Return of the Book Thread

[Hoax]

Yeah, I really wish it didn't end when it ends.  There needs to be more.

[Sky]

My local Borders has a couple racks devoted to the various D&D World knockoffs, MtG novelizations, and related stuff alone.  It's in danger of expanding to a greater shelf space then the entire Horror section.

Our local B&N's TSR/WotC/Etc section of paperbacks is larger than the entire sci-fi/fantasy section. I thought about grabbing one of the WH40k omnibus novels for some pulpy action reading, but there are like 40 of them and I wouldn't know where to start.

[HRose]

Our local B&N's TSR/WotC/Etc section of paperbacks is larger than the entire sci-fi/fantasy section. I thought about grabbing one of the WH40k omnibus novels for some pulpy action reading, but there are like 40 of them and I wouldn't know where to start.

People recommend the series that begins with "Horus Rising". An ongoing cycle.

[Arrrgh]

My local Borders has a couple racks devoted to the various D&D World knockoffs, MtG novelizations, and related stuff alone.  It's in danger of expanding to a greater shelf space then the entire Horror section.

Our local B&N's TSR/WotC/Etc section of paperbacks is larger than the entire sci-fi/fantasy section. I thought about grabbing one of the WH40k omnibus novels for some pulpy action reading, but there are like 40 of them and I wouldn't know where to start.

Eisenhorn, Gotrek and Felix, and Genevieve are the three best omnibuses.

[Sky]

Ok, I was looking at the right books then. Horus Rising was the one I almost bought, and the other two I was looking at were Eisenhorn and one other I can't remember by the same author.

[Rishathra]

Basically, if WH40K interests you, Dan Abnett is your go to guy.  He's like the anti-Salvatore.

[Arrrgh]

http://forum.blpublishing.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=745

[Johny Cee]

Basically, if WH40K interests you, Dan Abnett is your go to guy.  He's like the anti-Salvatore.

Abnett writes excellent popcorn reads.  I've read most of the "Gaunt's Ghosts" books,  all pretty fun.  

The "Last Chancers" omnibus was decent.  Let the Galaxy Burn is an omnibus of WH40K short stories,  with some pretty good ones mixed in.

William King wrote some decent, fun WH40K and WH Fantasy books (the Gotrek and Felix books).  Not sure what happened to him,  but it seems GW has new authors writing his characters now,  and I haven't been brave enough to check them out.

[Johny Cee]

And then some sidetracks:

- Jacqueline Carey 3+3 books
- Gap series by Stephen Donaldson
- Mievielle 3 books
- Guy Gavriel Kay stuff
- Miles saga (Lois McMaster Bujold)

The first Kushiel trilogy by Carey is pretty good stuff.  Intrigue/politics, lots of character work, good plot.  There's a fair amount of kinky sex, which works because of the character,  but can be off-puting.  I mostly skimmed through that in later books.

Mieville is very hit or miss for me.  Very imaginative setting, and he bores into interesting social dilemmas.  I loved The Scar,  liked Iron Council,  and haven't finished Perdio Street Station.

Kay writes some damn good stuff.  I have some kind of memory block that makes me forget to mention him when these topics come up.

The Miles books are very, very entertaining.  Space opera that sneaks some real issues in.

I just can't get into Donaldson's stuff.  He tries so hard to be atypical of the genre, it turns me off.  I think that Cook and Erikson do a much better job of writing Anti-epic fantasy that is also readable in it's own right.


You really need to add some Zelazny to your list as well, Hrose.  The Amber books and Lord of Light are fantastic.  Check out the Robert E. Howard compiliations and the Moorcock Elric compiliations if they're available in your reading language of choice as well.

[Lt.Dan]

Mieville is very hit or miss for me.  Very imaginative setting, and he bores into interesting social dilemmas.  I loved The Scar,  liked Iron Council,  and haven't finished Perdio Street Station.

Perdido Street Station - I really enjoyed but, jesus, what a fucking depressing ending.

[Chenghiz]

Mieville is very hit or miss for me.  Very imaginative setting, and he bores into interesting social dilemmas.  I loved The Scar,  liked Iron Council,  and haven't finished Perdio Street Station.

Perdido Street Station - I really enjoyed but, jesus, what a fucking depressing ending.

Depressing and pointless, in my opinion. It left me wondering why the book was even written, other than to be a cool story. Nothing changes, everything remains the same, and there was no real character progression or change. Fortunately his later books are better written.

[HRose]

I just can't get into Donaldson's stuff.  He tries so hard to be atypical of the genre, it turns me off.  I think that Cook and Erikson do a much better job of writing Anti-epic fantasy that is also readable in it's own right.

I just read "The Real Story" for now. It's supposed to be just a prologue to the rest of the saga and the weakest book but I loved it. As I finish the last 100 pages of Black Company I'll probably move to Donaldson's second book. I read the first few pages and loved them as well.

I didn't go far into Thomas Covenant. The mix with real world/fantasy/hallucinations bores me. And Covenant is an annoying character. Anti-hero but still hero. Lots of whining, lots of repetition about not believing. The idea is nice, but it's too stretched and predictable. Angus Thermopyle instead is a real bastard and a character I loved. He's wicked in a believable way and there's no whining. He acts, reacts, tries his best. Even when he's the victim he still counts on himself. He's not a stereotype and I found him always interesting.

You really need to add some Zelazny to your list as well, Hrose.  The Amber books and Lord of Light are fantastic.  Check out the Robert E. Howard compiliations and the Moorcock Elric compiliations if they're available in your reading language of choice as well.

I'm chosing more recent/adult works. I know Moorcock fairly well and my MMO idea was based on that ;)

I'm not sure if I like more Elric or The Black Company at this point. I usually avoid plain sword and sorcery and Conan stuff because I like breadth. I like books without heroes, narrating the history of a whole world. Different points of view and a bigger cast. I don't like much stories focused on one character. And bored to tears of the classic Hero's journey.

I want different kinds of people interacting together, that's the most interesting stuff. Different voices, different goals, different knowledge of what goes on. The plot moving on a broader scale. That's my idea of fantasy: empires at war, politics, plot twists, betrayals. Without a sharp line between good or evil, without the writer supporting one or the other. The world is supposed to be complex and not linear, like a believable fantasy world. When there are main characters they should be expendable and not protected by a shield of invulnerability.

I know Erikson goes near to that idea, so I'm keeping him for later :)

[Johny Cee]

I just can't get into Donaldson's stuff.  He tries so hard to be atypical of the genre, it turns me off.  I think that Cook and Erikson do a much better job of writing Anti-epic fantasy that is also readable in it's own right.

I just read "The Real Story" for now. It's supposed to be just a prologue to the rest of the saga and the weakest book but I loved it. As I finish the last 100 pages of Black Company I'll probably move to Donaldson's second book. I read the first few pages and loved them as well.

I didn't go far into Thomas Covenant. The mix with real world/fantasy/hallucinations bores me. And Covenant is an annoying character. Anti-hero but still hero. Lots of whining, lots of repetition about not believing. The idea is nice, but it's too stretched and predictable. Angus Thermopyle instead is a real bastard and a character I loved. He's wicked in a believable way and there's no whining. He acts, reacts, tries his best. Even when he's the victim he still counts on himself. He's not a stereotype and I found him always interesting.

Marron Shed is a character in the second Black Company book who I think is an anti-hero done right.  One of my favorite characters, actually.

You really need to add some Zelazny to your list as well, Hrose.  The Amber books and Lord of Light are fantastic.  Check out the Robert E. Howard compiliations and the Moorcock Elric compiliations if they're available in your reading language of choice as well.

I'm chosing more recent/adult works. I know Moorcock fairly well and my MMO idea was based on that ;)

I'm not sure if I like more Elric or The Black Company at this point. I usually avoid plain sword and sorcery and Conan stuff because I like breadth. I like books without heroes, narrating the history of a whole world. Different points of view and a bigger cast. I don't like much stories focused on one character. And bored to tears of the classic Hero's journey.

I want different kinds of people interacting together, that's the most interesting stuff. Different voices, different goals, different knowledge of what goes on. The plot moving on a broader scale. That's my idea of fantasy: empires at war, politics, plot twists, betrayals. Without a sharp line between good or evil, without the writer supporting one or the other. The world is supposed to be complex and not linear, like a believable fantasy world. When there are main characters they should be expendable and not protected by a shield of invulnerability.

I know Erikson goes near to that idea, so I'm keeping him for later :)

Conan isn't really "hero's journey".  It's barbarian vs. civilization.  The last couple of chronologically written Conan stories have a pretty nice underlying theme...  Red Nails and the frontier story especially.

[Sky]

I just read "The Real Story" for now. It's supposed to be just a prologue to the rest of the saga and the weakest book but I loved it.

I read that based on comments like this and it's the last Donaldson I'll read. Disgusting tripe. There was a good story in there, but I couldn't really get past the rape stuff, kinda like other Donaldson material.

Shed is a great character, the Juniper stuff is so great.

[bhodi]

I read that based on comments like this and it's the last Donaldson I'll read. Disgusting tripe. There was a good story in there, but I couldn't really get past the rape stuff, kinda like other Donaldson material.

I'm afraid you're in the minority on this one -- I and many others enjoyed that book and series.

[Ironwood]

Nevertheless, you have to respect the decision.  If you don't like Rape, you don't like Donaldson.

(Though I remember others as well as myself specifically stating this :  Didn't you read that before you read the book ??)

[HRose]

Nevertheless, you have to respect the decision.  If you don't like Rape, you don't like Donaldson.

I don't *like* rape, but the book didn't shock me either.

If you are disgusted by truly bastard and wicked characters then you won't like the book, but it isn't a book about "rape". It's a book about mice and cat traps, with characters of a dubious morality but still extremely "human".

I don't think the book is excessive. If the reader has "tabus" or specifically too sensible about those arguments then the book may be too much, but outside that it remains a gripping story that opens into truly "epic" with the remaining four books. The first is really just a 200 pages focused story on three characters, where the other four books go from 500 to 700 pages.

By the way, it's not "rape", it's more about mind control. The bad guy gets one of the most beautiful woman ever. And he can do her *everything* his wicked and perverted mind can conceive.

It's both a repulsive and attractive idea. A wicked dream. The book plays on that, so some people do not tolerate that kind of roleplay.

[Sky]

I guess it's like the horror movie genre. You don't need to graphically show someone being tortured, there are many more artistic and tasteful ways to portray it.  It's not a 'taboo' and it's not that I don't 'tolerate' it. With the millions of books out there, I have plenty of good stuff to choose from without having to endure rape stories.

And of course having a woman who despises you have sex with you against her will is not rape 

[HRose]

And of course having a woman who despises you have sex with you against her will is not rape 

I'm not arguing semantics.

It's not a book *about* rape. It's a book where rape happens, yes. But it's a book about mind control and its consequences.

The book also isn't that graphical. And it also portrays a change and evolution of a behavior. It's not unconditioned violence, and it's always explained in the context.

It's a book exploring nasty feelings instead of just sweet ones. You can of course decide it doesn't interest you, but you can't say it's a bad book just because it deals with a topic you are uncomfortable with. Of course it's not a book for the larger public.

[HaemishM]

Because Jordan finally kicked the bucket, I decided to get a leg up on finishing the damn Wheel of Time series. So I started reading book 5 and I figured out what's wrong with the series. It's a goddamn romance novel masquerading as an epic fantasy. 100 pages in, and the only things that have fucking happened are a bunch of twaddling about who loves who and who is bethrothed to who. 100 pages in and Rand finally fights some damn Shadow dogs and I'm sure it'll be another 100 pages of the same shit after the dogs.

This will be difficult.

[Margalis]

Why does every fantasy book these days have to be part of some epic 10 part series?

Ok, I know they aren't *all* like that and I already know the answer to my question, but still.

[stu]

The only fantasy I've ever read are the first four or five Sword of Truth books. I'm sick of reading them though. Can someone recommend a one-shot fantasy novel to me? Everything in this thread so far seems to be part of a series and I'm not looking for a commitment. I just need blood, guts, and a solid story.

[Reg]

Tadd Williams - The War of the Flowers. He's written a few trilogies as well but this is a one-off urban fantasy type novel and it's very good.

[Raging Turtle]

Late to the thread, but I'd like to join lamaros and schild in critisizing Gaiman.   :-D
His problem is he writes novels like he's still writing comics.  I really liked Neverwhere, thought American Gods was ok, but damn, characters named Shadow and Hunter?  A vocabulary that never exceeds a fifth grade reading level? The world's most plain prose?  I don't get why people worship him. 

A few pages back someone mentioned S. M. Stirling, and I just read through his Island in the Sea of Time and Against the Tide of Years, both of which were very good.  It's an alternate history setting where the island of Nantucket is transported back to 1250 B.C, and it goes into a great amount of depth on how they adapt to survive and the effects of a tiny pocket of 20th century technology on a bronze age world.  There's one character I dislike that the author seems to favor (the book changes perspective a fair bit), but other than that, the books were probably the most entertaining I've read in the last year or two.  I've also got Dies the Fire by Stirling and am looking forward to cracking it open when I have the chance.

If you like well-written horror, I highly recommend The Missing by Sarah Langman, which is about a infection that spreads through a small Maine town and beyond.  It would be somewhat generic if the author wasn't so good at creating interesting, flawed characters (easily better than King, who I think is pretty good at it).  She also wrote a book called The Keeper, which I think sets up the The Missing, and I'd be interested to hear if anyone has read either one and can point me to some books in a similar vein.   

[Johny Cee]

Why does every fantasy book these days have to be part of some epic 10 part series?

Ok, I know they aren't *all* like that and I already know the answer to my question, but still.

Then why did you ask the question? 

I honestly don't like the traditional epic fantasy "here's the big quest/war/overarching plot,  we work toward that book by book...  so stick around!"  It leads to boredom,  mostly because you have to keep up with certain characters who may not have anything interesting to do for another 600 pages to book 5,  and you're half way through book 3 now.

Even Tolkien,  when I reread,  I'll skim read or skip big portions.  Sam and Frodo wandering around outside Mordor and complaining?  Pass.  Siege of Minas Tirith?  Read.

I do like series, though.  Story and plot resolved after every book,  or after a couple books,  but characters carry on to the next book.  It gives you a chance to see characters grow and change and interact over a wider span of time. 

It's basically why people continue to watch Law & Order:  yah,  there's another crime to solve this week....  so what....  I want to see Jerry Orbach being cynical and world-weary,  and Sam Waterson do his preaching/lawyering thing.

[Johny Cee]

Late to the thread, but I'd like to join lamaros and schild in critisizing Gaiman.   :-D
His problem is he writes novels like he's still writing comics.  I really liked Neverwhere, thought American Gods was ok, but damn, characters named Shadow and Hunter?  A vocabulary that never exceeds a fifth grade reading level? The world's most plain prose?  I don't get why people worship him. 

Gaiman manages to convey huge amounts of information, theme, and character with his simplistic writing.  He makes complicated story-telling seem really simple, and never hits you over the head with his point.

In that vein,  just finished Charlie Huston's Shotgun Rule.  Great book.  Set in the '80's,  it's about four kids (acting just like idiot kids) who set off a series of increasingly nasty events in a California working class neighborhood.

Some good recommendations, too, Turtle.  Keep meaning to pick up some Stirling,  and keep forgetting.  Always interested in a good horror recommendation, too.

[Margalis]

I do like series, though.  Story and plot resolved after every book,  or after a couple books,  but characters carry on to the next book.  It gives you a chance to see characters grow and change and interact over a wider span of time. 

Yeah I can agree with that. I just don't like the idea that it takes 5 books to tell a story. Creating a compelling persistent world through multiple books is great, but not the "gotta catch 'em all" nature of some series where you read just for completeness. Especially because I think some authors, purposely or not, pad their work to keep the series going and the cash flowing.

Hearing people bitch about the Wheel of Time is like hearing people bitch about grinding away killing foozles.

[Teleku]

Because Jordan finally kicked the bucket, I decided to get a leg up on finishing the damn Wheel of Time series. So I started reading book 5 and I figured out what's wrong with the series. It's a goddamn romance novel masquerading as an epic fantasy. 100 pages in, and the only things that have fucking happened are a bunch of twaddling about who loves who and who is bethrothed to who. 100 pages in and Rand finally fights some damn Shadow dogs and I'm sure it'll be another 100 pages of the same shit after the dogs.

This will be difficult.

He bangs a hot Aiel chick in there somewhere as well :p

Overall, I really liked Wheel of Time up through the 5th book (liked the action overall, and loved the ending.  Origin of the Tinkers/Aiel/Bore was neat).  It wasn't untill the 6th book that it hit the wall.  To many different plots going on at the same time, resulting in almost nothing resolved or advanced storywise after 700 pages (as well as him not really adding many new elements in).  Though the fight at the well was a really cool sequence I thought, so that helped prop the book up for me.  After that though....

I haven't actually bothered reading the last 2 books, and I'll probably wait untill they release the final book before I pick up the series again and finish it.  Mainly just because I've read so much, and started reading it so long ago, I want to finally know how it does god damn end (even if he has been fortelling it forever).

[Morat20]

Tadd Williams - The War of the Flowers. He's written a few trilogies as well but this is a one-off urban fantasy type novel and it's very good.

Ever read Tailchaser's Song?

Raging Turtle: Did you ever work out who Shadow was? Names are just names -- except when they're not. Does it matter if the man is called Shadow instead of James Smith? In his books, people take namesa that are meaningful to them. Shadow called himself Shadow for a reason. Hunter named herself for a reason. Door's whole family was named after their defining characteristic.

What's it matter that they're descriptive, rather than purely meaningless syllables?

[Raging Turtle]

Raging Turtle: Did you ever work out who Shadow was? Names are just names -- except when they're not. Does it matter if the man is called Shadow instead of James Smith? In his books, people take namesa that are meaningful to them. Shadow called himself Shadow for a reason. Hunter named herself for a reason. Door's whole family was named after their defining characteristic.

What's it matter that they're descriptive, rather than purely meaningless syllables?

I just think it's lazy writing.  Names like Hunter and Shadow (and Raven and Crow and Moondancer and all those) are cliches that you see too much of in comics or young reader material, and I'd much rather learn about a character through actions and dialogue rather than reading 'My name is... Hunter', and knowing what who she is and what she'll do in any given situation. 

I did really like Neverwhere, and like some people have said here, I wish the story had kept going - it was a fascinating world and I wanted to know what happened to the lead character (whose name I forget).

[Morat20]

I just think it's lazy writing. 

I think it's just tastes -- you're projecting yours onto the writing. Gaimon has perfectly normally named characters -- but almost all of them acquire or bestow upon themselves other names, or take nicknames. (Shadow, Hunter, even Fat Charlie). Those are closer to their "true names" -- names that reveal who they are. Meaningful names.

They name you're given at birth doesn't mean squat. It's a random collection of syllables -- just noise. Might as well introduce you by your SSN. Gaimon's always been a bit fascinated by names and what they reveal, as well as what they compel and what they hide. (Fat Charlie as a good example, again). The fact that you dismiss it as "comics and young reader" stuff just means you're missing the actual point of it. You've decided it's kiddie stuff and read it that way -- you're basically prejudiced yourself against the material.

The lead character of Neverwhere was named Richard Mayhew, and I can understand why he ended the novel there. It was an ending to Richard's life Above, and the fact that you're wanting to know what happened when he started his life Below is a testament to Gaiman's talent -- in what is his weakest novel.

[stray]

Oh, like the Matrix.

[edit]

 

[Raging Turtle]

They name you're given at birth doesn't mean squat. It's a random collection of syllables -- just noise. Might as well introduce you by your SSN. Gaimon's always been a bit fascinated by names and what they reveal, as well as what they compel and what they hide. (Fat Charlie as a good example, again). The fact that you dismiss it as "comics and young reader" stuff just means you're missing the actual point of it. You've decided it's kiddie stuff and read it that way -- you're basically prejudiced yourself against the material.

That's exactly what I'm saying though - Gaiman is taking the easy way out by hitting you in the face with the meaning behind the names.  By naming someone Hunter, he leaves no room for the character to grow beyond the name.  Since Hunter was just a one dimensional character anyway, it wasn't that big a deal.  But the name Shadow, which is just a weak bit of symbolism, bugged me throughout the book because I felt like we were starting to head into Dr. Raven Darktalon Blood territory, or like Stray said, the Matrix.  "My name is Neo!  That means new!  Eat my symbolism, you fucking computer bitch!"

But you're right, it comes down to taste, and I don't think we're going to agree on what makes someone a good or great writer or a what makes a good or great book, and that's fine.  We can just agree to think that the other person is wrong. 

[Morat20]

That's exactly what I'm saying though - Gaiman is taking the easy way out by hitting you in the face with the meaning behind the names.  By naming someone Hunter, he leaves no room for the character to grow beyond the name. Since Hunter was just a one dimensional character anyway, it wasn't that big a deal. 

Hunter would have been better named Judas, but I suppose that would have given it away. Hunter wasn't her name -- it was her title. You're complaining either about characters who are living incarnations of a concept (The various Endless) or who specifically took or where given names that were symbolic of who and what they were.

You're effectively complaining that Gaimon created a world where people gave themselves meaningful names (Neverwhere) or a world all ABOUT symbolism and reality (American Gods) and....gave people meaningful or symbolic names. Well, duh. That was sort of part of the books.

Might as well bitch that all the Endless had those "D" names, which seemed a bit repetitive.

But the name Shadow, which is just a weak bit of symbolism, bugged me throughout the book because I felt like we were starting to head into Dr. Raven Darktalon Blood territory, or like Stray said, the Matrix.  "My name is Neo.  That means new.  Trinitiy is totally Christianity!  Eat my symbolism, you fucking computer bitch!"

Shadow was weak symbolism? How so? What do you think the name symbolized? Who do you think Shadow was and who do you think Shadow became?

Frankly, he was the only one that wasn't a shadow.

Still, tastes differ. I think you're giving him short shrift, but there are otherwise excellent writers whose quirks and interests block me from really enjoyijng their writing, so I can understand where you're coming from. Gaiman has a strong and unique style, and his prose is very bare-bones. It covers a lot of depth -- and I prefer a simple, strong style covering depth and complex ideas to breathtaking prose papering over....nothing.

You might try his short story collections -- if nothing else, he's got a very interesting Cthulu/Sherlock Holmes short story that's freely available on the 'net that's pretty interesting. He captures the style pretty well.

[lamaros]

I found some words I wrote on Gaiman at the time of reading. Perhaps it will better express my dislike:

The problem is one of imagination. I don't doubt the story could be interesting, but Gaiman has no great touch for prose and the writing is 'sufficient' only. Now I don't really have much of a problem with this, some of the novels I have loved over time have been somewhat like this, from Cussler, Feist, Wingrove, (Hamilton?), etc. But all those books have had in them something else that makes them readable. Cussler's characters are all the same book to book, but they are developed and are internally consistent; his plots are all the same at heart, but they are filled with enough details to paint different pictures. Feist, especially in Magician, has a delight in the story he is telling, and that charm wins through (something lacking in his later books, which I don't read much anymore), while Wingrove, though at times verging (and this is being nice) on the sadistic, chauvinist, and racist, has a detail and diversity that makes the books interesting.
 
Gaiman doesn't have much. The characters are cliche, the writing is tired. As I said to L when complaining about it, his problem is that he decides what he wants to happen, what he wants to be said, and then he writes it, makes the characters say it regardless of who they are. He has no skill in dialogue, all the characters share the same voice. All the places feel the same. He seems to be only concerned with the concept of the novel, and simply trying to fill in the details as fast as he can.
 
Case in point: In one part he makes a lady smoke a cigarette. Another character takes the cigarette from her and throws it out the window. The lady leaves the room. The guy goes and gets another guy to come to the room. That guy enters the room and is described as looking at and smelling the cigarette butt in the ashtray. The only cigarette mentioned to this point is the one that was thrown out the window.
 
This isn't just lazy, it demonstrates the lack of close feeling the writer has with his story; he's not seeing it and describing it--you couldn't make such a mistake if you were--he's just putting words down on a page and trying to push them in the direction he needs his story to go.