If I were to read a book by Gemmell....

4 Pages
←
1
2
3
4
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

If I were to read a book by Gemmell....

#41 ObsoleteResolve

Fist

Group: Malaz Regular
Posts: 262
Joined: 05-February 05

Posted 04 February 2006 - 03:34 AM

Does it just come naturally, Bloom, or do you have to try at it? Inquiring minds await your answer. Because, really, it seems like you try so very hard to cultivate the beard and beret.

.david
PS: There are words to describe you. "Insufferable" is one. There is also "pretentious."

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!"- Kurt Vonnegut

#42 Brys

Fist

Group: Malaz Regular
Posts: 218
Joined: 02-August 05

Posted 04 February 2006 - 11:11 AM

Harold Bloom said:

If you read fantasy, you do not need light reading to read between complex books. Those complex books are light reading.

Wait - Gormenghast is light reading? Viriconium is light reading? Franz Kafka's light reading? Clark Ashton Smith's light reading? Calvino's light reading? I'm curious, what definition of fantasy are you using? Those classed as epic fantasy by publishers, or what fantasy is in truth, even if it isn't in the fantasy section of a bookshop (ie including magic realism).

Gemmell is certainly light, and I might look to authors like Gemmell or Leiber or Vance after reading something more complex, like Calvino or Peake. What is it that you consider complex books then?

#43 Guest_Harold Bloom_*

Group: Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 04 February 2006 - 09:06 PM

The work of Calvino, Kafka, and M John Harrison are not light reading (along with the works of Crowley, Borges, and Eco), but are these the books that people refer to when they say that they need some light reading or is it an installment in the latest fantasy epic?

Gormenghast is not fantasy. Moreover, I suspect the fan base for Gormenghast is rather small here.

I have never read Clark Ashton Smith, but I know that he published a lot of pulp and that some of his work was in the mold of HP Lovecraft (hack.) It seems as though his work should be lighter fare.

#44 Guest_bluesman_*

Group: Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 04 February 2006 - 11:03 PM

It's not allways you feel like digging down to Anna Karenina heavy levels when you read something.

Gemmell is the perfect choice for reading something on the bus/tram/sub on your way to the job for instance.

I also like the way Gemmell looks, he looks like someone who would wright some depressing poetry or something

.

bm

#45 Werthead

Ascendant

Group: Malaz Regular
Posts: 3,947
Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 05 February 2006 - 01:47 AM

Harold Bloom said:

Gormenghast is not fantasy. Moreover, I suspect the fan base for Gormenghast is rather small here.

Given that Gormenghast is set in an alternate secondary world, that is has been considered a masterpiece of the fantastical genre for the past fifty years (but absolutely not the epic fantasy subgenre, which it very definitely does not belong to) and is described in Clute & Grant's Encyclopedia of Fantasy as "the most intensely visual fantasy ever written" and "a Gothic Fantasy stripped of all plot accretions, of all intrusions of the supernatural, until only impacted ambience remains," I am curious as to what leads you to this conclusion that Gormenghast is "not fantasy."

Visit The Wertzone for reviews of SF&F books, DVDs and computer games!

"Try standing out in a winter storm all night and see how tough you are. Start with that. Then go into a bar and pick a fight and see how tough you are. And then go home and break crockery over your head. Start with those three and you'll be good to go."
- Bruce Campbell on how to be as cool as he is

#46 Guest_Harold Bloom_*

Group: Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 05 February 2006 - 06:39 AM

Gormenghast is missing the supernatural, exotic beings, physical laws different than our own, and all the other elements that define fantasy. Unless there is a subgenre of fantasy in which the only two requirements are that it takes place in a castle and that the castle is really big, Gormenghast is simply colourful fiction.

On the other hand, if colourful fiction in itself is a subgenre of fantasy, than Huckleberry Finn and Don Quixote are two of my favourite fantasy novels.

#47 Werthead

Ascendant

Group: Malaz Regular
Posts: 3,947
Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 05 February 2006 - 02:28 PM

Well, Gormenghast's world is not our own, which in my book is enough for it to be fantasy. If it isn't fantasy, it's SF.

Visit The Wertzone for reviews of SF&F books, DVDs and computer games!

#48 Guest_Harold Bloom_*

Group: Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 05 February 2006 - 03:41 PM

I amend what I said. Gormenghast and Titus Groan are no more fantasy than Middlemarch. Neither are they any form of speculative fiction. However, I never read Titus Alone. I vaguely remember hearing that it changes things, but if that is true than it means that Titus Alone is speculative fiction not Gormenghast and Titus Groan. If Cornwell wrote a Sharpe book with magic in it, that would not make all the previous Sharpe books fantasy as well.

#49 Guest_Kayasmus_*

Group: Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 05 February 2006 - 08:12 PM

I recommen you either start with The Sword in the Storm or Legend. Ive been reading Gemmell for years and have read all his books except for the one he published under a pseudonym and his latest one. He writes great heroic fantasy and a few of books really stand out. Gemmell does have a few flaws. He reuses themes alot, I don't ever want to hear about joinings ever again, and some of his books suffer from rushed, weak endings and its even more dissapointing when everything you read up till that point was good.

#50 tiam

Ascendant

Group: Mott Irregulars
Posts: 3,948
Joined: 26-January 06

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:08 PM

Ive only ever read one Gemmel book (the king beyond the gate) and i liked it. but it was a bit obvios at the end and had some rather big stereo typing flaws in. I also hated the idea of joinings. Odd that while at the airport i bought this at i was deciding beetween this and GoTM knowing nothing about either book. O well im soglad im so indecisive as i got both

. I often find little time for other fanatsy and constantly reread MbOTF just becuse i need to know everything for BH lol

#51 Guest_bluesman_*

Group: Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:02 PM

But the Rigante books are good up until the very end in my opinion.

It's the best of him I've read so far (better than Legend as far as I'm concerned)

bm

#52 Tes'thesula

High House My House

Group: Malaz Regular
Posts: 410
Joined: 09-June 05

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:16 PM

Gotta love Gemmell, andI agree with Bluesman with the Rigante...especially Ravenheart, some powerful scenes in that one...But to be honest, you can't really go wrong with any Gemmell book, they're generally the same story anyway.

Go Druss

#53 Mezla PigDog

Malazan Yo Yo Champion 2009

Group: Mezla's Thought Police
Posts: 2,721
Joined: 03-September 04

Posted 10 February 2006 - 11:54 PM

I'm not sure how much Gemmell I've read. A lot! Legend is definitely my favourite. His books are the fantasy equlivalent of Jackie Collins, imo. ... not that I've read much Jackie Collins

. But once, I got a free trashy novel with a girly magazine, and it was like Gemmell but not fantasy. I love Gemmell books, but I'd be slightly ashamed to be caught with one and I'm not usually a person to be bothered by what other people think. But talk about gratuitous sex!! :eek:

Burn rubber =/= warp speed

#54 dktorode

Luck is my middle name, Mind you, my first name is Bad."

Group: High House Mafia
Posts: 2,188
Joined: 03-September 05

Posted 11 February 2006 - 12:50 AM

Gemmel's good for a quickie

...┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐...

Why dont they make the whole plane out of that black box stuff?

#55 Guest_bluesman_*

Group: Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 11 February 2006 - 06:54 PM

Mezla PigDog said:

I'm not sure how much Gemmell I've read. A lot! Legend is definitely my favourite. His books are the fantasy equlivalent of Jackie Collins, imo. ... not that I've read much Jackie Collins

Except that a fanatasy writer can only dream of selling as many books as Collins or Cartland. The collective amount of fantasy sales isn't close

.

bm

#56 Tiger_sword

First Sword

Group: Malaz Regular
Posts: 582
Joined: 17-November 04
Location:England

Posted 09 March 2006 - 10:34 PM

Echoes Of A Great Song - was a wonderful book much different from most of his other books. I always thought that in Gemmel books there was too much emphasis on the main character. Sometimes an entire book basically follows just one person. Thats fine i guess i just like my books with a bit more bredth (i guess thats why i love SE so much).

#57 Werthead

Ascendant

Group: Malaz Regular
Posts: 3,947
Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 09 March 2006 - 10:58 PM

bluesman said:

Except that a fanatasy writer can only dream of selling as many books as Collins or Cartland. The collective amount of fantasy sales isn't close

.

bm

Erm, Tolkien/Rowling/Pratchett? Okay, maybe not Pratchett (only 40 million sales) but the other two have sold like a quarter-billion copies of their books, which I think puts them far ahead of any other authors full stop.

Gemmell is very much cheeseburger fantasy. You pick it up, you enjoy it, and 10 minutes later you've forgotten about it. Not a bad author, but not one I am driven to read very often.

Visit The Wertzone for reviews of SF&F books, DVDs and computer games!

#58 Guest_Saint Chains_*

Group: Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 10 March 2006 - 02:17 AM

Ahh, yes, Legend

Legend is one of the first fantasy books I read, and yeah it was great then. But now, after having read authors like Martin and Erikson, it is hard to re-read without sighing and putting it down.

Has anyone read Lord of the Silver Bow??

Man, what a boring book! Fair enough, I only read the first 100 pages, and try as I might, I couldn't force myself to swallow any more. And that bugs me because, as many here also are, I am loathe to leave a book unfinished.

I mean, I love Greek mythology and all that jazz, but this was just garbage. There was no depth to the story, the characters were all cardboard, the writing had no...colour to it. There was very little action.

So I put it down and picked up Dan Simmons's Ilium - after recommendations from forum members- and am only 10 pages into it. Already the writing is colourful and engaging, the story is intriguing, the characters are realistic and have -wait for it- personality! Furthermore, the book promises to get better and even more exciting, after only 10 pages of reading it! Basically, I am enjoying it and it's not a chore to read.

While I have only read Legend and King Beyond the Gate, which were ok, I gave Lord of the Silver Bow a go, and was disappointed. While I am not judging all of Gemmell's writing on these books, they certainly don't inspire me to rush out and try any of his other works.

It has been said that Gemmell is 'possibly the finest living writer of heroic fantasy.' Is this what all heroic fantasy is like, or are these just bad examples of the genre? If so, how did he earn this title?

Or furthermore, have I just read bad examples of Gemmell's writing?

Sorry, got a bit carried away, but I'm just a little frustrated with the accolades that Gemmell gets, as opposed to those Erikson gets, who, in my opinion deserves them far more.

#59 Guest_Kayasmus_*

Group: Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 10 March 2006 - 12:51 PM

Legend was his first book and personally I enjoyed King Beyond the Gate. You might like Ravenheart, which doesn't really require the first two Rigante books to be read, but they add depth. Gemmell has a strict formula and his best novels are those that diverge from them a bit or are so well written that you don't see it (Ravenheart), but he does have alot of misses too. Heroic Fantasy has mainly to do with people doing heroic stuff, overcoming personal or large physical odds e.t.c. and he does do it very well.

Gemmell has been writing for many more years than Erikson has, and as good as Erikson is at writing, he is not accessible to the majority of readers out there. Hopefully that will change.