|
Corrode posted:The ship's character development is probably the best part of the whole thing. I think in the fact that the ship isn't present for chapter 7 is some of what makes it jarring, because you switch voice to Freya who's been there, sure, and is the focal point of the ship's attention in the preceding narrative, but you have a slight perspective shift and then it just sort of ends. I liked the idea that the ending was building towards, I just felt like it could have been executed better than it was if given a little more time. I feel the exact opposite. I'd rather a truncated narrative than one that borders on padding. Although that is very much me, as one of my most common complaints of entertainment is, "this could've been shorter." How I got through two books by Peter F. Hamilton is an absolute mystery.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
freebooter posted:I absolutely loved the climax of Aurora. The bit where the ship drops them off at Earth and then tries to make a final gravity slowdown past the sun, and is musing about how much it's learnt and how proud it is that it got its humans home safe, about how protecting and nourishing them was its purpose in life, but is then destroyed - that's one of the most affecting passages I've read in sci-fi in a long time. Maybe I'm just a big softie but at that point I completely loved the ship as a character and a narrator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:Wasn't tawny used a decent bit too? Also Thus. As a complete sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
angel opportunity posted:I'm not giving KSR another shot. I kind of liked Red Mars as I was reading it, but after I finished it was just like...nothing. I don't really have a good memory of it, and I just do not like how he handles characters. I set it down around 80% and never picked it up again. It was only a few months ago, but I couldn't begin to relate the story or name the characters to someone if they asked. Zzzz.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
I got Bridge of Birds and read the first 75 or so pages, and it seems excessively silly with no real characters, just cartoons. Does the book get any deeper as it goes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
It is silly, the characters are cartoony, it gets deeper (although not really in the character sense). That being said, if you outright hate it at this point, it probably won't change your opinion. I'd still suggest persevering because there's some real payoff at the end but hey, I just love that book.
anilEhilated fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
tiniestacorn posted:I set it down around 80% and never picked it up again. It was only a few months ago, but I couldn't begin to relate the story or name the characters to someone if they asked. Zzzz. I will never understand people not liking the Mars trilogy. I know they aren't the fastest paced books, but saying that they don't have any memorable scenes or characters?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:So apparently Peter Watts has been working on a Person of Interest tie-in novel. How's the show? I haven't heard much chatter about it but it's caught my eye on Netflix. Seems to be pretty highly rated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:It is silly, the characters are cartoony, it gets deeper (although not really in the character sense). That being said, if you outright hate it at this point, it probably won't change your opinion. I'd still suggest persevering because there's some real payoff at the end but hey, I just love that book. I don't hate it. I enjoy it, it's just a lot more farcical than all the praise made me expect
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 15:02
|
|
blue squares posted:I don't hate it. I enjoy it, it's just a lot more farcical than all the praise made me expect It gets awesome once certain patterns and appearances start repeating. It's sublime when you reread it and can see all the foreshadowing and how perfectly constructed it is.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
It is very much a farce but a clever one. Sadly the sequels drop the cleverness quite a bit, although they're still pretty enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Rough Lobster posted:How's the show? I haven't heard much chatter about it but it's caught my eye on Netflix. Seems to be pretty highly rated. It's pretty decent. Oddly for someone reading this thread, I found the more it veered towards cyperpunky sci-f conspiracies, the less I liked it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Congrats Battuta for winning /r/Fantasy's Debut Novel "Stabby" https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/4053co/bestof_rfantasy_2015_the_stabby_awards_the/
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
I'm rereading the Revelation Space series (but I'll pass on Absolution Gap, probably) and I have the impression the dialogs between Antoinette and Beast in Redemption Ark are very very much like the dialogs in Asimov's Bicentennial man between Andrew and Little Miss. Does anybody know if that some kind of intentional homage to Asimov by Reynolds, or is it all in my head?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Well I finished Malazan 3. It did click for a while, with the various tribes arguing over their gods and ancestors, and all the clashing of cultures. Then it unclicked. Massively. Now I'm back to hating Erikson. Deep in my bones. The precise moment when I realised that Erikson didn't feel the need to write characters that were remotely relatable, or even comprehensibe was when Brukhalian knowingly leads his army into a trap set by RathFener because the only way to punish RathFener by feeding his soul to their god (who he knows is AWOL) is if his plan to kill Brukhalian succeeds. So Brukhalian allows himself to be killed so that someone can be punished for the betrayal that didn't really cause him to be killed, even though that punishment is n no longer strictly possible. Then, to double down on the alien nature of these people's psyche,Itkovian proceeds to feed RathFeners hands to Fener, even though Fener is not there to receive them, so Raths soul is going to end up being eaten by some nameless eldritch horror, only for Itkovian to accept the sins and grief of Rath in order to save his soul from the very eldritch horror he was feeding it to. Then,just for an encore, Itkovian accepts the suffering of an entire race (a pretty powerful scene, I'll give him that ) so that their memories can be placed in a pocket universe (which exists within the body of an elder god) inside the dreams of a dying woman, and that pocket universe is then placed in the body of a second god (which might exist within the body of the first,I'm unclear on this) who is herself dreaming our own universe That was the point when I realised this book was little more than loving madlibs, dressed up in a load of pretentious anthropology. What really burns, and is why I actively loathe Erikson now, is how smug it all is. He is genuinely proud of having written something utterly incomprehensible. And he knows it's incomprehensible because he Guildensterns throughout the entire book. Literally every time something magical happens he cuts to one of 50 interchangeable soldiers (and I could not offer you a description of any of them beyond "dedicated soldier, generally morally driven but unrelentingly snarky" - jesus wept there is so much snarking in this book. Everyone is constantly bickering and whining over inconsiquential minutiae instead of the terrifying magical apocalypses going on around them) to give us a reaction of: "what the hell was that about" "dunno mate, wizards eh?" *sad trombone* gently caress you Erikson, the fact that even your die hard fans can't understand your books until the second read through is not a badge of honour. By my count, over the past three books, six characters have died horribly and then been brought back to life in six different ways. Because gently caress having any consequences to the story. And I still don't know where wizards come from. Strom Cuzewon fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Jan 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
I have only read the first book, so I didn't read any of your spoiler-tagged stuff, but I totally disagree. I understood everything that is important to storytelling, i.e., why the characters are doing what they're doing and what the stakes are. Sure, there were some unanswered questions, but they were all just fantasy fluff. The story was perfectly clear. The characters, too, are good and dynamic. Lorn, Crokus, and Paran all change a lot from beginning to end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:The precise moment when I realised that Erikson didn't feel the need to write characters that were remotely relatable, or even comprehensibe was when Brukhalian knowingly leads his army into a trap set by RathFener because the only way to punish RathFener by feeding his soul to their god (who he knows is AWOL) is if his plan to kill Brukhalian succeeds. So Brukhalian allows himself to be killed so that someone can get revenge for the betrayal that didn't really cause him to be killed, even though that revenge is no longer Man, I must remember less of Malazan than I thought, because I do not remember any of this at all. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I have only read the first book, so I didn't read any of your spoiler-tagged stuff, but I totally disagree. I understood everything that is important to storytelling, i.e., why the characters are doing what they're doing and what the stakes are. Sure, there were some unanswered questions, but they were all just fantasy fluff. The story was perfectly clear. The characters, too, are good and dynamic. Lorn, Crokus, and Paran all change a lot from beginning to end. I'm not sure you'd find anyone to agree with you about this on Gardens of the Moon. Even people that like Malazan tend to say it's a poor intro to the series, compared to Deadhouse Gates. I also don't think many would agree that characters are its strong point, like at all. But you should keep reading if it's working for you; if you really liked the first book, you'll very likely devour the rest of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:I'm not sure you'd find anyone to agree with you about this on Gardens of the Moon. Even people that like Malazan tend to say it's a poor intro to the series, compared to Deadhouse Gates. I also don't think many would agree that characters are its strong point, like at all. But you should keep reading if it's working for you; if you really liked the first book, you'll very likely devour the rest of it. One complaint I had to myself about the characters is that something close to 99% of the dialogue in the book was directly about the action and missions and stuff, and it needed a lot more about characters just getting along and showing their personalities, but I still thought that by the end I had a good sense of all the major players
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I have only read the first book, so I didn't read any of your spoiler-tagged stuff, but I totally disagree. I understood everything that is important to storytelling, i.e., why the characters are doing what they're doing and what the stakes are. Sure, there were some unanswered questions, but they were all just fantasy fluff. The story was perfectly clear. The characters, too, are good and dynamic. Lorn, Crokus, and Paran all change a lot from beginning to end. The spoilered parts read like a white english baby trying to understand mandarin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
I don't agree at all that Erikson can't write characters well. Sure, there's some that are one note and samey, but that just comes with the territory of something of the scope he's writing and how he decided to deliver it. There's also plenty of characters with huge, books-spanning arcs, and awesome multi-layered development. And also to be fair to Erikson, a lot of the lesser developed characters are still very memorable n likable, as well as being some of my favorites of the series. The complaint that it switches between so many characters whenever there's some huge climactic, magical event happening I just don't get at all. I consider the way Erikson delivers battles, action set-pieces, etc, especially the climactic ones, to be one of his biggest strengths. He's probably one of the best when it comes to actually tying a whole bunch of wandering plot threads together in a fantasy epic and actually delivering a satisfying, kick-rear end ending well worth all the build up to it, whereas I find a lot of other similar authors have trouble on this front.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
towards the end of the Enterprise of Death really liked it. different from the brothers grossbart in that it's not a black comedy or a picaresque, but equally as good, with some decent character-driven action. something i also really like about his writing is how well he does horror, mixing it in with the historical fiction aspects. horror is not the main thrust of the books but bullington devises some creepy monsters to plague europe (and north africa), and these sections are the highlights of the two books of his i've read so far. i also enjoyed the little nod towards the grossbart book that may indicate they are in the same world, with the resurrected skeleton indignantly refuting the suggestion he was a graverobber by asking whether he has a beard or not onto the folly of the world now
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:"what the hell was that about" "dunno mate, wizards eh?" *sad trombone* The quoted section would make a wonderful title for the thread, though. ToxicFrog posted:My only real complaint about Declare is that it was my second Tim Powers book (after The Anubis Gates), and nothing else of his I've read since has been anywhere close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Evfedu posted:Honest to God I remember really enjoying some of book 3 of Malazan, and that there were some pretty emotionally powerful sections, but all that stuff you described has almost entirely escaped my brain since. Oh I can't fault him on his death and funeral scenes. The Destriant healing so many people for so long he just fades away and dies, hedge suicide bombing the velociraptors, everything involving Rake and the massacre of the Bridge Burners. This guy knows how to convey tragedy and mourning, both in the small intimate moments like Rake walking out with the last of his allies, or the epilogue with Ben and in huge dramatic ceremonies, like the Tlan cairn for Itkovian . Powerful stuff . Half of them are gonna come back to life though, which undercuts the tragedy somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Oh I can't fault him on his death and funeral scenes. The Destriant healing so many people for so long he just fades away and dies, hedge suicide bombing the velociraptors, everything involving Rake and the massacre of the Bridge Burners. This guy knows how to convey tragedy and mourning, both in the small intimate moments like Rake walking out with the last of his allies, or the epilogue with Ben and in huge dramatic ceremonies, like the Tlan cairn for Itkovian . Powerful stuff . Death may not be permanent all the time in Malazan, but the return never comes without a price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
So I'm reading City of Stairs and Sigrud is the most ridiculous badass. Am I right in suspecting he's the long-lost king of the Dreylings as has been hinted at a couple times? All the stuff with the Divines and how they're maybe sort of not actually gods but manifestations of collective unconscious desires??? is pretty gripping. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
That was a great book and I'm looking forward to the sequel
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Finished up Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light. I thought it was a very cool high-concept mash-up of all sorts of influences that never overpower each other. I felt it was a difficult read at parts because Zelazny's style was sometimes a headache for me to follow along with. Details and plot points can get obscured by his prose. Although I can see someone making an argument that it was deliberate. The world he builds is one where people are copping to personas that truly aren't theirs. You hardly ever get a bead on a character. Sometimes keeping the names and allegiances straight was also a challenge. Zelazny puts out a ton of loving awesome ideas coupled with the imagery to match. I think this is a book I'll revisit in a few years and grow to like it even more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Thanks for the heads up holly, it's been bandied about as one of the left-field classics in some places IIRC, but it kinda dropped off my radar until you mentioned it again. I got it on my 'old stuff that I need to read'-list together with LeGuin (which I couldn't get into initially  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
I've got LeGuin coming up. Gonna read Ubik this week and then Traitor Baru Cormorant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Finished up Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light. I thought it was a very cool high-concept mash-up of all sorts of influences that never overpower each other. I felt it was a difficult read at parts because Zelazny's style was sometimes a headache for me to follow along with. Details and plot points can get obscured by his prose. Although I can see someone making an argument that it was deliberate. The world he builds is one where people are copping to personas that truly aren't theirs. You hardly ever get a bead on a character. Sometimes keeping the names and allegiances straight was also a challenge. Zelazny puts out a ton of loving awesome ideas coupled with the imagery to match. I think this is a book I'll revisit in a few years and grow to like it even more. Zelazny's writing is super carefully constructed, generally if you are wondering if he did something on purpose the answer is probably yes
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:Zelazny's writing is super carefully constructed, generally if you are wondering if he did something on purpose the answer is probably yes Especially the pun in LoL
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:That was a great book and I'm looking forward to the sequel Not much longer to wait. City of Blades should be available on the 26th. Think I'll re-read the first one ahead of that. http://robertjacksonbennett.com/blog/city-of-blades-out-1262016 http://www.robertjacksonbennett.com/blog/on-sequels
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Just finished Traitor Baru Hot drat that was a good book. I need to read something light and fun now to decompress. how does she put together that apparitor is the lost stackhiezi prince? Did I miss something there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
xian posted:Just finished Traitor Baru I'm not absolutely sure it's him, but I think it's a pretty good guess. Dziransi tells Baru that the Masquerade kidnapped their "fairest" prince off the deck of his ship, and the letter from the secret committee at the end reads that they have a native-born Stakhieczi among their members. Apparitor is a fancy-looking man, and he's the only committee member Baru meets who has pale skin and red hair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Quinton posted:Not much longer to wait. City of Blades should be available on the 26th. I just finished CoS this morning. drat, that's an ending right there. Just in time for the next one. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
dy. posted:I think it may just be a conflict of what I like about scifi vs. where KSR wanted to go. Ultimately I read scifi for new and interesting ideas, or different perspectives for looking at the world, and I never got any of that from KSR, except maybe the point that interplanetary travel could be much more difficult than we expect, which is a neat idea but could have been tackled in a much more interesting way. You can't judge a book by what you wanted it to do. Aurora is basically perfect, screw the naysayers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
the_homemaster posted:You can't judge a book by what you wanted it to do. Aurora is basically perfect, screw the naysayers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
the_homemaster posted:You can't judge a book by what you wanted it to do. I wanted Aurora to be better because I did not think it was very good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
I have a hardback of Aurora that I drove 17 miles to buy and then let it sit on my shelf for a month while I kept buying and reading other books, because I have a problem
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 07:28
|
|