|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thomas Covenant novels.
Anything Robert Jordan ever wrote. His Conan novels make De Camp look like a Howard scholar.
Song of Ice and Fire. *yawn*
Just about any D&D fiction. Generally god awful.
Just about any fiction attached to an RPG in general. Ditto.
Saberhagen. *yawn*
Pern. *yawn*
Terry Brooks. *derivative yawn*
Piers Anthony. *pedo yawn*
Ursula K. LeGuin. *yawn*Non-fantasy
Just about anyone with a book on a grocery store book rack.
Anthony? A pedo? Wha?
Do you like Richard Lee Byers or Paul S. Kemp at all? If not, then what do you like(although I know this isn't the topic of this thread)?
I read their posts on FB. Their novels? Not so much. Although, I did find the War of the Spider Queen novels slightly more palatable than most Forgotten Realms fare.
What I like? Fritz Lieber, Poul Anderson, Some of Bernard Cromwell's stuff (his take on a Grail story set after Agincourt was pretty cool), H.P.L., R.E. Howard, E.R. Burroughs, Verne, Wells, Moorcock, Clark Ashton Smith, Dresden Files books, Tolkien, Jack Vance, Robert Heinlein, and a few others I can't remember the author's name (stuff I read in the joint to pass time that was entertaining, but not terribly memorable).
But, mostly, if I'm reading it's regular novels (Graham Greene, Saul Bellow, John Irving, Tom Wolfe, Tom Robbins, Kurt Vonnegut, Dumas (pere et fils - The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo are more D&D to me than any TSR/WotC novel), and others), history, philosophy, political stuff, and other non-fiction.
I really dislike a bunch of fantasy and sci-fi lit. I get most of my plot ideas and characters from regular fiction, movies, tv, history and people I've met and events in my life.
I think about 90% of the books mentioned in the thread so far have never been 'critically-acclaimed' :-) Tolkien, Martin, Erikson, Donaldson, Peake, Moorcock, Howard, Pratchett, LeGuin and Jordan (to a much lesser extent) have been, but not really anyone else. Unless you count DRAGON MAGAZINE's comparison of Feist to Tolkien in 1982, that is ;-)
RA Salvatore has never been critically acclaimed. The best thing people have said about him is that he writes fun, fast-paced adventure novels. I enjoyed the first nine books or so (THE CRYSTAL SHARD through SIEGE OF DARKNESS) and then Salvatore's interest in the series died. He tried to quit, but the publishers threatened to take Drizzt off him and give him to another author. Another author even started writing a Drizzt novel, so Salvatore reluctantly came back. But you can tell his interest in the series was dead at that point and has never come back. But even at his best, he was never more than lightweight fun for teenagers anyway.
Probably the most critically-acclaimed fantasy series I've encountered and not enjoyed is M. John Harrison's VIRICONIUM sequence of novels and short stories. The first book, THE PASTEL CITY, just about passes muster (due to the dwarf-piloted power armour, which was an impressive creation for a mid-1970s fantasy novel) but later books are overwritten, full of purple prose and uninteresting characters. I've never really gotten on with Moorcock's ELRIC sequence either, though some of his other books are indeed excellent.
I've also never warmed to David Gemmell's LEGEND. I love some of his other books (particularly the Jon Shannow and TROY books), but that one's never worked for me, despite being one of the most acclaimed novels in the genre.
Did any critics praise The Sword of Truth?
No. THE SWORD OF TRUTH is widely-regarded as the laughing stock of the SFF genre (challenged only by the works of Kevin J. Anderson).
Here's something else: Mr. Game of Thrones guy could have just called himself "George Martin" and it would have been fine. But he went with "George R.R. Martin," kind of like "J.R.R. Tolkien." And I like him less for that. If I write an epic fantasy series as "K.R.R. Gersen," please shoot me.
This is a rather pedantic complaint, not to mention being totally invalid:
1) His middle names are 'Raymond Richard', so it's actually his name.
2) He started writing as 'George R.R. Martin' in 1964 in a letter published in THE AVENGERS. This was about two years before he read THE LORD OF THE RINGS (the dodgy Ace Books pirate edition) and had even heard of Tolkien.
3) He was told in 1968 that he couldn't publish as 'George Martin' because people would confuse him with the Beatles' record producer, a problem he'd already experienced whilst writing cheques ("George Martin? Hey, where's Ringo, HA!" apparently got a bit old).
I read Jordan's 1st book and thought it was a pretty close copy of LotR and stopped reading it.
A common complaint. The first version was very different (an old war veteran who'd already been through a lifetime of adventure turned out to be 'the chosen one' and a different set of events took place) but Jordan and his publisher decided to make it more traditional to hook in casual readers. The result is that the first half of the first book is very much like LotR, with analogues for the Shire, Gollum, Moria etc, but then it takes a different turn. From Book 2 onwards the series goes in a radically different direction.
There's at least four main characters with names beginning with E. If they aren't all blond, that right there should tell you how hard a time I had keeping them straight.
There's Egwene and Elayne (who is only a minor character in Book 1 and doesn't join the 'main cast' until the second novel) and that's it. Unless you're counting extremely minor characters like Egeanin in Book 2, which was probably a bit too close to Egwene for comfort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paradise Lost is an epic epic (?!) and it's suprising nobody's used it for inspiration before
Read Steven Brust's To Reign in Hell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Dragonlance Saga is something that grabs most readers when they were younger and remains a piece of nostalgia.
Oh, without a doubt. When I was a child, I read up to the end of the first Heroes trilogy and uncritically loved it all. Within the past two or so years, I've reread the Chronicles, the Legends, and the first Tales trilogy and a few others. They're pedestrian at best, but nostalgia does wonders.
I did however, truly enjoy, without the help of nostalgia, the two novels in the Heroes series about Galen by Michael Williams.
I think about 90% of the books mentioned in the thread so far have never been 'critically-acclaimed' :-) Tolkien, Martin, Erikson, Donaldson, Peake, Moorcock, Howard, Pratchett, LeGuin and Jordan (to a much lesser extent) have been, but not really anyone else. Unless you count DRAGON MAGAZINE's comparison of Feist to Tolkien in 1982, that is ;-)
I pretty much ignored the words "critically-acclaimed" in the original post because, honestly, I don't think there is a legitimately critically-acclaimed fantasy novel that I have read that I didn't enjoy. Out of the list provided I have read and loved: Tolkien, Peake, Moorcock, Howard and Le Guin. To steal from HD's list, Verne, Wells, Vance, Anderson and Vonnegut (who straddles the genre-lit/real-lit line depending on what book you're reading) are all awesome as well. And I'm not going to let something little like not having anything to say on the actual original topic stop me from posting!
EDIT: On ERB, I have only recently read the first three John Carter books, and while I did enjoy them greatly, I am going to be a pedant--I don't think these were crticially-acclaimed, either, except for as foundation points for the sci-fi to come.
Donaldson I didn't love, but I didn't hate and I found his books had some quite provocative ideas and storylines that have stuck in my head years after I've read them.
Honestly, I smoke a lot of pot and I tend to enjoy whatever I am reading--I therefore attempt to make an effort to make sure that I'm reading quality lit.
I think the Dragonlance Saga is something that grabs most readers when they were younger and remains a piece of nostalgia.Oh, without a doubt. When I was a child, I read up to the end of the first Heroes trilogy and uncritically loved it all. Within the past two or so years, I've reread the Chronicles, the Legends, and the first Tales trilogy and a few others. They're pedestrian at best, but nostalgia does wonders...
I've said it on a couple of threads on this site before, and I'll say it again. I first read the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy at the age of 25, and loved it. I think it gave me a strong urge to play D&D that lasted for years and years. I went on to read dozens of other DL novels, but I read the Chronicles three times, and Legends twice.
And as I theorized in one of those other threads, this may be an indication that my maturity level is that of a 13-year-old.
As for the "critically acclaimed" part, I don't think that necessarily means PROFESSIONAL critics. But when you talk to fantasy fans, so many of them say, for example, "The first several Wheel of Time books were excellent, although eventually the series got too stretched out." So no matter what professional reviews might have said, I would regard the early WoT books to be "critically acclaimed".
Critical acclaim is not something I consider when I enjoy something.
But speaking for myself, it can influence what books I choose to pick up.
Critical acclaim is not something I consider when I enjoy something.
Same here. I find I read a lot of things people consider crap.
I would have bet that you would rather consider crap what other people like to read ;-)
JK Rowling is the only one who rises my gorge, actually. I'm not that into LOTR, but I enjoy that others enjoy it.
I liked the Harry Potter books and I see no reason that they won't endure and endear like The Chronicles of Narnia or Pyrdain. The movies, eh, not so much.
But, mostly, if I'm reading it's regular novels (Graham Greene, Saul Bellow, John Irving, Tom Wolfe, Tom Robbins, Kurt Vonnegut, Dumas (pere et fils - The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo are more D&D to me than any TSR/WotC novel), and others), history, philosophy, political stuff, and other non-fiction.
No way I'm going to let myself be out-read by HD:
I read tons of fantasy books when I was a kid, but around when puberty hit I chucked it all in for real life: chicks, drugs, fighting the man, etc. I read a bit of philosophy, became a life-long history and politics reader and, by sixteen, I hit "real" literature.
For the next ten years, my reading diet in novels consisted more of Flaubert, Melville and Dostoyevsky than books about dragons and wizards but a chance re-encounter with D&D while working at a record store led be back into the insidious world of fantasy and science-fiction. Since then, I read about 50% books about knights and witches.
On to the list:
John Irving--Have been almost a lifelong fan. Haven't read all of his stuff, but everything I've read has had a serious emotional wallop. The only exception would be The Water-Method Man which I didn't much like but impressed upon the barely pubescent Doodlebug the dangers of venereal disease and the importance of keeping his genitalia clean. I think Irving would approve. Otherwise, books like The Hotel New Hampshire, The World According to Garp and A Prayer for Owen Meany all knocked my socks off. Until very recently, A Son of the Circus was the source for most of my knowledge about India.
Graham Greene--Have only read The Third Man which was lots of fun, but I have to admit that I only picked it up because I loved the movie.
Saul Bellow--Only ever read some book about an infantile man-child losing all his money on the stock market. It was good, but I doubt I'll ever read it again.
Kurt Vonnegut--At one point I had read every book this man ever wrote. Favorites include: too many to name. Almost every last one.
I am a huge Gore Vidal fan, both his novels and his essays.
EDIT: This is a list of swinging cocks: to even things up a bit, I'll also add that I adore everything I've read by Toni Morrison.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Surprised there's been no hate for The Chronicles of Amber.
Possibly because the Chronicles of Amber are awesome dipped in cool and deep fried in badass.
Surprised there's been no hate for The Chronicles of Amber.
Possibly because the Chronicles of Amber are awesome dipped in cool and deep fried in badass.
Exactly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eragon, Percy Jackson, Twilight and all Narnia books past Dawn Treader.
really? I rather liked the Magician's Nephew. Oh wait... did you read them in chronological order or order of writing?
I've never heard of it...
It became a favorite of mine after a friend wrangled me into a DRPG based on the series cosmology. There are 10 novellas and 5 or so short stories. The first 5 books are from one perspective and the 2nd 5 from another. I keep finding things every time I reread them. Zelazney was definitely going somewhere, but he died before writing anymore. At various points you learn new information that makes you question large sections of what happened before. How faithfully is the narrator interpreting/ retelling events, etc.
The Amber books... I loved them. The weak point is the actual plot, the books do not really have a traditional plot. Things HAPPEN to the protagonists and you often wonder why they do what they do. Still, the characters are neat, and there are quite a bit of subversive things in the writing which I like.
Yeah but if you look at the either protagonist. Especially Corwin, the come across as having been "out of the game" for a bit. They're mostly trying to figure out what the heck is going on themselves. Well that and fratricide...
Just flipping through I don't see Gene Wolfe mentioned here, but his work is made for this thread. "New Sun" is one of those polarizing books, sort of like "Finnegan's," that is either the best thing you have ever read or deadly dense, opaque, abstruse, and almost unreadable. I vacillate/oscillate.
I read a lot... over a thousand fantasy books, half of which are still up in my attic in case I feel like reading through them again later. I didn't think I'd have much to contribute to this thread since I like most of what I end up reading. I don't know if I am just particularly good at picking stories based on the back cover and the first page or so, or if I just have a high pain tolerance when it comes to bad literature.
I thought wizards first rule started off interesting and nose-dived after the third book. I read through all of them just to see what would happen but if I could get that time back I would spend it on something else.
I wracked my brain a bit and came up with Elf Quest; the graphic novel series was recommended by several people whose taste is generally similar to mine, but I did not particularly enjoy it. The reason I decided to post was that someone mentioned Guy Gavriel Kay; I simply could not finish The Summer Tree. I'm not sure what distinguished it from all the terrible books I've slogged through, but it stands alone as a book I don't plan to finish. He even meets the threshold for critically acclaimed according to the awards section of his Wikipedia article.
Yes, yes, keep it up guys!
Gene Wolfe and Guy Gavriel Key are just the sort of guys we should be bashing, not Robert Jordan and R.A. Salvatore.
Unfortunately, I haven't read the New Sun books or anything by Key, so I can't comment. I did read Wolfe's recent one, An Evil Guest and while I thought he was well-written, I couldn't get into the story.
I have a great coffee table book that I picked up cheap called Realms of Fantasy with huge illustrations for a wide selection of fantasy novels. It has served me well as one of my guides to the fantasy literature from before I was born and has many great essays.
It's split into 10 chapters:
Middle Earth (Tolkien, obviously)
Lost Worlds (Arthur Conan Doyle, James Hilton, etc.)
Gormenghast (which, I swear, I picked up before I found this book; I picked it up because I saw the tv miniseries!)
Mars (ERB, Leigh Brackett, Ray Bradbury, C.S. Lewis)
Hyborea (Howard)
Atlantis (Jane Gaskell, C.J. Cutliffe and, interestingly, The Silmarillion)
Melnibone and Elric's Multiverse
Earthsea
The Land (Donaldson who I did only read because of this book)
Urth (Vance, Wolfe, and William Hope Hodgson)
There was an accompanying volume called Realms of Science-Fiction but I foolishly passed that one up; when I went back the next day it was already gone!
Saul Bellow--Only ever read some book about an infantile man-child losing all his money on the stock market. It was good, but I doubt I'll ever read it again.
I think it was called Seize the Day.
I was never able to make it through Interview with the Vampire. It was just... the metaphors! The similes! The metaphors and similes filled the pages like a bunch of metaphors and similes. They were metaphors and similes. I reached the line that read something along the lines of "Her gown was draped over her like an angel's gown," and I just thought to myself "Alright, we're done."
I've also long had a love-hate relationship with HP Lovecraft's stuff. I feel like he had some brilliant ideas, and he did create a genre, but I think his execution was a little lackluster in many case. Too often the stuff in his stories is scary because he just tells you that it is, not because he presents it in a frightening fashion. More than that, he loved his own work too much by the time he got to the mythos, and I think it upstages a lot of his earlier (and in my opinions superior) stories.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was never able to make it through Interview with the Vampire. It was just... the metaphors! The similes! The metaphors and similes filled the pages like a bunch of metaphors and similes. They were metaphors and similes.
You better stay away from Homer then!
You better stay away from Homer then!
I threw my copy into the wine-dark Aegean.
Hee hee!
Some people who "don't like lovecraft" just haven't been exposed to the right stuff.
If you didn't enjoy whatever piece of his work you read, perhaps you'd give another chance to some of his shorter works like The Outpost or Pickman's Model...?
Lovecraft does sometimes resort to lines like:
There’s no use in my trying to tell you what they were like, because the awful, the blasphemous horror, and the unbelievable loathsomeness and moral foetor came from simple touches quite beyond the power of words to classify.
...but so do most horror writers, and quite a few in other genres. I remember Conrad pulling that trick a lot in Heart of Darkness.
My great sin as a fantasy gamer, fantasy reader, and general fantasy-genre enthusiast is that I don't like epic fantasy... at all.
Lord of the Rings, Sword of Shannara, Wheel of Time, Song of Ice and Fire, etc. I found poorly written*, predictable, cliched, long-winded, and generally so unenthralling I usually had difficulty finishing the first book and rarely went on to the second. LotR I can appreciate for its role in creating one of my favorite genres, and Tolkien's attention to detail and expertise in world-building is unparalleled. But his storytelling, not unlike most epic fantasy writers, leaves MUCH to be desired. For example, instead of taking us into the scene where Gandalf is imprisoned and subsequently escapes, we get a multi-page monologue some time after the fact- turning something that ought to be edge-of-your-seat exciting into a long speech to be endured.
*I can't make this statement without talking a bit about Game of Thrones. In my general experience as someone who doesn't like epic fantasy George R. R. Martin is the most talented writer in the field. I love his short fiction. The man is a master of words and frequently his turns of phrase are so exacting and elegant they'd turn even the best of writers green. But the genre itself doesn't conform well to anything approaching an engaging writing style. The massive cast of characters (most of whom, even in Martin's work, are just variations on archetypes because that's what people want out of epic fantasy), the copious backstory, the tremendous amount of time expended even relatively short events due to the number of actions and reactions that must be catalogued... it makes the story go very slowly and at times becomes difficult to follow, due to the level of detail.
So when I state I found them poorly written, I don't necessarily mean craft (though sometimes that is lacking as well), but that I did not find them written in a way that engages a reader or sucks them into the story. In contrast I'd use Jim Butcher's Dresden Files. The craft particularly in the first few books is painfully bad; the plots are exceedingly simple and the characters develop depth very slowly; but the way he tells a story picks you up and doesn't let you go until you turn the last page. He's also created a fascinating world, but reveals it in a way that is natural to the story, rather than seemingly inserted simply to show off his creation. Epic fantasy could use a little more of that. This is not to say Dresden Files is "better" than LotR or Song of Ice and Fire on some objective basis (that is a whole other conversation and I wouldn't take that stance anyways), but to highlight something that for me epic fantasy is simply lacking, namely engaging storytelling.
*I can't make this statement without talking a bit about Game of Thrones.
while your post is articulate and persuasive, i must comment on grrm. i read the first three books of "a song of ice and fire" about five years ago, and there are numerous characters, scenes, and lines of dialogue that are still fresh in my mind.
<br>i agree that his series is very challenging to follow due to the amount of information, characters, and plotlines, but, IMO, it's worth the effort.
Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever
Sympathy for the Devil: Aged as well as a nicotine-addicted, beach bunny
If if you have not read the series then I would not start.
Thirty years ago, my friends had nothing but praise for several fantasy series: Lord of the Rings, the Iron Tower, the Narnia books, and Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever.
At the time, I enjoyed the Iron Tower series, but did not have time to read the other three.
Life has been a whirlwind since then, and finally I have had a chance to go back and read some of these "classic" fantasy series.
The Iron Tower series holds up. The writing is tight with interesting characters and real growth in the protagonist.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Hobbit also have aged well. (The prose can be a little dense at times; today's writers do not typically spend three to four pages describing the flora in a random meadow en-route to a destination. But, the plot, the development of the characters, and the sweep of the saga make this one of the best fantasy trilogies of all time.)
Narnia is a fine series. It is different than Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings was really written for the adult community. The Narnia series was written for children. I look forward to reading Narnia to future grandchildren.
On to our White Gold wielding friend ... be warned, spoilers follow ...
The protagonist is a leper by the name of Thomas Covenant. He is a wretched, bitter creature who was deserted by his wife and son, and Covenant returns the scorn of the world wit two heaping scoops of indignation and rage.
There is really nothing ... nothing appealing about him.
Mr. Donaldson clearly did his research on leprosy, but I found it very, very difficult to relate to Thomas Covenant.
In the first book, Thomas takes a stroll into town for no particular reason. His phone bill is being paid for by someone else. It could have been for charitable reasons, but Mr. Covenant assumes in his bitter, paranoid mind that someone has paid for his bill, because society wants to shun him.
As a protest against the world, Mr. Covenant decides to stroll into town to pay his own bill. That will show them!
Er, um, ok, ..., Covenant meets an apparently homeless man who we find out in book three is actually God. God gives Covenant a contrived piece of advice. After a completely abortive attempt to pay the bill, Covenant gets hit by a police car, and, when he passes out, he is magically teleported to "the Land."
This where Donaldson does his best. The Land is a detailed, interesting fantasy world. (While I don't mind a little "purple prose," i.e., superfluous description, Donaldson does manage to pack 53 pages of action into 1100+ pages of description.)
Covenant finds himself as potentially the only hope to defeat the evil force at work in the world.
So, how does Covenant react to this?
He is a total jerk. He ends up raping a woman in the first three days he is there.
Covenant poops on his friends. He acts the coward, and Covenant rejects his fate -- hence the title, Unbeliever.
Through an unlikely series of happenstance and against Covenant's nature and choices, he does end up helping out the natives of the Land, but there is an outstanding prophecy that spells doom for "the Land," but hey, who cares?
There is some sub-plot about Covenant coming to the Land as a leper and being cured while in the Land.
Why would Covenant want to go back to the "real world"? Who knows.
In any event, Covenant returns to the real world.
This brings us to book two.
Covenant is feeling bitter and angry and decides to visit the nearest, large town just to stir things up.
He heads to a cocktail bar where ... dum - dum - dum ... his estranged wife is performing.
After Covenant is run out of town on a rail by the local sheriff, Covenant's wife calls him. While she is talking, Covenant is drawn back to the Land. He falls, hits his head, ... and, he petulantly wants to go back to the real world as soon as he arrives even though his inaction and self-absorbed ways leads to the death of several characters.
This book is more of the same, but it takes more than half of the book before Covenant finally decides to aid the Land.
This book introduces another character from the real world. In this case, he is a blind man.
The blind man does not want to return to blindness in the real world.
Over the course of the book, Covenant, who is deeply, deeply committed to his estranged wife and marriage as shown in the first several chapters, manages to fornicate and spawn a child.
Ummmm ... what?
OK, OK, so, just push the "suspend disbelief" button.
Anyhow, the Staff of Law is broken during the final events of the novel.
Enter book three ... more of the same.
In chapters 20 and 21, Covenant finally channels his rage into defeating the adversary and eventually the Illearth Stone.
In a deus ex machina, Covenant's property is saved, and he is the town hero, because at one point he randomly saves a run away girl.
Awful!!!
In service,
Rich
A Dance with Dragons (DwD): A Song of Ice and Fire: Book Five
Dancing in the Doldrums
I never liked the series, because GRRM played with your emotions from the first book, and he reveled in causing grief to good characters and rewarding evil.
Somewhere between book three and this book, five, the series has completely run out of steam.
George R.R. Martin writes excellent dialogue and sparkling prose, but his "terror tactic" writing (where he builds up a point of view character only to be cut-down in cold blood, e.g.,
(By the by, it is equally frustrating to watch a character die off only to find out that his double was killed. That is like reading a whole book and finding out that the entire story was just a dream.)
The plot is soooooo plodding in DwD that you have to wonder if the purpose of the glacial pace is only to wring out another novel from a cash cow. The filler pages go on and on and on about flora and fauna.
Our Dragon Queen decides to
What?!!? While character development and change are important in great stories, this particular change seemed to be a pre-mature birth.
It just makes the series drag on and on.
When Tyrion
Jon Snow ends up
And the god of the deep ends up being ... I can't even bear to say; it is sooooo silly.
Then, there is the Deus ex Machina and returned minor character at the end of the book who
What?!?!? Why?!?!?
Actually, more to the point, it is hard to even care.
In service,
Rich
http://zhalindor.com
Rich,
Spoiler tags are your friends.
type [spoiler
then close the bracket, finish telling everyone what happens in the book in question and spoil the ending, and then finish with
[/spoiler
And close that bracket as well.
R Scott Bakker's stuff. Some good ideas, but the books are just painful to read. Way too much philosophy pushed on the reader. Tried three times to read The Darkness That Comes Before, but gave up each time.
Steven Erikson. There's some good writing and ideas there, but really not worth wading through all the dry sawdust.
I have certainly come way too particular with fantasy writing. Martin, Abercrombie, Lynch and Rothfuss have set the bar really high. A long time fan of Robert E. Howard and Jack Vance, most of the current authors don't hold a candle. I found Mark Lawrence's Prince of Thorns enjoyable but not great.
That don't mean I won't try new authors. I found Caitlin R. Kiernan through the Swords and Dark Magic collection with the great story, The Sea Troll's Daughter. Always nice to find a story that resonates through all my exacting expectatons.
Rich,
Spoiler tags are your friends.
type [spoiler
then close the bracket, finish telling everyone what happens in the book in question and spoil the ending, and then finish with
[/spoiler
And close that bracket as well.
Done Sir!
Done Sir!
Awesome! Not only does it break up walls of text, it also spares poor cretins like me
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Anita Blake suffered basically the same derail as Cerebus. Hamilton's engagement disintegrated, and she took it out on this series of novels.
Thanks for reminding me of one of the great creative collapses of the early 1990s.
I remember sitting in a Newbury Street pizza shop eagerly checking out the new issue of "Reads" when I got to the infamous "male light/female void" essay. I think we got, tops, three pages of actual comics in Cerebus at the time, and when Sim drowned his comic in sexist swill, I had to bail. I just couldn't take it anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I threw my copy into the wine-dark Aegean.
lol
and I stayed up reading mine until dawn's rosy fingers claimed the sky.
|
Mr. Donaldson clearly did his research on leprosy, but I found it very, very difficult to relate to Thomas Covenant.
I believe Donaldson's father worked with lepers or was some kind of expert in the field. Stephen Donaldson grew up learning quite a bit about them and the impact it has on their lives. This is taken from memory, but I vaguely remember reading something about it on the cover of the first book.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gave up on Perdido Street Station after a few chapters. Sex with bug-girls just isn't my thing.
It takes Perdido St. Station about 100 pages to really get going. Once you get into the groove, though, it's a remarkable book. I concede that a lot of people don't have the patience for those first 100 pages, though.
I will never concede that Lin Carter and Sprague de Camp write better Conan (or are even better writers) than Robert E. Howard, though.
No way.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why Jack Vance is a favorite. I lent To Live Forever to my wife and she complained about spending as much time looking up words in the unabridged dictionary as she did actually reading the novel.
Then I imagine she'd LOVE "The Languages of Pao."
:( Big shameful reveal.....
I have never read LotR. I have tried twice through the years and can never seem to get out of the Shire.
I actually prefer Terry Brooks to Tolkien. I will agree that the Sword of Shannara is a little too similar to LotR from what I have seen/heard (movies, internet, books, etc) but it was the price of admission for me. I just like his style of storytelling over Tolkien's. Is this blasphemy? :(
As to GRRM, I can only say I fear for the future of Westeros. I think the HBO series should have started after the last book. I fear that GRRM will alter his writing style with the HBO show in mind and possibly change his style to better force fit a weekly tv show rather than how it might have naturally flowed.
Has anyone noticed this kind of change with his latest book?
Im not that far into the series atm, but it has delayed me from reading further for awhile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
:( Big shameful reveal.....
I have never read LotR. I have tried twice through the years and can never seem to get out of the Shire.I actually prefer Terry Brooks to Tolkien. I will agree that the Sword of Shannara is a little too similar to LotR from what I have seen/heard (movies, internet, books, etc) but it was the price of admission for me. I just like his style of storytelling over Tolkien's. Is this blasphemy? :(
Heh. You have a lot of company. Terry Brooks and many other authors imitate Tolkien, but because other authors have their own quirks, they appeal to many readers who seek fantasy in some other style.
In fact, when I read A Princess of Mars, I loved the premise, but detested Burroughs' writing style. Consequently, I got a bunch of Planet Stories books.
It takes Perdido St. Station about 100 pages to really get going. Once you get into the groove, though, it's a remarkable book.
i must disagree, mr. mona. what became the primary plotline didn't interest me nearly as much as the secondary plotline.
<br>plus, mieville overused "infinitesimal."
It takes Perdido St. Station about 100 pages to really get going. Once you get into the groove, though, it's a remarkable book.i must disagree, mr. mona. what became the primary plotline didn't interest me nearly as much as the secondary plotline.
<br>
plus, mieville overused "infinitesimal."
After reading Iron Council I say that Perdido St. Station is quite easy read. Iron Council is as dense as steel from which their train was made.
Then I imagine she'd LOVE "The Languages of Pao."
If you ever wondered why German mechanics seem so much better than French ones, study both languages and then re-read that book. Everything immediately becomes clear.
It takes Perdido St. Station about 100 pages to really get going. Once you get into the groove, though, it's a remarkable book.i must disagree, mr. mona. what became the primary plotline didn't interest me nearly as much as the secondary plotline.
<br>
plus, mieville overused "infinitesimal."
And if you've read the sequel - 'The Scar' - he overused "pugnacious" as well.