|
anilEhilated posted:There's one name I'm missing in the prose-focused fantasy recs, Avram Davidson. fez_machine posted:Most things by Avram Davidson
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Sjonkel posted:I have a few books I've read recently that I liked, but not sure if I liked them enough to read the sequels. I've gotten helpful answers here before, so I'm trying again. Downbelow Station is one of the densest books CJC has written and, for all that it won a pile of awards, one of the ones I like least. Pretty much everything else she's written in that setting is snappier (yes, even Cyteen, which I'm pretty sure you could easily beat someone to death with in hardcover); check out the Merchanter books for a look at what the Alliance gets up to after the Treaty of Pell, Hellburner and Heavy Time for events in Earthspace preceding it, or Cyteen and Regenesis for the Union perspective on things. The Merchanter books are all standalones, Hellburner/Heavy Time and Cyteen/Regenesis are duologies. She's also written a bunch of standalones in the same universe but not the same setting (Serpent's Reach, Cuckoo's Egg, Voyager in Night, and a bunch of others, plus the Faded Sun trilogy), and a five-book series (although the first and last stand more or less on their own) set in alien space coreward of Earth, the Chanur series. There's a master timeline that all of these can be fitted in to, but you don't really need to read in chronological order, and anything listed above would be a good choice. ToxicFrog fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Cyteen is nearly 700 pages. That's crazy. I intend on reading that before starting Downbelow Station.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Cyteen is nearly 700 pages. That's crazy. It's large -- I think it's the largest book she's written, unless you count the middle three Chanur books as one book (which is reasonable), in which case they weigh in at ~1000 pages combined. Despite that, I found it goes down much more smoothly than Downbelow and doesn't feel nearly as long as it is. (I actually think the best order is to start with either the Merchanter or Chanur books, then read everything else in the A-U setting to fill in the gaps around Downbelow Station and put it in historical context, and then read Downbelow Station last.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Well he deserves mentioning twice. We're talking one of the best least-talked fantasy writers out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Someone mentioned this short story in either this or the horror thread. Anyway I was curious and it looks like the author has it free on his website. I really enjoyed it. 400 Boys by Marc Laidlaw. http://www.marclaidlaw.com/online-fiction/400-boys/
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Forty Thousand in Gehenna is also in the A-U series, it's roughly about what happens when a bunch of Union's weird imprinted clone people are left alone to figure out a society on their own and then how hosed up their children are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:P.S. I am enjoying Regenesis anyways because the dynamic with Jordan is absolutely appealing, and I'm hoping this book has a better ending than Cyteen did. Regenesis was a really weird read for me. Cherryh spent enough time on the teenage wish fulfillment stuff that the main conflict seemed like a second thought, and I kind of shrugged at the ending.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Whenever I see recommendations for Cherryh, I think I should check her out but then discover there's hardly anything available as an ebook (on the UK Kindle store anyway. Is there something I'm missing?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Junkenstein posted:Whenever I see recommendations for Cherryh, I think I should check her out but then discover there's hardly anything available as an ebook (on the UK Kindle store anyway. Is there something I'm missing?) She went indie with the ebooks. No Pants posted:Regenesis was a really weird read for me. Cherryh spent enough time on the teenage wish fulfillment stuff that the main conflict seemed like a second thought, and I kind of shrugged at the ending. It's bizarre, as it feels so much like the latest atevi book - incredible detail on the day-to-day life stuff for Ari and her azi, with just a little time spent with the rest of the plot. I'm enjoying it, but I don't know if I could recommend it whole-heartedly to someone who really dug Cyteen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
drat. Cyteen isn't available on ebook. Does Craig Schaeffer sells his work on ebook anywhere else except Amazon?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Sjonkel posted:I have a few books I've read recently that I liked, but not sure if I liked them enough to read the sequels. I've gotten helpful answers here before, so I'm trying again. I enjoyed The Dark Forest a lot, probably more than TBP. Found its story a little more immediately engaging, and as a single book I found it pretty satisfying. I haven't read Death's End yet. Without giving too much away, The Obelisk Gate felt very much like a middle trilogy book. I don't have any regrets about not waiting til the third book and reading them back to back, but looking back there wasn't much resolution on the story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Is indie the same as lowest bidder?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Hey so I sent Craig Schaefer a message over FB regarding ebook availability outside of Amazon. The dude got back to me in like 20 minutes! He says for contractual reasons, his work will only be on Amazon, but that could change in a few months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Obligatory 'but that's like seven books from now!' joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:
Glad to help, I love books with that same type of cheerful nihilism too. Richard Morgan's fantasy series is good for it too if you haven't read it yet, and Daniel Polansky's Lowtown books, lots of worldweary cynicism and some dark humor in em.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Is The Dagger and Coin series by Daniel Abraham worth a poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Is The Dagger and Coin series by Daniel Abraham worth a poo poo? Yes, definitely. I thought it got stronger as it went on, which isn't all that common in my experience, and the end was very satisfying. A pleasing fantasy series about monetary policy. Worth checking out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
mdemone posted:The loving Rothfuss books are the prime example of being legitimately convinced something is bad after reading it and thinking "okay that was decent". That thread and the deconstruction therein totally ruined the series for me and they were correct to do so. The elf sex scenes did that for me, god the whole elf lands stuff was just so bad The Glumslinger fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:The elf sex scenes did that for me, god the whole elf lands stuff was just so bad For me it was the entire culture of people who couldn't figure out how babby is formed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
"She's wild, and skittish, like a deer. Gonna gently caress that deer"  kinda killed the whole series for me.Granted, the dude can write beautifully, meaning it flows very well and the prose is nice. He just can't handle a plot even if it came with handles and instructions. I think he someone gave him an idea or just stood over him with a rolled up newspaper ready to swat him in the head when he started getting creepy or retarded, he'd be a lot better off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
Yeah, he'd be dead, clobbered by a newspaper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
Stupid_Sexy_Flander posted:Granted, the dude can write beautifully People keep telling me this, but then refuse to bring up a single example of something beautiful he's supposedly written. The truth is that the prose "being nice" and "flowing well" aren't actually good things about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
My impression from the excerpts is that Rothfuss has moments where he tries for a flowery 'poetic' style and then pages of various levels of Nods Grinning. The inconsistent writing is one of the arguments for the books being stitched together from widely spaced drafts and fragments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
Was there an actual proper breakdown about how Name Of The Wind sucks or is this just a general consensus from lots of people chipping away at it, analysing bit by bit in the thread during the wait for the next novels?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
Peel posted:My impression from the excerpts is that Rothfuss has moments where he tries for a flowery 'poetic' style and then pages of various levels of Nods Grinning. The inconsistent writing is one of the arguments for the books being stitched together from widely spaced drafts and fragments. That's not really a problem of structure as much as Rothfuss writing under wildly different and mutually incompatible influences. You can't try to write The Last Unicorn, a D&D sourcebook, and television at the same time and have it work. VagueRant posted:Was there an actual proper breakdown about how Name Of The Wind sucks or is this just a general consensus from lots of people chipping away at it, analysing bit by bit in the thread during the wait for the next novels? Both, actually. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Can we have a thread where we force BotL to read terrible prose and explain to us why it's bad before providing delightful counterexamples? I would like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
The Rothfuss thread gradually lost patience with the books (the OP is a hoot in retrospect) but BotL took a systematic hatchet to the series recently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Marlon James is up to something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Peel posted:The Rothfuss thread gradually lost patience with the books (the OP is a hoot in retrospect) but BotL took a systematic hatchet to the series recently. You're not kidding when you say hatchet, because this is all written by someone with the biggest axe to grind and tends to drift into a lot of personal opinions on the structure of writing delivered as absolute truths. Like, I understand a lot of people don't like the books and realize it's a futile effort to try and argue against that tide, but I also dislike that this always gets passed around as the definitive take on the series because it's largely nitpicky and/or poorly structured criticism disguised under lots of effort and literary terms. Like, in the very first one he complains extensively about the line: quote:His eyes were dark and distant, and he moved with the subtle certainty that comes with knowing many things. Yeah, it's purply, but I still find it compelling. He claims that no reader could actually picture this person and that it's too vague to be effective, while I find it paints a perfect picture in my head. I totally get why some people don't like the books (and I know they're not without issues), but this critique always irks me. Really, this is just a long YMMV post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
You simply haven't grasped my criticisms of the series, which is obvious right here:CaptCommy posted:Yeah, it's purply, but I still find it compelling. He claims that no reader could actually picture this person and that it's too vague to be effective, while I find it paints a perfect picture in my head. I totally get why some people don't like the books (and I know they're not without issues), but this critique always irks me. Really, this is just a long YMMV post. I never said that Rothfussian Attributes like "he moved with the subtle certainty that comes with knowing many things" aren't effective. In fact, they're very effective and partly why Rothfuss is praised so much for his writing. My criticism is that they're superficially effective: while phrases like that leave an impression, applying any thought to them will quickly dispel the enchantment. There is no beauty or truth to it. This is the essence of hackwork, really: to be effective without being true. They also clash terribly with the book's dull modern fantasy prose. Rothfuss includes these flights of fancy because he's trying to imitate The Last Unicorn, but they fare much better there because Beagle can commit to a singular style instead of wavering between two incompatible modes. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:You simply haven't grasped my criticisms of the series, which is obvious right here: Good to know your rampant condescension applies to both forum posters with differing opinions and Rothfuss. I grasped your criticism just fine, thanks, I just think you're wrong. I guess it's a hard loving concept that some people could like things that you don't, but it's probably something worth learning. I've applied plenty of thought to that line and specifically chose it because I think that it does still contain beauty and paints the perfect picture in my mind. Like, you can sit around saying other people just haven't thought as hard as you have if that makes you feel better but that doesn't make it any more true. I tried my best to hedge my previous post in that I understand the language choices he makes aren't for everyone, but there's nothing objectively wrong with his prose. Like, do you think all of the authors and critics who praise it consistently are just drunk? Or just not as smart as you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
People need to chill for a bit. And read some Clark Ashton Smith, who helped define the whole fantasy genre. He tended to re-edit stories for publication, however he had a consistent writing style & did not suck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
I've never seen an actual critical examination of Rothfuss besides what BotL did. Are you sure you aren't conflating "critic" with "reviewer?" Assuming you are, and to respond to your point, reviewers and other authors generally don't have time to linger overlong on any particular work. They praise Rothfuss because his books are clever in that they trick you into thinking they are good books. Superficially, there's a lot to like, and Kvothe and most of the situations he finds himself in are designed to appeal to the bookish type. However, as BotL repeatedly showed, applying even the smallest amount of thought to what you're reading makes the whole house of cards crumble. Edit: In the interest of fairness, I'm certain nearly no fantasy works would be able to stand up to critical review, though I do think Rothfuss falls apart a lot quicker than many of his contemporaries. Ornamented Death fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
CaptCommy posted:I grasped your criticism just fine, thanks, I just think you're wrong. I guess it's a hard loving concept that some people could like things that you don't, but it's probably something worth learning. I'd say you haven't, because you're ignoring what I said: CaptCommy posted:I've applied plenty of thought to that line and specifically chose it because I think that it does still contain beauty and paints the perfect picture in my mind. Like, you can sit around saying other people just haven't thought as hard as you have if that makes you feel better but that doesn't make it any more true. I tried my best to hedge my previous post in that I understand the language choices he makes aren't for everyone, but there's nothing objectively wrong with his prose. Like, do you think all of the authors and critics who praise it consistently are just drunk? Or just not as smart as you? Again, my criticism of the Rothfussian Attribute isn't that they're ineffective. They're extremely effective. This is because they're broad and empty signifiers that distract from their lack of meaning and let the reader do all the work. Like the phrase you brought up: "he moved with the subtle certainty of knowing many things". What does it actually say? 1. The man moved. 2. He did so with subtle certainty. 3. The subtle certainty is the product of knowing many things. Consider what "move" means in the first part. It could be any of the obvious things an innkeeper/bartender might be doing: walking, carrying drinks, cleaning things. He could be doing anything ordinary. What is subtle certainty? While certainty is something we can imagine seeing in a person, how is "subtle certainty" specifically distinct? Well, they would be doing something, and they'd look like they knew what they were doing. It wouldn't be something intensive or dramatic. They could be doing anything, while looking normal. What does it mean to know many things? The implication here is that the man is privy to secret knowledge. He could be walking while knowing the true history of the world. He could be filling a tankard with beer, knowing who killed the King of Nonesuch and who stole the skull of Pope Polydore IX. In other words, he could be doing anything while looking like anything. So "he moved with the subtly certainty of knowing many things" is an impressive phrase that means very little. It's so broad and empty that the reader can project any meaning of their own into it. This is very effective. But it's not beautiful (it's Rothfuss's standard limp rhythm) and it's not true (it's lacking with any insight into how people act). There's a quote about H.P. Lovecraft that I recently read, but can't find. To paraphrase, Lovecraft is a terrible writer, but the vagueness of his horror works to his advantage. This is because the reader can freely imagine what Lovecraft was unable to describe. This is why his cosmic horror is so effective. In other words, Lovecraft relied on his readers being better writers than he was.. The same principle is at work here. CaptCommy posted:Like, do you think all of the authors and critics who praise it consistently are just drunk? Or just not as smart as you? I think they're very amateurish as critics. Let me assure you, I've gone through NOTW's critical literature, which is really just reviews. They're quite bad. Ornamented Death posted:Edit: In the interest of fairness, I'm certain nearly no fantasy works would be able to stand up to critical review, though I do think Rothfuss falls apart a lot quicker than many of his contemporaries. We should remember that most literature does not stand up to critical review. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:There's a quote about H.P. Lovecraft that I recently read, but can't find. To paraphrase, Lovecraft is a terrible writer, but the vagueness of his horror works to his advantage. This is because the reader can freely imagine what Lovecraft was unable to describe. This is why his cosmic horror is so effective. In other words, Lovecraft relied on his readers being better writers than he was.. I think we just fundamentally disagree on what the rules are for good writing based on this. First I think there's power in a readers imagination mingling with the writing in a story that doesn't necessitate bad writing (though Lovecraft is a hack). I don't think it's a sin to write purposefully vague portions of prose. But I also don't think I can convince you. Also, I probably could have phrased my earlier posts better, so uh, sorry for kind of attacking you. That was a dick move.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I'd say you haven't, because you're ignoring what I said:
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Unless I'm missing something, you're critiquing a a part of the character's description like it's supposed to be an in-scene action. There's no actual difference in the critical standards for describing characters and describing action. It's all description. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
This whole page is insufferable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:We should remember that most literature does not stand up to critical review. So I've read your summary posts regarding The Name of the Wind, and the last one in particular makes me wonder what you value in the fantasy genre beyond it being a guilty pleasure. You called yourself a Rothfuss fan at one point while also arguing that his fans just like wallowing in self-indulgent garbage. If you still read genre fiction, is that the only reason why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:32
|
|
