[Serenity]

The only GGK book I was a little disappointed by so far was Under Heaven. Didn't hate it, just wasn't in the mood for it, I guess. I loved Lions, Sarantine and Arbonne, though.


I finished Bakker's The Warrior-Prophet today. Thought it was very good, in general.

[Solidsnape]

Kruppe, on 03 August 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

154. The Year's Best Fantasy And Horror 2008 edited by Ellen Datlow - A better than average anthology. I guess they take the word "best" seriously. Still a mixed bag, with the stories getting progressively less interesting. Seemed to skew towards horror...not much that I would have considered fantasy...

155. The Nerdist Way by Chris Hardwick - Fun and funny guide to a successful nerd life.

156. Blindsight by Peter Watts - There's probably some good stuff in here, but it didn't work for me. My brain is very finicky when it comes to hard SF.

157. The Forbidden Game by L. J. Smith - I wanted this to be Jumanji for teens, but it was pretty much just cookie cutter teen girl fantasy fiction.

158. The Lambkins by Eve Bunting - Kids' book about an old lady who kidnaps kids and shrinks them down to keep in her dollhouse. Good concept, but the simplicity of the story worked to its detriment. I would like to see this plot in a YA, or even adult, horror novel.

159. Babylon Steel by Gaie Sebold - I wanted this be Star Wars Cantina + wormholes, but it wasn't. Dangit, why can't authors read my mind and retroactively write their books the way I want them to?

160. Pandora's Star by Peter F. Hamilton - I really liked this at first, but I eventually became lost in a sea of plot threads. A shame, because there's nothing better than a giant tome of a sci-fi novel. I'm reading The Reality Dysfunction now, and hopefully I'll be able to follow that one better, because I really like Hamilton's writing style. He's sort of an SF Tom Clancy.

161. The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rafaniemi - I really wanted to like this one, because it seemed vaguely reminiscent of Tad Williams' Otherland (which I loved). But I just found it really hard to follow.

162. Royal Exile by Fiona McIntosh - As much as I loved McIntosh's Odalisque, this one just bored me.

I read that Otherland a few years back and really enjoyed it. A bit slow to begin with, but was quite gripping in the second 2 thirds of the book. I never pursued the rest of the series. Can anyone recommend?

[Abyss]

Solidsnape, on 08 August 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Kruppe, on 03 August 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

...
161. The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rafaniemi - I really wanted to like this one, because it seemed vaguely reminiscent of Tad Williams' Otherland (which I loved). But I just found it really hard to follow.
...

I read that Otherland a few years back and really enjoyed it. A bit slow to begin with, but was quite gripping in the second 2 thirds of the book. I never pursued the rest of the series. Can anyone recommend?

It's brilliant trilogy.

[MTS]

Abyss, on 08 August 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

MTS, on 08 August 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

I think it's hilarious how polarising GGK is on this forum. I can't think of any author that we are so indecisive about.

What's actually fascinating about GGK isn't how polarizing he himself is so much as how his books are... TIGANA in particular prompts a love it or hate it response, but we've had raging debates about LIONS, ARBONNE, LAST LIGHT, FIONAVAR, UNDER HEAVEN.... the same forumites who love LOVE some of his books really unlove others.

I think the only generally (using the terms loosely) arrived at consensus is that SARANTINE was awesome and YSABEL sucked. And now someone will post to disagree with me.

There's also the interesting element that a lot of forumites put a lot of weight on each other's recommendations... so when something reads the opposite of what forumthink led them to believe, it prompts an equally vocal reaction. Also, TIGANA sucked in a randomly incestuous sort of way.

Well that's mostly what I meant, just not as elegantly phrased.

Unfortunately, the recently finished Ship of Rome didn't turn out to be as interesting as I thought, but was merely passable. I'll read the rest of the series, but only out of loyalty to the subject matter rather than the writing itself. Now, following Tiste's enlightenment, tackling Heroes Die for the second time.

[McLovin]

Abyss, on 08 August 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

It's brilliant trilogy.

Or it would be, if Williams had kept it to 3 books instead of 4.

There's some great characters and scenes but it's WAY too long and the payoff is not worth the journey.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 08 August 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Solidsnape, on 08 August 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Kruppe, on 03 August 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

...
161. The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rafaniemi - I really wanted to like this one, because it seemed vaguely reminiscent of Tad Williams' Otherland (which I loved). But I just found it really hard to follow.
...

I read that Otherland a few years back and really enjoyed it. A bit slow to begin with, but was quite gripping in the second 2 thirds of the book. I never pursued the rest of the series. Can anyone recommend?

It's brilliant trilogy.

I imagine a voidlike, raging empty hole of nothingness appears on Abyss' bookshelf next to the third book....since the 4th book doesn't exist in his mindhole.

[MTS]

amphibian, on 08 August 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

MTS, on 08 August 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

I think it's hilarious how polarising GGK is on this forum. I can't think of any author that we are so indecisive about.

But c'mon, in what way is Under Heaven terrible?

There are quite a few threads that have popped up over the years on GGK and it's mostly people with very different opinions about books - which don't rely on historical accuracy or anything like that. Everybody here's a grownup about respecting the SF part of the writing - we are Erikson fans after all.

One thread: http://forum.malazan...s-works-thread/

Two thread: http://forum.malazan...c/24423-tigana/

Three thread: http://forum.malazan...s-of-al-rassan/

As for Under Heaven, it had completely flat characters, somehow disguised underneath a thin Chinese setting that a ton of people who don't read books with Chinese settings (or any foreign settings) think is awesome. The story itself is kind of nice - a good person somehow ends up with a hot potato McGuffin everyone wants and has to figure out who to trust and who to give the hot potato to - but the characters weaken it to a huge degree.

Okay, I looked back at my previous review and it got a "passable". Which is kind of saying "average" and is better than "terrible". I do think that it doesn't deserve awards or critical accolades over something like Ian MacDonald's The Dervish House or something else that was tremendous that came out that year.

The only disappointment I found with Under Heaven was that two thirds of the novel were building up to this massive bit of court intrigue about the horses and what would happen, and then it is shunted to the side and addressed later as an afterthought in favour of what actually happened, which was a bit jarring as a reader. River of Stars was much better in that respect, and better told in my opinion, but had the same recurring problem in that the 'bad guys' had no substance whatsoever, and were as you say rather flat characters. I thought Shen Tai, Li Mei, Spring Rain and even Wen Jian to a lesser extent were quite well-developed characters.

*shrugs* Agree to disagree I suppose. Have not read The Dervish House either, so can't comment on the comparison.

[Tiste Simeon]

QuickTidal, on 08 August 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

Abyss, on 08 August 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Solidsnape, on 08 August 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Kruppe, on 03 August 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

...
161. The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rafaniemi - I really wanted to like this one, because it seemed vaguely reminiscent of Tad Williams' Otherland (which I loved). But I just found it really hard to follow.
...

I read that Otherland a few years back and really enjoyed it. A bit slow to begin with, but was quite gripping in the second 2 thirds of the book. I never pursued the rest of the series. Can anyone recommend?

It's brilliant trilogy.

I imagine a voidlike, raging empty hole of nothingness appears on Abyss' bookshelf next to the third book....since the 4th book doesn't exist in his mindhole.

Hmmm I agree that it should have been 3 but I think each book should have had huge chunks taken out, thus being able to compress into 3, rather than deleting a whole book. I love them & have read the series twice, I did love them, but you really have to be patient.

[amphibian]

If an author consistently side-steps the climatic action sequence or political drama scene in his or her books, you have to start looking at the author's choices.

For every Brucolac/Uther Doul fight, Mieville gives us five brawls or stunning political moments. For the months, years, palaces, creatures and wars that Gene Wolfe slips us readers away from, he gives us more right in front of us.

For GGK, the only battle of his that I've read was basically the end of Tigana and it wasn't that awesome. Which is fine - some authors do the battles, political showdowns and so on better than others, so they go towards that. But GGK consistently makes his stories about the convergences there and then skips them again and again. It's frustrating and over time, it just becomes "He's doing it again."

So, the question becomes "Does he write well enough to make up for that or to make it not matter?" And the answers to that are going to be subjective as heck, because that's how he is with his book-audience connection.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 08 August 2013 - 08:11 PM

[polishgenius]

amphibian, on 08 August 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

If an author consistently side-steps the climatic action sequence or political drama scene in his or her books, you have to start looking at the author's choices.

For every Brucolac/Uther Doul fight, Mieville gives us five brawls or stunning political moments. For the months, years, palaces, creatures and wars that Gene Wolfe slips us readers away from, he gives us more right in front of us.

In fairness, while he doesn't do that many battles, GGK hardly shies away from political moments or other segments of high drama. All his most memorable moments seem to be scenes of conversation, though.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 08 August 2013 - 08:30 PM

[QuickTidal]

On topic, I finished the non-fic Adventure Anthology I was reading. It was excellent throughout. Highest recommendation. Seriously.

Now starting Mark Lawrence's EMPEROR OF THORNS.

[Overactive Imagination]

Reading Blood and Bone and...

Spoiler

Skinner just kicked Spite in the face and it was fuckin awesome lol

[Morgoth]

An author not writing battles (though he does now and then) is only a bad thing if you read fantasy for battles.

[amphibian]

Morgoth, on 09 August 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

An author not writing battles (though he does now and then) is only a bad thing if you read fantasy for battles.

Well, if the book is structured to lead up to a battle or a political showdown or some kind of catharsis through action/meeting of people (Erikson's convergences), then skipping over the actual climax multiple times in different books with different settings and characters is a questionable tactic. Narrative tricks are tricks and must be backed up with great writing.

It happened in Lions, it happened in Under Heaven and probably in a couple others. It kind of worked with Lions for me and not at all for Under Heaven for me. Tigana did have the climax shown and it was... passable. Not great. Abyss has a few pretty astute criticisms of it, although I don't dislike the book as much as he does.

There's a few authors who take great delight in skipping what "should" come next through looping the characters elsewhere and getting us readers directly to something else. Gene Wolfe did this to great effect in The Knight and The Wizard. However, he didn't skip the climaxes of either book and made them kind of breathless and breakneck in pace to compensate.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 09 August 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

It happened in Lions

Must disagree. There is nothing I was expecting or not expecting in LIONS that didn't meet those expectations perfectly.

[Abyss]

MTS, on 08 August 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

Abyss, on 08 August 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

MTS, on 08 August 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

I think it's hilarious how polarising GGK is on this forum. I can't think of any author that we are so indecisive about.

...TIGANA sucked in a randomly incestuous sort of way.

Well that's mostly what I meant, just not as elegantly phrased.

I'm here for you.

MTS, on 08 August 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

... Now, following Tiste's enlightenfuckingment, tackling Heroes Die for the second time.

fixed that for you.
now get the fuck in there and read the fuck out of that book.

Tiste Simeon, on 08 August 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 08 August 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

Abyss, on 08 August 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Solidsnape, on 08 August 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Kruppe, on 03 August 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

...
161. The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rafaniemi - I really wanted to like this one, because it seemed vaguely reminiscent of Tad Williams' Otherland (which I loved). But I just found it really hard to follow.
...

I read that Otherland a few years back and really enjoyed it. A bit slow to begin with, but was quite gripping in the second 2 thirds of the book. I never pursued the rest of the series. Can anyone recommend?

It's brilliant trilogy.

I imagine a voidlike, raging empty hole of nothingness appears on Abyss' bookshelf next to the third book....since the 4th book doesn't exist in his mindhole.

Hmmm I agree that it should have been 3 but I think each book should have had huge chunks taken out, thus being able to compress into 3, rather than deleting a whole book. I love them & have read the series twice, I did love them, but you really have to be patient.

Exactly. It's not that any one book sucked, it's that there are entire plotlines running through all four books that were poorly written, disconnected and went absolutely nowhere that contributed to the whole of the story.

...tho the voidlike raging empty hole of nothingness on the bookshelf was funnier.

polishgenius, on 08 August 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

amphibian, on 08 August 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

If an author consistently side-steps the climatic action sequence or political drama scene in his or her books, you have to start looking at the author's choices.

For every Brucolac/Uther Doul fight, Mieville gives us five brawls or stunning political moments. For the months, years, palaces, creatures and wars that Gene Wolfe slips us readers away from, he gives us more right in front of us.

In fairness, while he doesn't do that many battles, GGK hardly shies away from political moments or other segments of high drama. All his most memorable moments seem to be scenes of conversation, though.

Agreed. On one hand it irritates some small part of my thinkymeatz when a book builds and builds to something, and then doesn't show it and we get a throwaway comment from a character along the lines of 'hoky fuck that was a crazy fight' ( As an aside i think the very first time i ever encountered this was in the Wheel of Time FIRES OF HEAVEN, Matt v Couladin, and it bugged the living fucksticks out of me). Otoh it's an author's right to do that and the reader can take it or leave it. If the author is talented enough, i'll take it.

amphibian, on 09 August 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 09 August 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

An author not writing battles (though he does now and then) is only a bad thing if you read fantasy for battles.

Well, if the book is structured to lead up to a battle or a political showdown or some kind of catharsis through action/meeting of people (Erikson's convergences), then skipping over the actual climax multiple times in different books with different settings and characters is a questionable tactic. Narrative tricks are tricks and must be backed up with great writing.

Exactly.
I do read fantlit for battles, among other things. I don't NEED a great big splodey/stabbyfeste at the end of every book, but i do so enjoy them when well written.

amphibian, on 09 August 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

It happened in Lions,...

More than once, but LIONS was never about the battles, it was about the relationships, and while he did mess with us in the last fight, GGK didn't shy away from it.

Quote

... Tigana did have the climax shown and it was... passable. Not great. Abyss has a few pretty astute criticisms of it, although I don't dislike the book as much as he does.

TIGANA suffers for me for a few reasons, and mostly because i read it after LIONS and SARANTINE and based on forum comments was expecting more of those, and instead got a much earlier GGK effort with a whole lot of elements i just found irritating more than anything.

QuickTidal, on 09 August 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

amphibian, on 09 August 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

It happened in Lions

Must disagree. There is nothing I was expecting or not expecting in LIONS that didn't meet those expectations perfectly.

Agreed. But i could totally see some readers being frustrated with the number of fights/battles that are ref'd rather than shown in that book. That said, it worked for me. LIONS was the GGK book that totally lived up to the hype for me. TIGANA, not so much.

[Kruppe's snacky cakes]

QuickTidal, on 08 August 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

I imagine a voidlike, raging empty hole of nothingness appears on Abyss' bookshelf next to the third book....since the 4th book doesn't exist in his mindhole.

I have that same void in place of the 3rd book of His Dark Materials.

But I would buy and devour a 5th Otherland book in a heartbeat. No such thing as "too long"...

[Darkwatch]

Venor Vinge's "A Fire Upon the Deep".

[Morgoth]

amphibian, on 09 August 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 09 August 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

An author not writing battles (though he does now and then) is only a bad thing if you read fantasy for battles.

Well, if the book is structured to lead up to a battle or a political showdown or some kind of catharsis through action/meeting of people (Erikson's convergences), then skipping over the actual climax multiple times in different books with different settings and characters is a questionable tactic. Narrative tricks are tricks and must be backed up with great writing.

It happened in Lions, it happened in Under Heaven and probably in a couple others. It kind of worked with Lions for me and not at all for Under Heaven for me. Tigana did have the climax shown and it was... passable. Not great. Abyss has a few pretty astute criticisms of it, although I don't dislike the book as much as he does.

There's a few authors who take great delight in skipping what "should" come next through looping the characters elsewhere and getting us readers directly to something else. Gene Wolfe did this to great effect in The Knight and The Wizard. However, he didn't skip the climaxes of either book and made them kind of breathless and breakneck in pace to compensate.

Battles are like sex scenes, they have their place in literature but are only rarely necessary.

Why would I care about whether a battle is described in GGK's books? That has never been his focus and it is one of the many reasons why his writing is so refreshing. Wars happen because of people, and people are the heart of Kay's stories. If I want excellent battles I read Erikson, they are the natural culmination of his focus on convergences. GGK doesn't really write in that manner or with that goal, apart perhaps from his approach in Tigana.

It seems like an odd complaint to make.

[Tiste Simeon]

Morgoth, on 09 August 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

amphibian, on 09 August 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 09 August 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

An author not writing battles (though he does now and then) is only a bad thing if you read fantasy for battles.

Well, if the book is structured to lead up to a battle or a political showdown or some kind of catharsis through action/meeting of people (Erikson's convergences), then skipping over the actual climax multiple times in different books with different settings and characters is a questionable tactic. Narrative tricks are tricks and must be backed up with great writing.

It happened in Lions, it happened in Under Heaven and probably in a couple others. It kind of worked with Lions for me and not at all for Under Heaven for me. Tigana did have the climax shown and it was... passable. Not great. Abyss has a few pretty astute criticisms of it, although I don't dislike the book as much as he does.

There's a few authors who take great delight in skipping what "should" come next through looping the characters elsewhere and getting us readers directly to something else. Gene Wolfe did this to great effect in The Knight and The Wizard. However, he didn't skip the climaxes of either book and made them kind of breathless and breakneck in pace to compensate.

Battles are like sex scenes, they have their place in literature but are only rarely necessary.

Most sex scenes are just awkward in books. See all of the ones in the Kovacs trilogy. Can't think of any particularly well written ones, versus a plethora of excellently written battle sequences!