|
Antti posted:That's a very interesting question. I think it's simply because it's a culturally significant city, the former capitol city of a global empire and above all else an old city in the Anglosphere. If you're a British or Commonwealth author it's a pretty obvious choice, and even for US authors American cities don't have the same kind of history that London has. Doing research will also be fairly easy for an English-speaking author even if you don't have the opportunity to travel to London, and the treshold to travelling to London is low (and you may well have already been there before) if you are from an English-speaking country. In some stories, the fact that London is so old directly plays into why London has some supernatural property. Personally I think it's more likely because London is closer to where a lot of the mythology we read might plausibly exist. I'd have a hard time suspending my disbelief for a story about the hidden magical culture in Toronto or even New York. The Magicians and American Gods have been the only recent examples that I can think of where it was done in a plausible way. Now if someone was to write / had written a story where North American native mythology is given a cool new spin, I'd be all over that.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Yeah, there's a massive step-up between Gardens and Deadhouse. The opening of Deadhouse with all the Morrowindy unknown desert spirits is exactly why I keep coming back. Eh, Cleric gets beaten down by Achamian, while Rake is more or less literally a god.  As for the Malazan/Bakker comparison, I kinda agree. Bakker is better at explaining things and philosophies as they come up, while Erikson more presents a mystery that slowly resolves itself. Both are great books, and I can't wait for both The Unholy Consult and Fall of Light. Neurosis posted:I love Gene Wolfe but could not get into Malazan. Whereas Wolfe has beautiful prose and imagery and some very strange settings to carry my interest when events are opaque Malazan just reads like schlock fantasy. Or at least Gardens of the Moon does. There's nothing to maintain my interest until things come together. GotM is a bad start of the series. It shines once you have read the entire series, FoD and then rereads it (mind you, that is only 11 000 pages), but I can see why people have a hard time with it as an introduction to the series. Then again LotR is pretty boring the first 100 pages. As for Gene Wolfe, it have been a long time since I read it, but I remember it as more of a dreamy tale in a weird world. Kinda reminiscent of Elric in some ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 08:20
|
|
) and it actually spends time sketching out the philosophies of the various groups, which actually gives some material that can be used for speculation - the arguments I've had about Kellhus' intentions are the kind that are usually accompanied by table thumping and pint-glass waving. 
|
Ceebees posted:I felt like he kind of dropped the ball on The Paladin Job. A really fantastical bad-guy concept that the previous two books had both been leading up to just ended up very... mundane in execution. To give an example, the evil office meetings were very evil, yes, but way, way too humanizing for exactly who was participating. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Yea. It was kinda interesting for about 70% of the book, and then it just went off the loving rails. I guess he just decided to wrap up the trilogy and call it a day. It felt kinda like he got told it was the last season of a tv show and he had to fit ALL THESE IDEAS into one last hurrah, and it was pretty scattershot. I mean, it's a good book, but the first 2 were way better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
Another big book bundle on Humble. It's all short story collections, but pretty good ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:GotM is a bad start of the series. It shines once you have read the entire series, FoD and then rereads it (mind you, that is only 11 000 pages), but I can see why people have a hard time with it as an introduction to the series. Wasn't GotM written like a decade before the rest of the Malazan books? In any case, the writing is substantially improved in Deadhouse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:I won't argue with your other points, but this is bullshit. Come on, I phrased that badly but you're being obtuse. They're a lot younger in terms of being important English cities. London has been England's capital for over a millennium and nowhere else has had that staying power - did you know England's second city used to be Norwich? Manchester, for instance, wasn't that important until the Industrial Revolution, which is a lot more recent than London's importance... quote:and that's a matter of policy rather than anything inherently special about the place... because frankly it's a loving shithole. A shithole that just happens to be full of self congratulatory toffs. I did say that one of the reasons more people write about London is that it's in the South
Safety Biscuits fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
The Roman London was also a city of tens of thousands of people while Manchester was a fort. London really was THE CITY for Britannia for the longest time. Nothing wrong with hometown pride but come on...
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Megazver posted:Another big book bundle on Humble. It's all short story collections, but pretty good ones. storybundle has another sf/f bundle curated by Jeff & Ann VanderMeer that looks pretty good: https://storybundle.com/fiction
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Is Terry Brooks' Shannara stuff worth reading? Someone reminded me about it being made into a miniseries or whatever and I realized I've never actually read the books. And if they are worth reading, some googling shows that there's a prequel trilogy? Should I read that before the normal sequence?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:Is Terry Brooks' Shannara stuff worth reading? Someone reminded me about it being made into a miniseries or whatever and I realized I've never actually read the books. The Shannara books were written at a time when Tolkien was considered god, and if you were to write any high fantasy, you were either going to borrow heavily from him, or not do it at all. I read the shannara books starting back when I was in fourth grade and absolutely loved them. I couldn't get through the first two chapters five years ago. Unless you love reading (and I mean LOVE) Tolkien, or have never read a fantasy book ever, you're going to find the series immensely boring, bland, predictable, routine, and lacking in characterization. Some people say that it gets better from the second 'series' on, but... If you do read them, read from publication order not inbook timeline. Drifter fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Drifter posted:The Shannara books were written at a time when Tolkien was considered god, and if you were to write any high fantasy, you were either going to borrow heavily from him, or not do it at all. In part this is true, in that Tolkien has always been heavily respected. But Shannara is what really set that as holy canon: the monstrous success of those Tolkienesque books prompted publishers to scoop up all the Tolkien knockoffs they could find, and really solidified that aesthetic's death-grip on fantasy. Compare mid-70s fantasy to late 80s and you'll see some huge differences. Interestingly, for real nerds out there, this process is mirrored in the development of D&D, where late 70s first ed is an amalgam of fantasy influences that can seem really weird to us today, and 2nd ed is a much more homogenized product with all of what we consider the oddball stuff that doesn't seem to belong in "proper" generic fantasy filed off (psionics, cross-time and tech mixing, outer planar stuff slowly demphasized over time). What gets lost is the process that made this generic fantasy in the first place. All that 1st ed stuff came from fantasy novels, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:Is Terry Brooks' Shannara stuff worth reading? Someone reminded me about it being made into a miniseries or whatever and I realized I've never actually read the books. In 2015 the value of those books is mostly historical. Shannara was basically written to prove that Tolkien mad libs fantasy could be a profitable genre. Go read something actually good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Megazver posted:In 2015 the value of those books is mostly historical. Shannara was basically written to prove that Tolkien mad libs fantasy could be a profitable genre. Xotl posted:In part this is true, in that Tolkien has always been heavily respected. But Shannara is what really set that as holy canon: the monstrous success of those Tolkienesque books prompted publishers to scoop up all the Tolkien knockoffs they could find, and really solidified that aesthetic's death-grip on fantasy. Compare mid-70s fantasy to late 80s and you'll see some huge differences. Drifter fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Drifter posted:I'd say this is true a well. Suggest something good for him to read. And don't say David Eddings' Belgariad (even though it's definitely better than Shannara). If you're stuck on old school high fantasy, Memories of Sorrow and Thorn or Paksennarion maybe. Heck, even Feist's Magician series. Ooh, Hickman's Death Gate Cycle. Speaking of 70s era fantasy, I recently got a hankering (which I will probably never act on) to re-read Niel Hancock's "Circle of Light" books.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Ooh, Hickman's Death Gate Cycle. This sounds familiar. Protagonist is a wizard dude with magical tattoos? World was broken up into elemental versions (ie, a 'water world', 'fire world', etc)? I think I read one book of this years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Holy poo poo Sword of Shannara was released seven years after Nine Princes in Amber.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
There is no recommendation of The Deed of Paksenarrion (and the followup, Paladin's Legacy) that is too hyperbolic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Don't read Memory Sorrow and Thorn as suggested above. I remember reading a decade ago GRRM had been inspired by those books because they proved to him fantasy didn't have to be bland Tolkien crap. I started to read and kept waiting for the books to get better and it never happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
NinjaDebugger posted:There is no recommendation of The Deed of Paksenarrion (and the followup, Paladin's Legacy) that is too hyperbolic. It was good Neurosis posted:Don't read Memory Sorrow and Thorn as suggested above. I remember reading a decade ago GRRM had been inspired by those books because they proved to him fantasy didn't have to be bland Tolkien crap. I started to read and kept waiting for the books to get better and it never happened. Yeah, they were pretty 'ehh'. Not awful, just sort of overly long and relatively predictable. Somewhat interesting in places if I recall correctly, but nothing special. Oh, btw, is the Shadowmarch set of books anything better?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
NinjaDebugger posted:There is no recommendation of The Deed of Paksenarrion (and the followup, Paladin's Legacy) that is too hyperbolic. Best novel about your first edition AD&D paladin ever
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Best novel about your first edition AD&D paladin ever More like the best D&D fiction ever written, license or no license. Though allegedly Paks wasn't an actual character, just an idea of one inspired by some nerd talk, and is more of an OD&D paladin. Also, Paladin's Legacy, the followup series that was written like 30 years later, centers on other characters. Paksenarrion shows up occasionally, but isn't a POV character.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
I really liked Deed of Paksenarrion, but was wary of the other books in the setting once Paks wasn't the focus. The Legacy of Gird spinoff didn't really seem that novel since they seemed like more traditional heroes quest stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
NinjaDebugger posted:More like the best D&D fiction ever written, license or no license. Though allegedly Paks wasn't an actual character, just an idea of one inspired by some nerd talk, and is more of an OD&D paladin. Also, Paladin's Legacy, the followup series that was written like 30 years later, centers on other characters. Paksenarrion shows up occasionally, but isn't a POV character. I think Moon said she didn't play when she started writing, but did hang out with people who played and sit in on sessions. Could be misremembering that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
I think that Paladin's Legacy was mediocre at best. It has a great setup but I thought that it just kind of fizzled out at the end. Dorrin's necklace strangles the Pirate King guy of its own accord, ending that threat in a page. Dorrin's crown and such turns back into water and refloods the sandlands they had to abandon, inside of a page. The Baron who tortured Phelan as a boy shows up, spends a page talking to Phelan, and then Phelan handles him in another page. And so on. And so on. Every conflict that was setup, every problem that they had to face, every troublesome situation... it all gets handled like that. After all that build up it was a huge letdown.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
I just saw The Traitor in the Best Books of 2015 list of Amazon! Really happy that such a good book is getting its due. Congrats , general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
Grimwall posted:I just saw The Traitor in the Best Books of 2015 list of Amazon! Really happy that such a good book is getting its due. Congrats , general. The Traitor I read had Libertarian bullshit and an insufferably dumb main character who was able to do things because the plot wouldn't work if she didn't do them. Not awfully written by any standards, and congrats General B for getting published at all, but it wasn't a great book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:Don't read Memory Sorrow and Thorn as suggested above. I remember reading a decade ago GRRM had been inspired by those books because they proved to him fantasy didn't have to be bland Tolkien crap. I started to read and kept waiting for the books to get better and it never happened. It's been years since I read them, but yeah, if I wanted books that "prove fantasy doesn't have to be bland Tolkien crap" those would not be on the list. I mostly remember them for the genuinely interesting twist in the last book, where it turns out that the ritual/prophecy they've been slavishly trying to follow since the first book to save themselves was written by the elves, at a time when human genocide of the elven nations was a real concern, and by completing it they have just activated an ancient elven superweapon designed specifically to gently caress them up. That's not something I've seen a lot of, prophecies in fantasy tend to either be 100% true and accurate and do exactly what the protagonists need, or completely irrelevant bullshit. But it's not clever enough that I'd recommend reading the whole trilogy just for that scene.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Jedit posted:The Traitor I read had Libertarian bullshit and an insufferably dumb main character who was able to do things because the plot wouldn't work if she didn't do them. Not awfully written by any standards, and congrats General B for getting published at all, but it wasn't a great book. I didn't love it as much as some people do, but I am legitimately curious how you got Libertarian bullshit out of Traitor
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:I didn't love it as much as some people do, but I am legitimately curious how you got Libertarian bullshit out of Traitor Baru undermines the plans of the evil hegemonic government who want to control everything by returning Aurdwynn to the gold standard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Baru undermines the plans of the evil hegemonic government who want to control everything by returning Aurdwynn to the gold standard. ...What? EDIT: Seth Dickinson set out to write Baru as an explicitly anti-colonialist fantasy. That doesn't even match the text of the book, much less the subtext, given that she did that to counter rebels against the evil hegemonic government. It also pretty clearly wasn't an ideological move, it was a tactical one. Grimson fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Baru undermines the plans of the evil hegemonic government who want to control everything by returning Aurdwynn to the gold standard. You seem to have missed how that was shown to be catastrophic for all economic purposes, which was sort of the idea - undermine the plans by making the country valueless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Grimson posted:...What? Don't bother, people who read to find authorial agendas find points to support it. Regardless of whether they're really present.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
So, belated recommendation for 'Dickensian' Brit-style fantasy books, all of Stephen Hunt's Jackelian novels are...inspired by various Victorian through pulp genres and keep getting weirder and more creative as you go along. They start out more or less saying 'Britain but also with urchin crab people' and then steadily yank that rug until it's a distant memory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Baru undermines the plans of the evil hegemonic government who want to control everything by returning Aurdwynn to the gold standard. Yeah, she uses that to break the province economy and put it into chaos. Not very libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
chrisoya posted:Paks literally visits the moathouse full of bandits from T1, which still has its giant frogs. The village she spends time in basically is Hommlet. Yeah you can tell when she hits fourth level because she gets her warhorse. It's pretty transparent, especial ly if you ever played first edition. Still yeah certainly the best AD&D fiction I've read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Drifter posted:I'd say this is true a well. Suggest something good for him to read. And don't say David Eddings' Belgariad (even though it's definitely better than Shannara). If you're stuck on old school high fantasy, Memories of Sorrow and Thorn or Paksennarion maybe. Heck, even Feist's Magician series. Ooh, Hickman's Death Gate Cycle. Re: Fiest's Riftwar books: Original Trilogy is good for standard high fantasy. Serpentwar is really good though the ending of the last book goes a bit off the rails. King's Buccaneer can be worth a read before this series because a lot of things will make more sense with it. If the last conflict the main characters have in the Serpentwar books isn't to your liking I'd suggest stopping there. If you liked the Riftwar trilogy then consider reading the Riftwar Legacy stuff before moving on to the Serpentwar books. If you're fine with elements introduced later in Serpentwar then you can keep reading the remain dozen-ish books in the Riftwar Cycle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:Yeah, they were pretty 'ehh'. Not awful, just sort of overly long and relatively predictable. Somewhat interesting in places if I recall correctly, but nothing special. Shadowmarch is very similar, maybe slightly better written with more memorable characters. It's still Tad Williams and isn't substantially different from MST, structurally is very similar to it and to Otherland.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Amberskin posted:Yeah, she uses that to break the province economy and put it into chaos. Not very libertarian. I dunno man, that sounds Libertarian as hell to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Baru undermines the plans of the evil hegemonic government who want to control everything by returning Aurdwynn to the gold standard. Baru undermines the plans of the rebellion against the evil hegemonic government by purposely causing hyperinflation in the fiat currency. She does not return Aurdwynn to the gold standard, she crashes the economy so hard that people need to regress to use of gold as currency. Seriously every thought in your sentence was wrong, how are you so bad at reading? House Louse posted:I dunno man, that sounds Libertarian as hell to me. Hyperinflation being bad isn't a Libertarian belief, its the belief of anyone who knows anything at all about economics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
I read that as "loving everything up and creating chaos" is a libertarian thing, which is pretty much true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 02:25
|
|