|
Are those russian "Watch" series books any good? They have to be better then the movies...which are based on books right (or am I crazy)? I'm lucky enough at my job to be able to listen to audiobooks all day and/or read ebooks but I'm running out...and because I hate myself I've seen both the Watch movies which seem like they'd be somewhat intriguing in better, original form.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
sharknado slashfic posted:Are those russian "Watch" series books any good? They have to be better then the movies...which are based on books right (or am I crazy)? I'm lucky enough at my job to be able to listen to audiobooks all day and/or read ebooks but I'm running out...and because I hate myself I've seen both the Watch movies which seem like they'd be somewhat intriguing in better, original form. I've only read Night Watch but i remember enjoying it. I think the next book follows a different character and I wasn't feeling it so I moved on to something else back when I was blitzing through most of the recommendations in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
I couldn't keep reading the Rivers of London series because the protagonist was too dumb for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
I like the Alex Verus books, in large part because the protagonist isn't a heavyweight and it's almost certain that he never will be. While Harry Dresden might fight above his weight class, he starts out as a freakishly powerful wizard(in terms of raw strength) and he only goes up from there. Harry never really runs into any enemy short of a God that he just absolutely positively cannot take in a fight(Cowl excepted), and he can go into a straight up slugfest with most wizards he's likely to meet and have at least a reasonable chance of coming out alive. Verus has none of that going for him, and so he has to win his battles with sneakiness and planning and forethought, and I like that approach.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
RosaParksOfDip posted:I've only read Night Watch but i remember enjoying it. I think the next book follows a different character and I wasn't feeling it so I moved on to something else back when I was blitzing through most of the recommendations in this thread. Oh, yeah that'd be the kiss of death for me. I need a single regular protagonist to get behind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Apoffys posted:"Severed Streets" is a mostly decent sequel; if you liked the first book, you'll probably like the second one too. Not my favourite series, but not a waste of money either. Yeah, I rolled my eyes at the light/dark thing too, but it eventually ends up showing that there really isn't much morality involved at all in the light/dark thing - it's entirely how they go about getting what they want. Light dudes are pretty much evil politicians and Dark dudes are more Sith-like like someone earlier mentioned. In the end though, they're both pretty terrible and the only real difference is the light dudes will stab you in the back instead of just killing you outright.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Dark mages are just more proactive about darwinism. Their philosophy reminds me of the necromongers of the chronicles of Riddick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
sharknado slashfic posted:Oh, yeah that'd be the kiss of death for me. I need a single regular protagonist to get behind. Only book 2 follows different people. 3-5 go back to Anton. I think the series would have been better if they hadn't but still recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
sharknado slashfic posted:Oh, yeah that'd be the kiss of death for me. I need a single regular protagonist to get behind. The first story of Day Watch is about a different character but involves Anton to a small degree. The remaining books, I haven't read the most recent one, deals with Anton. I like the beginning of the second book because it gives you the view of the other side. My main issue with the books is became a power creep, otherwise they are really enjoyable. I think the first two, it's been awhile since I've read them, are a bit rough on the translation but the flow of later books is a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
sharknado slashfic posted:Are those russian "Watch" series books any good? They have to be better then the movies...which are based on books right (or am I crazy)? I'm lucky enough at my job to be able to listen to audiobooks all day and/or read ebooks but I'm running out...and because I hate myself I've seen both the Watch movies which seem like they'd be somewhat intriguing in better, original form. They're pretty decent (at least in the original language, cant vouch for the English translation). The author gets a bit up his own rear end at times, but that could be said of most fantasy. Oh, and the story has been almost completely re-written for the movies (similar themes, same characters, but very different plot) so you won't have spoiled yourself on the story by watching the films. sharknado slashfic posted:Oh, yeah that'd be the kiss of death for me. I need a single regular protagonist to get behind. The characters rotate through, so the main guy from the first book gets to be the protagonist again later on. I thought it was a cool way to organize the series, letting you see many events from multiple points of view. VanSandman posted:I couldn't keep reading the Rivers of London series because the protagonist was too dumb for me. What makes you say that? I saw him as simply inexperienced, both in the occult business and with being a police officer in general. He's pretty fresh from the academy when we meet him in book one. Mr.48 fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
I'd rather read about Nightingale's adventures in WWII. EDIT: The audiobooks are nice to listen to, though. That narrator is great. Some Pinko Commie fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
The War Cry comic just went Full Dresden, so it'll be worth a look when it's done I'd say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Whoever described the Felix Castor novels as "Raymond Chandler doing urban fantasy", thanks for that. The author doesn't have the voice that Chandler does, but they're pretty decent hardboiled-fantasy. Hopefully the series doesn't take a huge dive after the first two, because I've really enjoyed what I've read so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
I think the first one is the weakest, he tried doing the Chandler-esque prose and he doesn't quite have the touch, so there are points where you wish he'd just get on with it. The plot falters through the investigative portions, but I think it finishes very strongly. Then the 2nd book kicks it up five notches and it's pretty consistent for all the books after that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
First book is completely the weakest and still more than enjoyable. Ramps up well after that, doesn't do too bad with upping stakes for characters, and unfortunately leaves you wanting more when you finish up what's out there. I liked it better than the Rivers of London stuff.
Mortanis fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:They're pretty decent (at least in the original language, cant vouch for the English translation). The English translations are actually in reasonable English (unlike, say, the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo books) with the caveat that the translator totally cocked up a reference to Planescape Torment in the last book (is the Russian original version of the last book quite so Anglophile?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:What makes you say that? I saw him as simply inexperienced, both in the occult business and with being a police officer in general. He's pretty fresh from the academy when we meet him in book one. He doesn't notice things and doesn't put things together. When he does figure something isn't right, he doesn't always act on that knowledge. It's been a few years but I remember being particularly incensed with him in the 2nd book with the Jazz Vampire ladies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
The protagonist in Rivers of London is seriously the worst part of the books. He's just so ineffectual, so dumb (sometimes intentionally, at least according to the author), and surrounded by people who are way more effective and interesting than he is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The protagonist in Rivers of London is seriously the worst part of the books. He's just so ineffectual, so dumb (sometimes intentionally, at least according to the author), and surrounded by people who are way more effective and interesting than he is. I agree. I'd much rather read about literally any other main character. Even the weird maid. Hell, especially the weird maid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Hell, especially the weird maid. Holy poo poo I forgot about that oddball. I would read that book.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The protagonist in Rivers of London is seriously the worst part of the books. He's just so ineffectual, so dumb (sometimes intentionally, at least according to the author), and surrounded by people who are way more effective and interesting than he is. I'm just hoping for a Nightingale in WW2 spinoff. After the scene at the farm in the last book I would love to see a group of the Isaacs open up on the nazis 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The protagonist in Rivers of London is seriously the worst part of the books. He's just so ineffectual, so dumb (sometimes intentionally, at least according to the author), and surrounded by people who are way more effective and interesting than he is. We're clearly reading different books. The protagonist is interesting, intelligent and inventive with the old and new worlds. He's not a super detective or wizard, which is frankly refreshing as power creep hasn't yet spoiled him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:We're clearly reading different books. The protagonist is interesting, intelligent and inventive with the old and new worlds. He's not a super detective or wizard, which is frankly refreshing as power creep hasn't yet spoiled him. Yeah, he's just regular police officer clever, instead of Sherlockian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
OptimusWang posted:I'm just hoping for a Nightingale in WW2 spinoff. After the scene at the farm in the last book I would love to see a group of the Isaacs open up on the nazis The best part about the farm scene was how the witch Nightingale smacked down at the farm was all "That was fuckin' awesome!" in the interrogation room later. People would probably like the audiobooks a lot better than just reading the novels cold, the narrator does a really good job with the different character voices and helps a lot with spotting the British sarcasm that American readers might miss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:We're clearly reading different books. The protagonist is interesting, intelligent and inventive with the old and new worlds. He's not a super detective or wizard, which is frankly refreshing as power creep hasn't yet spoiled him. Yeah the only time you could say he was being massively dense is with the jazz vampires, and that's mostly just regular not seeing negatives about your partner stuff taken to the extreme.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
Rumda posted:Yeah the only time you could say he was being massively dense is with the jazz vampires, and that's mostly just regular not seeing negatives about your partner stuff taken to the extreme. And he was literally under a spell there, I recall?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The protagonist in Rivers of London is seriously the worst part of the books. He's just so ineffectual, so dumb (sometimes intentionally, at least according to the author), and surrounded by people who are way more effective and interesting than he is. What do you think he's dumb about? He's a bit spacey sometimes but he's never seemed stupid to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What do you think he's dumb about? He's a bit spacey sometimes but he's never seemed stupid to me. He actively ignores advice from other characters (almost all of whom are smarter than he is), frequently charges on in things which people warn him against, doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut, ignores obvious hints and I never really feel like he solves many problems in a smart fashion, or if he does it isn't until it's already been kind of a disaster. This all applies to Dresden too but in Dresden's case he is explicitly kind of a lunkhead who goes for brute-force solutions to problems and while he has intelligence he'll tend to underutilize it when he's angry or upset or not really caring. In Peter's case I've never felt like Peter outmatches any of his frequent supporting cast. He's kind of got the Harry Potter problem where he is the 'hero' but the hero who basically is dragged along by his supporting cast. In comparison (and I have a lot of problems with the books so this isn't saying it is straight-up superior), Bob in The Laundry Files does feel smart to me. He has his share of dumb moments or whatever but he's not completely in the dark and his stupid moments feel like they follow naturally from his inexperience. Peter wanted to be a cop but even before he became a magician I never got the feeling he was a particularly great cop. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
I see all that more as inexperience rather than stupidity. Young people make those kinds of mistakes, that's why older people are always telling them not to :P He is good at on-the-spot improvisation and snap decisions under pressure. I also get the sense that he's learning from his mistakes. I agree with you that Peter wasn't and isn't a particularly great cop -- he's just an ordinary competent cop. He does seem to at least have the potential to be a great magician, though. Heck, he's beaten the Faceless Man in two duels so far! Part of it is also that I think Aaronovitch intends Peter to be not so much "The Protagonist" as "the viewpoint character." He's the ordinary Joe that we see the world through. He's drawing more on police procedurals for his genre tropes than he is on fantasy. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
I don't really mind Peter being the way he is because the series probably has more life the longer we see him grow from being a rookie into being experienced. He really comes off to me like he's learning almost everything on his own. Nightingale doesn't teach him a lot on screen and doesn't seem to be willing to take too many risks with his education in magic. Peter is also a bit segregated from the rest of the police force and that might be impairing his growth in that area while also allowing him to flourish outside the box a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:He doesn't notice things and doesn't put things together. When he does figure something isn't right, he doesn't always act on that knowledge. It's been a few years but I remember being particularly incensed with him in the 2nd book with the Jazz Vampire ladies. In that instance his mind was being clouded by magic, so I thought his obliviousness was understandable. Speaking of supernatural London shenanigans, I just started reading the sequel to London Falling, and I'm not really impressed so far. I liked the first book because its legitimate horror vibe made it stand out form the other urban fantasy series, while this one is starting to feel exactly like every other "supernatural cop" book in the genre.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:In that instance his mind was being clouded by magic, so I thought his obliviousness was understandable. Wait until they start doing meth. EDIT: Also, Neil Gaiman is a ruthless mother fucker in it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Wait until they start doing meth. Its not so much what is happening, but rather that Cornell seems to have decided what role each character is going to fill, and now they are stuck in that role. The first book had them reacting more or less like you would expect actual terrified people to react to what was happening. Now, they just do whatever their role dictates. Lisa is the genius reclusive analyst with a traumatic history, Quill is the stoic British copper leader, Sefton is the guy who experiments and figures out magic, and Costain is the bad boy with a heart of gold. Its just disappointing after the first book showed so much promise, but who knows, maybe it will get better by the end of book 2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
I finished The Getaway God yesterday and it was pretty damned good. It wrapped up all the outstanding plot lines and threw in a few hooks in case the publisher wants more (Kadrey's contract was fulfilled with this one).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:In comparison (and I have a lot of problems with the books so this isn't saying it is straight-up superior), Bob in The Laundry Files does feel smart to me. He has his share of dumb moments or whatever but he's not completely in the dark and his stupid moments feel like they follow naturally from his inexperience. Peter wanted to be a cop but even before he became a magician I never got the feeling he was a particularly great cop. "Bob Howard" is a horrifically unreliable narrator. Peter probably isn't, but from the very first point you meet him in the first book you're told that he's a poo poo policeman, and why. His sensitivity to the magical world is all that saved him from being pushed into a dead-end desk job as far away from actual "policing" as the force could get him. As for characters who are smarter than Peter, by the end of the most recent book the only not-an-outright-villain there who's more adept in both the mundane and the magical world than Peter is probably Lady Ty. Nightingale, for instance, knows a bunch more actual magic spells than Peter does, but has no idea about how to cope with the 21st century, and in the long term is crippled by the fact that he's an alchemist rather than a scientist. Peter's also the best remaining not-an-outright-villain at community outreach which is almost certainly going to pay off down the line - I don't think anyone else could have gotten the two gods of the Thames to kiss and make up like he did. ookiimarukochan fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:"Bob Howard" is a horrifically unreliable narrator. While I can certainly get behind this being true, its really hard to tell what he's unreliable about besides his relationship. I can't believe he wouldn't be moving up in the organization like he is if he's completely full of poo poo, since they have that true geas they've used to debrief him a few times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
He's not actually human any more - hasn't been for several books - and the ambient magic level in his universe has been going up dramatically for some time. Apparently we'll find out just how unreliable a narrator he is in the next book though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:Peter probably isn't Peter is straight-up an unreliable narrator, the author has said so. There's a thing in the second book where he goes on about the weird cat-girl thing which is intentionally supposed to be him being inaccurate and biased and trying to be smarter than he is. Regardless, the 'well, the character is an unreliable narrator' argument is used for basically everything and I don't find it makes me like Peter any more nor does it change the fact that I find his supporting cast both more interesting and less dumb than he is. I overall likes the Rivers of London books better than I liked the Laundry Files but it is very much in spite of Peter. (Also RoL never had a book as loving awful as the Jennifer Morgue.) ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Peter is kind of a career fuckup, but then he spends a lot of time telling the reader how clever and smart he is, and I think the juxtaposition is funny. He's certainly less competent than his supporting cast, but he's slightly more observant, and it seems to work for him. Certainly the second book was him making an long string of unfortunate decisions, though possibly under a spell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
Scorchy posted:Peter is kind of a career fuckup, but then he spends a lot of time telling the reader how clever and smart he is, and I think the juxtaposition is funny. He's certainly less competent than his supporting cast, but he's slightly more observant, and it seems to work for him. Certainly the second book was him making an long string of unfortunate decisions, though possibly under a spell. Yeah, I can see that. I think I'd probably find it funny if I liked Peter a hair more. He's not terrible or anything, I just keep having these moments of "Man, I wish I was following (x)."
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:43
|
|