF, but some good ones are Time and Again by Jack Finney (the first of two books, though you don't miss a lot by skipping the second), and a bunch of works by Pohl Anderson: his Time patrol series are excellent "classical SF" works on the theme, and his Dancer from Atlantis (which had the distinction of being the first popular work to introduce the "Santorini as Atlantis" theory). Time travel stories are generally pretty bad, but these are good to excellent (the Finney books in particular have a great sense of place).
Quote from: Gups on November 21, 2013, 02:57:48 AMShelf - surprised at you. Try to mix some proper fiction in with all the crap (Stephenson excepted).
I do. Reading Middlemarch again at the minute. But I always have something a bit easier on my phone for bed and bus reading.
Cryptonomicon isn't science fiction or fantasy. More like straight fiction.
Okay. I'll read it anyway. I bought it after loads of people here raved about Stephenson.
I've since been told it's not the best to start with :lol: :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 02:02:13 PM
Okay. I'll read it anyway. I bought it after loads of people here raved about Stephenson.
I've since been told it's not the best to start with :lol: :(
It's not the best if you are a fan of his earlier science fiction, precisely because it is totally unlike that.
I certainly enjoyed it (though I thought the ending rushed - somewhat of a problem with Stephenson). The two criticisms often level at him are his frequent digressions, and his rushed endings. I like his digressions, for the most part. Cryptonomicon has a hilarious one about writing a business plan. ;)
Otherwise, there is a lot to like in it - if you are at all interested in WW2 codebreakers, you will enjoy it.
Cryptonimicon is awesome. Just really excellent.
Except the ending. To say it was rushed doesn't even do it justice. It is like Stephenson got to page 1100, realized that he only had a total budget for 1124 pages, and said "Fuck it, they all died, the end!"
Quote from: Malthus on November 21, 2013, 01:58:25 PM
Cryptonomicon isn't science fiction or fantasy. More like straight fiction.
It's sci-fi in the same manner Crichton is- fiction *about* science but set in the real world.
You like sci-fi with lots of Political stuff? You might like Ken MacLeod. The Star Fraction was his first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Fraction
personally, I could'nt stand it.
I found MacLeod insufferable.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2013, 05:52:28 PM
I found MacLeod insufferable.
His head is firmly planted in his ass.
Shiela might like all the Trot bullshit in his books though.
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 02:41:01 PM
Cryptonimicon is awesome. Just really excellent.
Except the ending. To say it was rushed doesn't even do it justice. It is like Stephenson got to page 1100, realized that he only had a total budget for 1124 pages, and said "Fuck it, they all died, the end!"
He is a gifted author. The Big U was funny.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2013, 03:35:47 AM
Here's a recommendation I don't think I've seen here.
Perdido Street Station by China Miéville.
Great lovecraftian horror in a steampunk & magic 19th century megalopolis.
Uggh. It's fucking terrible. If you like pretension wrapped in turgid prose, but Pynchon is too concise, I'd agree.
QuoteGardens of the Moon and the first 5-6 books of that series each start really slow, but once you get into them can be entertaining. However somewhere mid-series he switches his genre from high fantasy to horror. Sure high fantasy always has a horror element, but it eventually becomes all horror all the the time. I think I stopped reading for good about book 8.
If you like both high fantasy and horror it might be your thing.
Ush, Gardens of the Moon.
I tried to read that one...but it just isn't very well written. Nothing grabs the reader at all.
Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2013, 06:26:44 AM
QuoteGardens of the Moon and the first 5-6 books of that series each start really slow, but once you get into them can be entertaining. However somewhere mid-series he switches his genre from high fantasy to horror. Sure high fantasy always has a horror element, but it eventually becomes all horror all the the time. I think I stopped reading for good about book 8.
If you like both high fantasy and horror it might be your thing.
Ush, Gardens of the Moon.
I tried to read that one...but it just isn't very well written. Nothing grabs the reader at all.
The first 2-300 pages show clear signs of being someone's first published book, one that could have done with perhaps a bit better editing. It (and the series as a whole) does get a lot better.
I bought "Gardens of the Moon" and "Deadhouse Gates" at the same time, and I must confess that I read and enjoyed "Deadhouse Gates" before I managed to finish "Gardens of the Moon" myself.