Dirt

[Dirt]

So...

What is everyone reading these days? I've never been one to read just one book at a time, so, recently I've decided to struggle through my first novel in Chinese; it's a kung fu novel which is considered light reading. I'm also reading Earl Emerson's the Rainy City, I love hard boiled detective novels.

[Dirt]

Sorry about the subject title. I screwed up.

[GMicek]

I'm in the middle of a few books at the moment. 'Gangs Of New York' is great. 'Memoirs Of A Geisha'(SP?) is suprisingly good. And 'Opening The Xbox' is pretty entertaining.

Sorry, not much in the way of details on each title, i'm pretty lazy.

[Bub, Andrew]

Blackhawk Down sent me on a Bowden binge. I just love his writing style... I ploughed through "Killing Pablo" and just dug up "Doctor Dealer" which is a harrowing true tale of a Dental student who started out dealing marijuana and, in the space of about 5 years, became the #1 Cocaine Kingpin in Philidelphia (while maintaining his Dental practice). It all comes out bad in the end, but the story is riveting. Now I'm about to begin Bowden's first book which is about the 1992 Philidelphia Eagles - a team I'm ambivalent toward, but I do like Football so that coupled with his prose sold me on the book.

Oh, I'm also re-reading Moore's "From Hell" (nothing like the mediocre movie) and "How to Write Attention Grabbing Query Letters" for, um, professional reasons.

[Murph]

I'm too shallow for any of that. Or maybe I'm just too into fantasy. Anyway, I'm pounding away through everything Raymond Feist ever wrote. Currently, I'm almost finished with The King's Buccaneer. He's pretty good.

And I'm looking forward to Terry Brooks's next book, too, which is due out in August, but I know I'm the only here that would say that, so...Carry on.

[Brad Grenz]

I picked up a bunch of turn of the century stuff while buying some Shakespeare for classes last term (12 plays over the last 9 months) at the used book store. I just finished Jules Verne's Master of the World, and I just started the Time Machine. I've also got some Sherlock Holmes, some more Verne and Wells and Dracula in the que. I've also started Walden, recently finished the Silmarillion and am in the middle of Sagan's Billions and Billions.

Brad Grenz

[Mark Asher]

I'm reading myself. I dug out a three-ring binder with some old stuff and I've been looking at it, remembering what was. How did I get from there to here? Guess it just happened.

Murph, the last book I read was a Feist book. Sorta hated it.

Before that Terry Goodkind's fantasies. Sort of hate those too, yet I was compelled to read them. He made me care about his stupid characters. What a rotten trick, because his books are romance novels with a fantasy twist.

Oh, I did manage to squeeze in Elmore Leonard's Hombre. That's the only good thing I've read lately. He's the best.

[Murph]

Which book, Mark? I really liked the first couple I read. I've been back and forth on the others since then.

[Mark Asher]

I think it was the second in the Riftwar saga, Magician's Master or something like that.

I just think he's an obvious, hammy Tolkien wannabe. And just for the record, I think Tolkien's something of a hack writer too -- fantastic imagination and a depth of scholarship that informs his work, but a dull prose stylist. You have to be smoking some Hobbit weed and be high on Middle Earth to give him a pass on his writing at the sentence and paragraph level.

I'm such a lazy reader nowadays I can read a Feist and get some enjoyment out of it because I turn the pages without thinking too much, but he's not a good writer. Anyway, I read one Feist book. That's it. Never again.

[Murph]

Magician: Master is best if you've read Magician: Apprentice first, but based on what you said about the former, it wouldn't have changed your mind much. Stylistically, they're pretty similar. I think he's losing his hold on me, too, because those first two were the two I've enjoyed the most, I think.

I'm curious, Mark: Is there any fantasy writer who isn't "an obvious, hammy Tolkien wannabe" in your opinion? I know almost everyone around here said the same thing about Brooks, and I think Feist and Brooks are substantially different, and both strike me as being different from Tolkein.

And I don't think Feist is half the writer Brooks is, either, though there's something about his stories that I haven't quite been able to put my finger on.

[Mark Asher]

"I'm curious, Mark: Is there any fantasy writer who isn't "an obvious, hammy Tolkien wannabe" in your opinion?"

Glen Cook's Black Company series.

George Martin's Game of Thrones series.

Stephen Brust's Taltos books.

Robert E. Howard's Conan stuff (predates Tolkien of course).

Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouser series.

These are vague in my mind after many years, but Andre Norton's Witch World series.

I also like urban fantasy, like the stuff Charles De Lint does, and Tim Powers and James Blaylock. In fact, I can't recommend Tim Powers enough for a rattling good read. Give The Anubis Gates and On Stranger Tides a chance.

[Murph]

Heh...I guess you put me in my place, didn't ya! :)

I'll look into those. I certainly wouldn't mind something different.

Thanks for the recommendations. I'll jot those down and give 'em a try.

[mtkafka]

Sheesh, Mark ripping Tolkien a new arsehole! Is it possible? Anyway, iirc Tolkien himself never intended LoTR to be as big as it was. He REALLY was just trying to extend a story he had written for his kids. So in a way, the expectation of prose mastery and chiseled dialogue with superb Shakesperean drama, its fantasy. In a way, the unintentional writing to no audience is sometimes the best... it speaks volumes. Tolien attracts because deep down there is something 'pure' in his trilogy. Billions of readers CANT be wrong... there MUST be something in it. Its been what, 50 years since its been published. He did something right, right?

Tolkien created the genre (unintentionally) for the post ww2 generation. And he is still carrying the torch (til maybe Rowling now?). Whether thats good or bad... who knows. I stopped reading fantasy since reading Cook and some Savatore stuff, actually I was more a sci fi reader anyway... being they are somewhat similar genres. My mind cant distinguish anymore whats good or bad in writing when it ocmes to paperback types.... its like Hollywood in publishers form. One big incestuous money machine.... yeehaw.... :roll:

Fantasy as a genre is so diluted it seems these days ... theres so many different subgenres now that I ONLY consider the Tolkien ripoffs becuase... at least I know what to expect. Wait I dont read much these days... so Im not entitled to rant!

Actually I have some copies of Murakami novels a college friend that happens to be a girl :wink: lended to me. Should be reading those. But I probably wont since I waste my time posting on pc gaming message boards and playing pc games!

etc

[Desslock]

>think Tolkien's something of a hack writer too -- fantastic imagination and a depth of scholarship that informs his work, but a dull prose stylist. You have to be smoking some Hobbit weed and be high on Middle Earth to give him a pass on his writing at the sentence and paragraph leve\

Wow, I strongly disagree, Mark. One of the reasons I love Tolkien so much is because he writes so damn well. It's really hard to accept the pulp fantasy hacks after reading Tolkien's beautiful writing. If only we could have more Oxford professors writing sci-fi/fantasy.

Stefan

[Jim Hoffman]

Enjoying "Kavalier and Clay" the moment. Been awhile since I read a book I couldn't put down. Stayed up til 3 am this morning reading! *yawn*

[Mark Asher]

"Wow, I strongly disagree, Mark. One of the reasons I love Tolkien so much is because he writes so damn well."

I have one thing to say to you -- Tom Bombadil.

I was probably a bit hard on Tolkien. He's graceful enough, but at a writerly level, there's not much interesting going on. There's no real insight in his writing -- he's just telling a story. And what's wrong with that? Nothing, really, but that puts him at the same level as all the other potboiler authors.

[Desslock]

>but at a writerly level, there's not much interesting going on. There's no real insight in his writing -- he's just telling a story. And what's wrong with that? Nothing, really, but that puts him at the same level as all the other potboiler authors.

I couldn't disagree more. I think he's far more interested in writing well than telling an interesting story. He's the anti-potboiler author. I find his writing so fucking beautiful at times that I can't believe it's in a fantasy novel. I think Tolkien writes as well as anyone can write.

[Ben Sones]

Different strokes, I guess. I read books because I want to read a story. For me, good book = good story, told well. If "all the writing does" is tell the story, then as far as I'm concerned, it's good writing. When writers divert their attention away from that goal and try to impress you with how clever they are, I get annoyed. I have little patience for that sort of nonesense, although I realize that many people seem to like it.

[Anonymous]

I have one thing to say to you -- Tom Bombadil.
Tom Bombadil:
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!

Hey! Come merry dol! derry dol! My darling!
Light goes the weather-wind and the feathered starling.
Down along under Hill, shining in the sunlight,
Waiting on the doorstep for the cold starlight,
There my pretty lady is, River-woman's daughter,
Slender as the willow-wand, clearer than the water.
Old Tom Bombadil water-lilies bringing
Comes hopping home again. Can you hear him singing?
Hey! Come merry dol! derry dol! and merry-o,
Goldberry, Goldberry, merry yellow berry-o!
Poor old Willow-man, you tuck your roots away!
Tom's in a hurry now. Evening will follow day.
Tom's going home home again water-lilies bringing.
Hey! come derry dol! Can you hear me singing?

Hop along, my little friends, up the Withywindle!

[Desslock]

> read books because I want to read a story. For me, good book = good story

Yeah, I think that's completely reasonable. I dunno though, I prefer other mediums for story-telling, like movies. Maybe that's just because I have less free time than I once did. These days if I'm reading (which is rarely) I'd rather read someone I thinks writes well, since good authors can really bring out the strengths of the medium, than pick books just based upon the subject matter or what I know of the plot. I tend to find books from good writers interesting regardless of the subject matter.

[Bub, Andrew]

Tolkien was a far better storyteller/mythologist than he ever was a writer. Actually he's much like Lovecraft, but in a completely different way.

Mark, Tom Bombadil is probably my favorite character in the trilogy. But what impressed me about him wasn't the scenes he was in. Tolkien, imo, was a TERRIBLE poet ("Sing hey for the bath is a noble thing...") I love him for the scene where Gandalf and Elrond explain why you can't give him the Ring. He's so utterly inhuman yet he capers and dances and sings badly. Scares Wights and chastises trees too.

Desslock, yes sometimes Tolkien's prose is beautiful. He's describes well and his prose is full of emotion. I love when Sam finds the coneys and stews them up with wild onions and such... I always get hungry reading that chapter (Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit). But you have to admit Tolkien falls flat on his face when he delves into character emotion (it's always Fortissimo) and he isn't so good at non-archetypal character motivation either. His characters are mythological, but not very (pardon the expression) human. He has this problem in all his writing, even "The Smith of Wotton Major".

Tolkien does achieve what he's trying to do though. Recreate a Scadanavian-style epic of his own devising. His prose is perfect for that.

[Mark Asher]

"When writers divert their attention away from that goal and try to impress you with how clever they are, I get annoyed. I have little patience for that sort of nonesense, although I realize that many people seem to like it."

Good writers don't do that.

I read for story too nowadays, but that doesn't mean a good storyteller can't also provide some insight into what it means to be human and even manage to teach me a few things, though the last thing I want is self-conscious didacticism in the books I read. Here's an author who wrote potboilers that managed to be a bit more:

"The house itself was not so much. It was smaller than Buckingham Palace, rather gray for California, and probably had fewer windows than the Chrysler Building. I sneaked over to the side entrance and pressed a bell and somewhere a set of chimes made a deep mellow sound like church bells. A man in a striped vest and gilt buttons opened the door, bowed, took my hat and was through for the day."

Raymond Chandler manages to write beautifully and get in some sly and funny social commentary on the excesses of the rich. Not only does Chandler spin a good tale, but his writing is just so much more interesting. I get the story I want, but I get a bonus with the topnotch writing that somehow makes me think a little without making my brain tired.

[Samuel Bass]

Enjoying "Kavalier and Clay" the moment.

A great book...a real leap forward for Chabon. I read the whole thing in about four sittings (admittedly, one of 'em was on a 14 hour flight). I gather it's being turned into a movie, with Chabon doing the script - here's hoping they don't screw it up.

[Desslock]

>Tolkien was a far better storyteller/mythologist than he ever was a writer

You guys are nuts. The end.

Bub - you're raising points related to how good a story-teller he is -- whether or not characters have sufficient emotion or motivation, and are therefore believable/interesting. I'm talking about whether he's a good writer -- something far more basic: the words he chooses, the manner in which sentences are structured, themes/events/descriptions are conveyed.

That shit is irrelevant if you're speed reading to pick off plot points in a story that you find interestiing -- but these days I just find if I'm going to read I'd rather read good writing than a less well written book even if the subject matter of the latter appeals to me more. Fortunately, with Tolkien, I don't have to make any compromises.

[Bub, Andrew]

I'm talking about whether he's a good writer -- something far more basic: the words he chooses, the manner in which sentences are structured, themes/events/descriptions are conveyed.

So in your world this is all writing is? Character/plot development doesn't matter? Ah me!

Still, even using your nuts and bolts definition Tolkien was overly verbose most of the time. He was stuffy and over-serious as well. Yet, I do like his writing, but I have no illusions that I'm reading *great writing* when I read it. It's fun, brilliant even, but it isn't genius beyond the thematic/mythological/historical/linguistic angle. Tolkien is a STENTORIAN writer! In other words, the only note Tolkien is capable of hitting is a high C. I like a good sustained high C, but there's an awful lot of notes he misses or hits flat. Dig?


That shit is irrelevant if you're speed reading to pick off plot points in a story that you find interestiing

What are you talking about? Are you doing this or are you saying we "crazy people" are doing this? I know I'm not doing this, I never speed read. I savor each word Tolkien wrote even if I think the writing is overdone. There's a lot of good words mixed in with the bad and the whole is a lot of fun. LOTR will always rank amoung my favorite books. But I can love it while seeing it's faults clearly.


-- but these days I just find if I'm going to read I'd rather read good writing than a less well written book even if the subject matter of the latter appeals to me more. Fortunately, with Tolkien, I don't have to make any compromises.

I agree with this. That's why I'm reading a book about the Philidelphia Eagles right now. I'm reading it because Mark Bowden wrote it and I likes me that Mark Bowden guy.

[Desslock]

> But I can love it while seeing it's faults clearly

Yeah, I can see that writing quality is very important to you.

>fun, brilliant even, but it isn't genius beyond the thematic/mythological/historical/linguistic angle

That's the most ridiculous, brilliant even, statement you've made on these boards.

Stefan

[mtkafka]

There;'s something about Tolkien's prosey style thats hard to describe. Reading various passages of his LOTR from time to time, its both a 19th century common omniscient third person perspective tightly written style. But interspersed is a biblical feel. There's a feeling of plain biblical diction in LoTR that gives a more powerful aura. Its not wordy like DH Lawrence desrcibing nature, or the meanderings of the natural state of characters in Tolstoy... Tolkien's style is so matter of fact in its english that it makes it very easy to read yet still retains a power. I take Tolkien did NOT want to write a wordy novel... he deliberately didn't want to be a linguistic master in LoTR. And I think thats where his mastery is, Middle Earth and its characters appear natural and real. He makes a dense world appear believably rich with Gaelic/Noridc influences but at the same time keeping a biblical tone underneath. Its a book of noble characters that doesnt come off cheap, thats especially hard when everyhing around his time was ironic and self absorbed apathy.

Anyway, I'm not about to say that Tolkien is the best prose style writer ever, but for the subject of his book, a medieval type epic from the 20th century, its the best I've seen. I'm sure you'd find alot of fantasy writers to agree (or many writers in general).

etc

[mtkafka]

>Yet, I do like his writing, but I have no illusions that I'm reading *great writing* when I read it.

I'm wondering what you do consider *great writing* Bub.

etc

[Alan Au]

writing = art = subjective

There's no accounting for taste. That said. I appreciate Tolkien, but I agree that it isn't great writing for the simple reason that I preferred to skip large sections (in particular, the songs) while reading. As for great writing?

/me looks through bookshelf to see what's on it... damn! mostly technical books with some Douglas Adams thrown in for good measure

- Alan

[Tom Chick]

That's the most ridiculous, brilliant even, statement you've made on these boards.

I thought this one was also notable:

"There's a lot of good words mixed in with the bad and the whole is a lot of fun."

-Tom

[mtkafka]

There's a lot of good with Gandalf and bad with Sauron. They make it fun! :lol:

etc

[Jason Cross]

I have a hard time getting into books. Part of the problem is that I read quite slowly. I know you're not supposed to actually sound out the text in your head, but I typically do. Every bit of dialogue has its own voice in my head, and I visualize everything. I know a lot of people who tear through books and SWEAR to me that they do that, too. But if I ask them what so-and-so sounds like, they can't tell me. Or if I ask them to describe in detail what a place looks like, they can only give me the broad strokes that stood out as they blazed down the page.

Of course, as long as they're enjoying what they read, more power to 'em. I'm just explaining why I don't read novels.

I tried reading LOTR again, and though it sounds like a strange complaint for a BOOK, there's just too much exposition. Does that make any sense? That, and the delcarative voice wears me out. I didn't get any further in the series than I did the first time I tried to read it, many years ago.

I did, however, absolutely DEVOUR the Harry Potter books. Kept me up way past my bedtime for several weeks as I read all four back to back. Fantastic characters, great stories, and great writing. I don't care if people think they're kids books. They've got more personality and are more gripping than all the other books that people keep recommending to me. And they're plenty sophisticated - they just don't get all flowery and "writerly" about it.

[James Gutierrez]

Just a few thoughts:

Gotta side with Mark, Bub, et al. as far as Tolkien goes. They've covered my own objections pretty well (I particularly liked your "high C" analogy, Bub), so I'll just add this question: If Tolkien is such a great writer, how come he can't write any realistic female characters? He creates this huge, intricately detailed world, yet he can't seem to imagine a woman more complex than the standard fairy tale princess or mother-goddess.

Harry Potter: Agreed, good stuff. If you want storytelling without all the 'writerly' stuff then this is as good as anything else out there.

I, for one, enjoy the writerly stuff. A book doesn't have to be just a narrative, the sensory experience of seeing the words on the page and hearing them in your head can be a completely separate pleasure unto itself. I realize that it's borderline pompous to invoke his name, but for me the best example of this is Pynchon. I can go for pages at a time without the faintest clue as to what he's talking about, but his language and the rhythm of his syntax is just beautiful. Plus, he's written what I consider to be the best opening lines of any novel:

"A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now."

To counterbalance that, and hopefully dispel the notion of literary pretentiousness on my part, a close second for me is Stephen King's:

"The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."

I heartily second the Steven Brust recommendation. The world of Taltos is complex and detailed without relying on any of the Tolkienesque conventions. I also remember enjoying Zelazny's "Amber" series, but it was a long time ago. For an original SF book, I'd recommend "Gun, With Occasional Music" by Jonathan Lethem. "Motherless Brooklyn" is also good, although not SF or fantasy.

As far as what I've read recently, I just finished "Me Talk Pretty One Day" by David Sedaris, which is very funny. A few weeks ago I read "Chimera" by John Barth. If you want an exploration of mythic tradition that's at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Tolkien, then definitely give it a shot. On one level, I just enjoyed it as a big "Fuck You" to George Lucas and his Cult of Campbell. I also read "Survivor" by Palahniuk a while back. I thought I'd give him another shot after "Fight Club", but I really just find him tiresome. Finally, anyone who loves reading should check out "Six Walks in the Fictional Woods" by Umberto Eco. Unlike everything else of his, it's short and a relatively easy read. It's actually a collection of six of his lectures on the structure and craft of novels; a bit like reading a good book on cinematography for a film buff.

[mtkafka]

> If Tolkien is such a great writer, how come he can't write any realistic female characters?

That could be said against a TON of great writers, all the way back to the Bible! And yeah, I've read a few Umberto Eco, dotn see much female realism there. Great writing sometimes doesnt even have to have ANY realistic characters, male or female... look at Moby Dick or Red Badge of Courage!

BTW I am of the opinion that Pynchon and his Crying lot of stupidity are just merely college exercises in wanting to be 'literary'. I'd rather read a Vonnegut or PK Dick or Delillo than Pynchon. He is SO overrated.

etc

[Murph]

Don't hold back, there, buddy...Tell us how you really feel!

[James Gutierrez]

> If Tolkien is such a great writer, how come he can't write any realistic female characters?

That could be said against a TON of great writers, all the way back to the Bible! And yeah, I've read a few Umberto Eco, dotn see much female realism there. Great writing sometimes doesnt even have to have ANY realistic characters, male or female... look at Moby Dick or Red Badge of Courage!

BTW I am of the opinion that Pynchon and his Crying lot of stupidity are just merely college exercises in wanting to be 'literary'. I'd rather read a Vonnegut or PK Dick or Delillo than Pynchon. He is SO overrated.

etc

Well, I was actually hoping for the more Tolkien-savvy here to point out where I was wrong rather than just "Other writers do it too", but fair enough. So forget about realism, I'd settle for just 'interesting'. At least, if you're going to have a love story, give me some reason to believe that there's some depth and passion to the relationship rather than it just being a plot device so you can introduce a tragic sacrifice. I'm not sure what exactly you had in mind with Eco, but in my opinion his male-female relationships are much more emotionally compelling than Tolkien's laundry-list women: Shimmering hair - check. Starlight in the eyes - check. Flawless skin - check.

Of course, you can excuse all of this by pointing out that Tolkien's style is consistent with the sources he was drawing from and thus it was presumably intentional on his part to reproduce this style. I'll buy that, but a talent for mimicry doesn't really convince me of his greatness as a writer. In fact, it reminds me more of the college exercises you associate with Pynchon. Assignment: Write an original story in the style of Northern European mythology.

Besides, you still have to explain away all of the wretched poetry.

As far as Pynchon goes, you can of course dislike whatever you want to, but your accusation is simply wrong. When you accuse his style of being an attempt to be literary you are assuming that dense prose, obscure allusions, and complex structure are more literary than other styles. You may believe that, but I don't and Pynchon certainly doesn't. There are allusions to this throughout his work, including a direct and very explicit reference in V where the artist Slab berates a woman trying to analyze the symbolism in one of his paintings, calling it "phony intellectualism, like doing the Sunday crossword". His style is simply that: an aesthetic style. It does serve a purpose, mirroring his characters' attempts to unravel layers of conspiracy and coincidence in search of meaning or a truth that may or may not exist. But saying that it's an attempt to be more 'literary' is like saying that Cubism is an attempt to be more 'artistic'. If anything, it's a bit of an elaborate joke on the reader.

[Bub, Andrew]

"He creates this huge, intricately detailed world, yet he can't seem to imagine a woman more complex than the standard fairy tale princess or mother-goddess."

I think the real reason for this isn't that he can't. It's just that he didn't. He didn't make a woman part of the Nine (The Nine, actually only maybe 5 out of the 9, are the only completely drawn characters in the series.) No women in that group, that's not that surprising considering the era he wrote in.

Tolkien's women, just like his men, are very true to Scandanavian/Northern European myth/legend, the Valkyrie, so that's just another part of his high (C) style. See Beowulf (Tolkien was a leading authority on Beowulf), The Ring Cycle, etc., What's weird is where he diverged from that style. Eowyn may be shallow but her story arc is that of a feminist creation if there ever was one. But Tolkien was also an idealistic romantic. Again, if there's love in Middle Earth it can only be TRUE LOVE. I think he was that way in life as well. There are lots of stories about what he wrote on his wife's gravestone and why he wrote it (I can't remember exactly but it was Elvish and about Arwen perhaps Desslock knows).

I've read arguments that women get short shrift in Tolkien and I don't necessarily agree. If you're not a main character in LOTR, then Tolkien pretty much draws you as a (usually noble) charicature. Galadrial is just as shallow as Elrond, really. Eomer isn't any better drawn than Eowyn. So it isn't that he couldn't, just that he didn't.

[Anonymous]

I don't want to get into a rating of Tolkien's writing skills -- as no matter what I think, the man's been sort of a heroic for me since childhood -- but I will say that I can't read LOTR any more. I picked up a new set of the books after seeing Fellowship and promptly got bogged down. Took me two weeks to finish Fellowship, and at that point I scrapped the whole idea and moved on to (I think) Michael Chabon's Kavalier and Clay.

As much as I hate to say it, I think LOTR is one of those experiences that you only really appreciate (and really get) if you first read it as a kid. Once you get older, it becomes harder to get over some of the plot flaws, the unengaging characters, and so on. Tolkien seems to have had a fascinating personality, and that shows through in the text every so often, but his work in general is a little sterile and awkward. And I don't buy the "heroic saga" stuff at all; ancient heroes were a hell of a lot more vibrant than the likes of Frodo and Gandalf.

Anyhow, I'd put Tolkien in with Lovecraft as two writers that I stopped being able to truly enjoy once I got beyond my early 20s. Hate that that's the case -- I don't know how many times in the past few years I've gotten a Cthulhu jones, dug out an old collection of Lovecraft stories and then fallen asleep before I reached my first "Ia! Ia! Cthulhu ftagn!"

Brett

[Anonymous]

BTW, speaking of Kavalier and Clay, did everyone hear that a comic featuring The Escapist is coming this fall? Not sure who the published is at the moment, but I think that it's DC.

[mtkafka]

I guess so if thats what you say. But I still think Mr Pynchon is horsehit.

And all you naysayers can't see Twio Towers this xmas because you're friggn eviul for how dare you be ripping into Tolkien the man?!?

etc

[Tim]

I read The Hobbit & LOTR trilogy this year and enjoyed them. But I never read them as a kid. Maybe re-reading as an adult loses something.

I haven't read much fiction in the last 10 years but recently started A Confederacy of Dunces after it found its way into the basement bathroom during a recent reorg of all our stuff. I'm almost done and have liked it a lot.

I'm also reading Lovecraft stories on a web site - http://www.ech-pi-el.com/lovecraft/works/index.htm. I had never read any of those before this year. I've gotten kind of disappointed because it seems that I read all the ones I really liked early on, but I will probably read them all eventually. There was one long one I just gave up on, some guy venturing into forbidden dream worlds with the aid of an army of cats. I had some weird dreams soon after I started reading them. At the same time I was reading a chapter from the Narnia series to my sons every night at bedtime. It made for some very (unspeakably?) strange connections.

[Ben Sones]

You didn't like Dreamquest of Unknown Kadath? Man, that's my favorite Lovecraft story. All of the "Dream Cycle" stories are good, but that one is the best.

[Tim]

Yup, that's the one. It just seemed to meander arbitrarily, like listening to someone else describe a dream in great detail. Which I suppose is not too far from what it and many other Lovecraft stories really are. But I just had no interest in the quest, the narrator, or any of the creatures or worlds he encountered. And I saw little connection between the various 'episodes'.

I only got about a third of the way through it, maybe I'll give it another chance.

[Toddy]

I never got into any of the Dream-Quest stories. Even as a teen, I stopped when Lovecraft got too far removed from the core Cthulhu mythos stuff. Anyone have any recommendations for modern Cthulhu writers? Ramsey Campbell's done some good Cthulhu stories, but he's the only one I'm aware of. Well, aside from Brian Lumley. Ugh.

[Doug Erickson]

Clive Barker, when he isn't causing editors to retire early like he did with "Cold Heart Canyon", writes some damn good Lovecraftian horror, albeit with much stronger characterizations. The two Books of the Art he's released - The Great and Secret Show and Everville - take a lot from Lovecraft in terms of mythos-building. Weaveworld is another strong entry in this category. Many of his short stories, across his Books of Blood collections, are a must-read for Lovecraft fans - he's much more subtle in the use of his "source" material than, say, King.

[Tyjenks]

Doug,

I read Weaveworld and the 2 Imajica books. I enjoyed Weaveworld the most, but feel Barker often bogs me down in being overly descriptive. I have the scene painted in my head and he continues. It is almost as if he wants to make absolutely sure we see what is in his head and for me to check my thoughts at the door. Maybe that's just me though.

I willl go back to him if folks can point me to his better books. I assume you include those you mentioned in that group.

I love King because I think he simply tells a good story and keeps me flipping pages. I keep meaning to read his book on writing, but have not had a chance. I came out of my teen fantasy days into Eyes of the Dragon and then almost exclusively read KIng for several years. Even though his latest Dark Tower book seemed to be more of a love story, I thought it was wonderful. The Stand and the Talisman were also superb.

I recently reread the 1st Dragonlance trilogy simply because I have fond memories of those books from my younger days.

I am reading Stephen Donaldson's first Chronicles of Thomas Covenant trilogy. What a wonderful inventive world he created! I am thoroughly enjoying it even if I get pissed when he stumps me with a word or two he pulls out of his posterior and I must go for the old dictionary.

I have the second trilogy, but think I will take a break with either George R.R. Martin or Neil Gaiman. Maybe back to Clive.

Any suggestions?

[Doug Erickson]

I dunno how much our tastes overlap, since I can't stand King. Dark Tower aside, his horror novels feel really trite and gimmicky, with the same damn narrative devices used over and over ad nauseum. If I have to see the lyrics of another classic rock song, I'll choke myself.

I don't think Barker is that expository; I've always that that he was a bit too sparing at times, especially considering the oddities and sights his vast imagination dredges up. He's definitely not as prolix as Tolkien, whose "verdant fields of emerald-hued green grass" style redundancy makes him a wearisome read all too often.

I didn't like Imajica, though. It was ridiculously disjointed, and rambled on far more often than the scope of the source material allowed. I thought King/Straub's effort with "The Talisman" was a much better "conjunction of worlds" fantasy effort, oddly enough. Barker's own "Books of the Art" were quite a bit better, as was the more textured and subtle "Galilee".

If you like Donaldson, check out the "Mordant's Need" pair of books, which are much more cohesive and less verbose than the TC Chronicles. They also feature quite a bit less angst. "The Gap" series is a decent read if only for his experiments in narrative and allegory; the angst, however, is poured on thick, and it proudly features some of the most detestable characters in hard science fiction.

Anything by Robin Hobb is good, and GRR Martin's stuff is great pulp fantasy fun, with loads of political strife, battles, and memorable characters. I also enjoy Guy Gavriel Kay's "Sarantium" series, and if you absolutely hate exposition and love action, Steven Erikson's (no relation, sadly) "Malazan Book of the Fallen" (Britain only) series is a great time.

Hope this helps!

[Gordon Berg]

Go read Terry Pratchet.

All of you.

Go on, shoo!

[Thierry Nguyen]

Hey Mark,

Have you read Tim Powers' Declare? I'm going through it, and I actually like it quite a bit, but I've read grumbly reviews online, saying that Declare is the one where he starts "losing it."

Then again, since I like it so far, if Declare really is substandard compared to his other books, then stuff like Anubis Gates and whatfor will simply BLOW MY MIND INTO TINY SHRIVELY BITS!!!111

[Gordon Berg]

Then again, since I like it so far, if Declare really is substandard compared to his other books, then stuff like Anubis Gates and whatfor will simply BLOW MY MIND INTO TINY SHRIVELY BITS!!!111

My wife is currently reading Anubis Gates; bought it for her based on this board's recommendation, but I haven't read it yet myself. The thing is, she's been reading it for months now (it's her bedtime book). But she's started it over again something like six different times because she forgets what's happened if she goes too long between reading sessions. Granted, that can be true of a lot of books, but she says it can be "complicated."

Anyway, given how she's a super reading freak, it kind of scares me to imagine what one of his books is like where he "loses" it.

[Mark Asher]

I have not read Declare. Is it his latest? I'm not hooked into any book scene stuff so I just find stuff on the shelves, and I visit used bookstores a lot so I don't see the newer stuff all that much.

As Gordon's wife has found out, the Anubis Gates has a complicated plot, but I don't think it's that complicated. It's one of those books that when you finish it you say, "Damn that was neat how he tied all those different plot threads together!" It sounds like Declare is even more complicated, however.

Earthquake Weather is his most difficult novel that I've read. It draws upon two previous books, Last Call and Expiration Date, both of which I'd recommend as fun reads. Earthquake Weather isn't as good, and you probably shouldn't even consider it without reading the first two.

[Tyjenks]

I didn't like Imajica, though. It was ridiculously disjointed, and rambled on far more often than the scope of the source material allowed.

I guess that is what bothered me moreso than his exposition.

King has had several mediocre books, but I keep being called back when he writes a new one. Or maybe it is because it is the only gift people can feel safe in buying me since all my relatives know of my King collection.

Thanks for the other pointers, too. I am adding them to my list for my next trip to the used bookstore.

[Tyjenks]

Go read Terry Pratchet.

All of you.

Go on, shoo!

He is on my list, too. Where to start, though?

[Anders Hallin]

He is on my list, too. Where to start, though?

I don't know if they're available in the US, but there are four collections of three books each in hardcover. The Witches Trilogy, The Watch Trilogy, Death Trilogy and Gods Trilogy I think. Oh, there might also be a Rincewind Trilogy. I'd do Witches and Watch first (flip a coin).

[Dirt]

I've always enjoyed Michael Moorcock. It is what it is and many of the stories (the Multiverse idea aside) aren't meant to have meaning.

[Brian Rucker]

I'm starting to read, again, The Three Kingdoms translation by Moss Roberts. Every time I get hooked on a new Romance themed game I want to finish the four volume set, not yet done, but I have to start from the beginning because I forget who all the minor characters are and who's done what to whom. I also picked up the 10 volume Asiapac graphic novel while at the Silk Road exhibit in DC (it was in a Smithsonian gift store of all places) but, while it goes by quicker, it glosses over almost all the important nuances the Robert's translation catches.

Of course, my attention span will probably fail me before I finish it, again, but it really is a great read and blows away Mallory's Arthur and gives MacBeth a good run for the money. Excellent characters and situations but more importantly real insight into tactics and politics - Sun Tzu turned into an ongoing narrative with a cast of thousands.

As a result of a recent desire to get back into Steel Panthers: World at War megacampaigns and the Panzer Elite Gold Edition, I've just received Von Mellenthin's Panzer Battles and Guderian's Achtung Panzer! as a bundled set from Amazon.

Non game related reading? Very little in the form of fiction lately.

[Gordon Berg]

He is on my list, too. Where to start, though?

I don't know if they're available in the US, but there are four collections of three books each in hardcover. The Witches Trilogy, The Watch Trilogy, Death Trilogy and Gods Trilogy I think. Oh, there might also be a Rincewind Trilogy. I'd do Witches and Watch first (flip a coin).

Although he does have his series that revolve around the witches and the guards and Rincewind, etc., each book often touches on the other characters from other stories, so it's gotten to the point where each book further evolves the canon for the entire Discworld Universe. To really enjoy everyone, at some point you have to read the early books. They aren't as captivating or as well written as his later stuff, but they sure add to the appreciation factor for the various recurring characters. So yes, starting with either the Witches or the Watch makes for some good starting points. Personally, I had started with the Witches (be sure to catch the Witch short story in the Legends collection as well if you start there) and now find myself filling in the gaps.

Pratchett is currently the best selling author in U.K. His recent books have been incredible.

[Anonymous]

I just bought a Tim Powers book, Drawing of the Dark, based on Mark's recommendation here. So if it sucks I blame you personally Mark. :)
I also bought a James Blaylock book for the same reason.

FINALLY finishing Cryptonomicon after attempting for months to plow through it (limited reading time--wife/kid--see other thread), and boy is this a good read. I'm not sure if the story's gonna end up all hanging together, but the writing is so funny and sharp, I think I actually don't care. I don't remember Stephenson being this laugh-out-loud funny in Snow Crash, but he really has it together on this book.

The guy at the dorky bookstore ("A Change of Hobbit") where I bought the Powers/Blaylock books was all over Powers' "Declare". Fantasy meets LeCarre is how he described it, which sounds tas-tee to me.

Jeff

[Tyjenks]

I'd do Witches and Watch first (flip a coin).


To really enjoy everyone, at some point you have to read the early books. They aren't as captivating or as well written as his later stuff, but they sure add to the appreciation factor for the various recurring characters. So yes, starting with either the Witches or the Watch makes for some good starting points.

Thank you both.

And yes, Gordon, I would much prefer to start at the beginning. I enjoy building the little worlds in my head as the author did when he was starting out. That is precisely what brought on my intitial question about Pratchett. There so much on Amazon.com, but precious little on the shelves in some of the stores here in Birmingham.

[Bub, Andrew]

I'm reading "Wonder Boys" by Chabon. I want to thank Brett for the recommendation. I liked the movie but the book is just incredible, it almost makes me want to check out "Kavalier and Klay" again (I wasn't really a fan of that one).

"Undressing her was an act of recklessness, a kind of vandalism, like releasing a zoo full of animals, or blowing up a dam."

[Sparky]

The guy at the dorky bookstore ("A Change of Hobbit") where I bought the Powers/Blaylock books


I have driven by this place numerous times, but have never been able to mentally get past the godawful dorky name and actually go IN...so I go to Dark Carnival instead. But now I can drive by and say "Oh, isn't that a godawful dorky name? Yeah, Jeff Green shops there".

[Mark Asher]

"I just bought a Tim Powers book, Drawing of the Dark, based on Mark's recommendation here. So if it sucks I blame you personally Mark.
I also bought a James Blaylock book for the same reason."

Haven't read that Powers book, but it's about beer, so it must be good.

Which Blaylock did you get?

[Chris]

I finished Declare a few months ago, even posted on the old boards about it. It was real good at first, then began to taper off to just ok at the end. The thing with Powers is he's either really good in the telling of his story, or it gets really muddled. He always has fascinating ideas, he just doesn't always do a great job at writing the stories that revolves around them. When he is at his best he can take a bunch of disparate elements and weave them into a story so they all feel natural.

Jeff,

Drawing of the Dark was good, though I don't think anything comes close to Anubis Gates or On Stranger Tides.
As for Pratchet, he's hit or miss also. I think the books revolving around the Watch are the best, I particularly enjoyed Guards, Guards.

[Toddy]

Just checked out Amazon for The Anubis Gates. Looks pretty interesting, so I think I'll give it a shot. Anyone here read any Connie Willis? Her stuff's a little up and down overall, but Doomsday Book and the sort-of sequel To Say Nothing of the Dog are fantastic from start to finish. Time travel stories as well, involving history students from the future who visit the past. Very human for sci-fi, which I find rare. And often really funny, especially the latter. For the lazy...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553562738/qid=1026182962/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-1635695-1789423

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553575384/ref=pd_sim_books/103-1635695-1789423

[Anonymous]

Sparky said:


I have driven by this place numerous times, but have never been able to mentally get past the godawful dorky name and actually go IN...so I go to Dark Carnival instead. But now I can drive by and say "Oh, isn't that a godawful dorky name? Yeah, Jeff Green shops there".

LOL. Yeah, see, it has "street cred" now that you know I shop there. Doh. I love Dark Carnival. That place RAWKS. But Change of Hobbit is across the street from my favorite comic book store, and therefore I can kill two dorky impulses with one (elf)stone.

Change of Hobbit has a good selection, but you gotta watch out for the overly enthusiastic clerk inside, who's kind of a more amiable version of Comic Book Guy. He knows everything, he pounces on you the second you enter, and will keep shoving books at you whether you care or not. The day I bought the Powers book, as soon as I walked in he asked if I needed help. I said "I'm fine," and he immediately replied, "AH HA! The independent sort! Well well!" and then he kept hounding me anyway until I bought what he suggested.

Yeah, Mark, Drawing of the Dark is about beer. How could I not buy it? I actually went in looking for Anubis Gates, but they were out of it. Change of Hobbit Guy said that Drawing of the Dark was where you want to start anyway, if you want to experience, chronologically, the essential Powers oeuvre.

And the Blaylock book is All the Bells On Earth--the only one they had. Don't know anything about it other than if I didn't buy it, Change of Hobbit Guy was going to berate me.

[Mark Asher]

"Change of Hobbit Guy said that Drawing of the Dark was where you want to start anyway, if you want to experience, chronologically, the essential Powers oeuvre."

Ha ha -- he does sound like the Comic Book Store Guy.

Personally, if you want to do Powers chronologically, go for it, but I'd skip Dinner At Deviant's Palace. It's not bad, but it seems more like a generic sci-fi book than everything else I've read by Powers. Anubis Gates and On Stranger Tides are the two best, followed by Last Call and the one with the ghost of Edison. He also has a book about Byron and the other 19th century Romantic Poets that mixes in demons and vampires or something like that. Haven't read that one either.

"And the Blaylock book is All the Bells On Earth--the only one they had. Don't know anything about it other than if I didn't buy it, Change of Hobbit Guy was going to berate me."

Well, this is one I haven't gotten around to yet either, so I can't vouch for it. The Last Coin and The Paper Grail are the two I've read and both are very good. He also wrote a very Tolkien-esque fantasy series with elves and dwarves and giants and magical quests, etc. I started one and thought it was ok -- certainly well-written -- but after reading his later urban fantasies, I was disappointed.

Blaylock and Powers are buddies, btw, and there's a shared character they have cited in their work. He's a 19th century poet they both quote, William Ashbless. He's a fictional author they created but they quote him convincingly enough that they fooled a lot of people -- probably the facade was aided in that they both quoted him. They never let on until one day one of them was talking with a fan who said she had spent the entire day in a university library trying to find the works of William Ashbless. They felt bad that someone wasted an entire day in a wild goose chase so they fessed up at that point.

Just a bit of trivia that will never, ever be an answer on a game show.

[William Harms]

Change of Hobbit has a good selection, but you gotta watch out for the overly enthusiastic clerk inside, who's kind of a more amiable version of Comic Book Guy.

That guy is the reason I don't shop there. He went off on me one time when I paid with a credit card: "You're costing me money", "I lose 5% when you pay with a card", that kind of thing. And no, he wasn't joking around.

Dark Carnival, on the other hand, rocks. I love that store.

[Dean]

I second the reccomendation for Connie Willis. She's my new favorite author. Passage cemented it for me, because it's science fiction, but it's much more like real science being done today than gee whiz laser guns and whatnot. Willis is master (mistress?) of the frazzled, overworked, not-enough-time-in-the-day scientist. Her characters are constantly being pulled in eighteen different directions by all sorts of things, and they always resent these distractions. At some point one of the distractions provides the key to the problem that's vexing them. I like to think she writes novels about scientists, rather than science fiction.

I've been cruising through some of her earlier work, Lincoln's Dreams is about a researcher for a Civil War novelist. Strangely enough, I then stumbled on the works of Howard Bahr, whose novel The Black Flower has a plot that is strangely like the one Willis' fictional author is working on. The Black Flower led me to Bahr's second novel, The Year of Jubilo, both of which are pretty good, Faulkneresque yarns. I think The Black Flower takes place over the course of two days or so, but he circles around events and characters, allowing us to see things from odd angles and retells other things. There's even a bit of adventure and romance, yet they feel more writerly than your average historical novel.

Then I just said, "Fuck it, it's summer," and picked up the fourth Jordan WoT tome, and I'm now halfway through R.A. Salvatore's Icewind Dale trilogy. I'm not as impressed with the Icewind Dale stuff as most people. It seems pretty standard DnD fare, and I was hoping for better.

I've also been working my way through David Drake's fantasy series, which doesn't seem to have an impressive name for the entire series (isn't that standard now?) Lord of the Isles, Queen of Demons, and on deck is Servant of the Dragon all seem fairly well crafted, and not condemned to the neverending story trap. Anyone else read Drake's stuff? It doesn't seem as popular as some of the other gigantic series, but it has a nice magic system, and a good world mythos.

After that, I'm buckling down and tackling the second volume of Shelby Foote's Civil War history.

[Sparky]

LOL. Yeah, see, it has "street cred" now that you know I shop there.

Well, now I know where you get your sci-fi/fantasy books, and your comic books, but where do you get your ruffly, lacey women's underpants? I've been looking for some like yours, but in black.

[Anonymous]

Sparky wrote:


Well, now I know where you get your sci-fi/fantasy books, and your comic books, but where do you get your ruffly, lacey women's underpants? I've been looking for some like yours, but in black.

Try 7-11, right next to the Hostess products.
If you go to the one on University and Sacramento, they're cool with you trying them on in the store.