[Macros]

 firvulag, on 16 March 2016 - 07:33 PM, said:

I'm currently reading Bloodstone by David Gemmell. I've been reading nothing but Gemmell recently and loving his stuff so far. Though after ten books straight I might read something else after this one before going back.

I was curious about his Troy trilogy, is it more historical fiction, or are there fantasy elements, if so how much?

I wouldn't call it historical fiction at all really.

Its a twist on the mythology and legends surrounding the Troy story and time.

Fantasy elements are very very minimal, a few ethereal moments and predictions, foretelling's the like.

That being said, IMO its his best work, and probably my favourite trilogy ever (as of this moment anyhow)

If you liked Legend, chronicles of druss and desthwalker, the drenai stuff that's very light on fantasy, just your spirit world stuff, you should thoroughly enjoy it.

[Andorion]

 The Incredible Kitsu, on 16 March 2016 - 08:46 PM, said:

 Abyss, on 16 March 2016 - 03:04 AM, said:

 The Incredible Kitsu, on 16 March 2016 - 01:31 AM, said:

So I've been listening to Morgan's Market Forces on my way to and from work....Does this pick up to the usual quality of his work, or should I move on?

No, but it's worth finishing.

Ok, I'll push through for a bit longer and see if it'll grab me. . I put my finger on what's bothering me about it though.

Spoiler

Most of his work tends to give a direct goal from the very beginning. Example: In THIRTEEN, it's hunt down and stop the rogue thirteen. MARKET FORCES on the other hand, doesn't seem to have developed his usual race to the finish event that his other works do. It's all the usual sex and violence (in fact, I feel it's even stronger on those aspects) of his other work, but it all seems so much more pointless.

Well I am 60% into Altered Carbon and this book is not gripping me at all for the same reasons. The book seems to lose coherence halfway in.

[amphibian]

Keep going with Altered Carbon.

[JPK]

 amphibian, on 17 March 2016 - 01:37 AM, said:

Keep going with Altered Carbon.

This. So much this. The Kovacs books each change radically in tone. If you're at all interested in the character, or the potential of the universe, stick with it.

[Abyss]

 Andorion, on 17 March 2016 - 01:06 AM, said:

 The Incredible Kitsu, on 16 March 2016 - 08:46 PM, said:

 Abyss, on 16 March 2016 - 03:04 AM, said:

 The Incredible Kitsu, on 16 March 2016 - 01:31 AM, said:

So I've been listening to Morgan's Market Forces on my way to and from work....Does this pick up to the usual quality of his work, or should I move on?

No, but it's worth finishing.

Ok, I'll push through for a bit longer and see if it'll grab me. . I put my finger on what's bothering me about it though.

Spoiler

Most of his work tends to give a direct goal from the very beginning. Example: In THIRTEEN, it's hunt down and stop the rogue thirteen. MARKET FORCES on the other hand, doesn't seem to have developed his usual race to the finish event that his other works do. It's all the usual sex and violence (in fact, I feel it's even stronger on those aspects) of his other work, but it all seems so much more pointless.

Well I am 60% into Altered Carbon and this book is not gripping me at all for the same reasons. The book seems to lose coherence halfway in.

 The Incredible Kitsu, on 17 March 2016 - 01:56 AM, said:

 amphibian, on 17 March 2016 - 01:37 AM, said:

Keep going with Altered Carbon.

This. So much this. The Kovacs books each change radically in tone. If you're at all interested in the character, or the potential of the universe, stick with it.

Thirded.

[Abyss]

 The Incredible Kitsu, on 16 March 2016 - 08:46 PM, said:

 Abyss, on 16 March 2016 - 03:04 AM, said:

 The Incredible Kitsu, on 16 March 2016 - 01:31 AM, said:

So I've been listening to Morgan's Market Forces on my way to and from work....Does this pick up to the usual quality of his work, or should I move on?

No, but it's worth finishing.

Ok, I'll push through for a bit longer and see if it'll grab me. . I put my finger on what's bothering me about it though.

Spoiler

Most of his work tends to give a direct goal from the very beginning. Example: In THIRTEEN, it's hunt down and stop the rogue thirteen. MARKET FORCES on the other hand, doesn't seem to have developed his usual race to the finish event that his other works do. It's all the usual sex and violence (in fact, I feel it's even stronger on those aspects) of his other work, but it all seems so much more pointless.

Part of the 'problem' is that it's very much a story about a fairly unsympathetic protagonist, verging on unlikeable.

[Abyss]

 Abyss, on 15 March 2016 - 07:17 PM, said:

 Abyss, on 14 March 2016 - 02:47 PM, said:

 Baco Xtath, on 14 March 2016 - 12:26 PM, said:

 Abyss, on 14 March 2016 - 03:41 AM, said:

... BROTHERHOOD OF THE WHEEL tho... Urban fantasy based on truckers and others who try to protect the highways... That seemed to fit what. Was looking for.
Also, why read one of the hundreds of books in the TRP when I can just buy something shiny and new, amirite?...this should be a fun read.

Listened to Brotherhood of the Wheel over the weekend. Fuck'n awesome book. It's not a collection of shorts, though. There were 4 maybe 5 POVs. I didn't care for the narrator though. One of the characters is described as having a southern/Irish accent and the reader completely fucked it up - not sure how it would sound myself, really. But his reading of it was just either/or, not a mix. Didn't matter, book was awesome.

Noted and glad to hear someone else liked it.

Unfortunate about the narrator, a bad narration can kill a really good book. Conversely, a solid narration can really enhance a decent book into something really enrgossing.

Considering how drawn in I was by BROTHERHOOD's ch1, I'm glad I'm going w ebook.

 acesn8s, on 14 March 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

I'm interested in see how the rest of the book hold up. It sounds pretty cool.

You know I will, but Baco's post is encouraging.

Another chapter down, and this just became a solid mashup of The Dresden Files and Sons of Anarchy.
Yes. That.

I am enjoying this. A lot.

And now L&O SVU with a heavy dose of... Let The Right One In, I think. Damn,Belcher is goooood.

[firvulag]

 Macros, on 16 March 2016 - 09:12 PM, said:

 firvulag, on 16 March 2016 - 07:33 PM, said:

I'm currently reading Bloodstone by David Gemmell. I've been reading nothing but Gemmell recently and loving his stuff so far. Though after ten books straight I might read something else after this one before going back.

I was curious about his Troy trilogy, is it more historical fiction, or are there fantasy elements, if so how much?

I wouldn't call it historical fiction at all really.

Its a twist on the mythology and legends surrounding the Troy story and time.

Fantasy elements are very very minimal, a few ethereal moments and predictions, foretelling's the like.

That being said, IMO its his best work, and probably my favourite trilogy ever (as of this moment anyhow)

If you liked Legend, chronicles of druss and desthwalker, the drenai stuff that's very light on fantasy, just your spirit world stuff, you should thoroughly enjoy it.

I'm actually building up to the Legend series and reading everything else first!

[QuickTidal]

 Macros, on 16 March 2016 - 09:12 PM, said:

 firvulag, on 16 March 2016 - 07:33 PM, said:

I'm currently reading Bloodstone by David Gemmell. I've been reading nothing but Gemmell recently and loving his stuff so far. Though after ten books straight I might read something else after this one before going back.

I was curious about his Troy trilogy, is it more historical fiction, or are there fantasy elements, if so how much?

I wouldn't call it historical fiction at all really.

Its a twist on the mythology and legends surrounding the Troy story and time.

Fantasy elements are very very minimal, a few ethereal moments and predictions, foretelling's the like.

That being said, IMO its his best work, and probably my favourite trilogy ever (as of this moment anyhow)

If you liked Legend, chronicles of druss and desthwalker, the drenai stuff that's very light on fantasy, just your spirit world stuff, you should thoroughly enjoy it.

SEconded. This trilogy is really amazing.

[Macros]

Its one of the few things myself and QT agree on, so you know its good

[Maark Abbott]

Finished 'Prince of Dogs'. Really liked it, and I definitely needed something with sensible pace, an actual storyline and characters who didn't fellate gibbons after the train wreck I'd come from.

Carrying on my Elliott rampage with 'The Burning Stone'

[QuickTidal]

Finished DANCER'S LAMENT...easily the best work of ICE's to date. Just spectacularly involving from start to finish. Can't wait for the next volume.

Stuck properly into Hancock's FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS and really quite enjoying. It's funny, stubborn academics dismiss him as a pseudo-historian and often say that he backs up none of what he says with any kind of facts or data the way they claim to do. And I was listening to a podcast where he's quoted as saying "Most of the scholars who claim to debunk my work and books, have not actually READ my books"...and at this point I gotta assume that's VERY true. He really is just presenting the same facts and data (all laboriously footnoted and referenced throughout) and coming up with a slightly different conclusion as to the answers to certain global mysteries.

Case in point (for those who are curious what I mean; spoiler windowed for those who aren't):

Spoiler

Sacsayhuaman is an ancient fortress in Peru comprised of massive tonned, intricately cut, and fitted stone blocks (like the weight of something like 500 automobiles each in some cases). A lot of academics will tell you that the Incans (who DID USE the fortress during their time) built it. Meanwhile they had none of the tools or wherewithal to do so on the scale it would have required. In fact, only one instance of Incans attempting to build like this occurred, and it ended in disaster just trying to move ONE of the blocks from the quarry to the location. The Incan's told the Spaniards who invaded and conquered them that they did not build Sacsayhuaman...but referenced an older race of giants. For decades since it's discovery by modern archaeologists and scholars it's been considered a forgone conclusion that the place was built by the Incans...simply because there were no other real viable conclusions to come to based on data (carbon dating only works with organic material around the stone and cannot date the stone itself). So if you go to the Wiki entry for this place, even it says that the Incans built it (which shows me that even the general masses who update Wiki entries believe that this is the case). Hancock offers up the theory that these "giants" the Incans spoke of were the builders and while not ACTUAL giants, could have been another early advanced civilization (also referenced by the Incans as the builders of the Nazca lines)...and then the best bit is that these scholars were pretty much put into their place in 2008 when a nearby temple was unearthed that is built of the same blocks in the same fashion...but this time it had enough organic material to be able to be carbon dated, and dates to 300 years BEFORE the Incan empire was every established...pretty much proving the place was not in fact built by the Incans.

Anyways, a fascinating look at alternate theories of a number of world mysteries. Great reading for those interested in history.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 17 March 2016 - 01:03 PM

[Maark Abbott]

 QuickTidal, on 17 March 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Finished DANCER'S LAMENT...easily the best work of ICE's to date. Just spectacularly involving from start to finish. Can't wait for the next volume.

Stuck properly into Hancock's FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS and really quite enjoying. It's funny, stubborn academics dismiss him as a pseudo-historian and often say that he backs up none of what he says with any kind of facts or data the way they claim to do. And I was listening to a podcast where he's quoted as saying "Most of the scholars who claim to debunk my work and books, have not actually READ my books"...and at this point I gotta assume that's VERY true. He really is just presenting the same facts and data (all laboriously footnoted and referenced throughout) and coming up with a slightly different conclusion as to the answers to certain global mysteries.

Case in point (for those who are curious what I mean; spoiler windowed for those who aren't):

Spoiler

Sacsayhuaman is an ancient fortress in Peru comprised of massive tonned, intricately cut, and fitted stone blocks (like the weight of something like 500 automobiles each in some cases). A lot of academics will tell you that the Incans (who DID USE the fortress during their time) built it. Meanwhile they had none of the tools or wherewithal to do so on the scale it would have required. In fact, only one instance of Incans attempting to build like this occurred, and it ended in disaster just trying to move ONE of the blocks from the quarry to the location. The Incan's told the Spaniards who invaded and conquered them that they did not build Sacsayhuaman...but referenced an older race of giants. For decades since it's discovery by modern archaeologists and scholars it's been considered a forgone conclusion that the place was built by the Incans...simply because there were no other real viable conclusions to come to based on data (carbon dating only works with organic material around the stone and cannot date the stone itself). So if you go to the Wiki entry for this place, even it says that the Incans built it (which shows me that even the general masses who update Wiki entries believe that this is the case). Hancock offers up the theory that these "giants" the Incans spoke of were the builders and while not ACTUAL giants, could have been another early advanced civilization (also referenced by the Incans as the builders of the Nazca lines)...and then the best bit is that these scholars were pretty much put into their place in 2008 when a nearby temple was unearthed that is built of the same blocks in the same fashion...but this time it had enough organic material to be able to be carbon dated, and dates to 300 years BEFORE the Incan empire was every established...pretty much proving the place was not in fact built by the Incans.

Anyways, a fascinating look at alternate theories of a number of world mysteries. Great reading for those interested in history.

Like the Silvites and Rixis.

[Andorion]

 QuickTidal, on 17 March 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Finished DANCER'S LAMENT...easily the best work of ICE's to date. Just spectacularly involving from start to finish. Can't wait for the next volume.

Stuck properly into Hancock's FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS and really quite enjoying. It's funny, stubborn academics dismiss him as a pseudo-historian and often say that he backs up none of what he says with any kind of facts or data the way they claim to do. And I was listening to a podcast where he's quoted as saying "Most of the scholars who claim to debunk my work and books, have not actually READ my books"...and at this point I gotta assume that's VERY true. He really is just presenting the same facts and data (all laboriously footnoted and referenced throughout) and coming up with a slightly different conclusion as to the answers to certain global mysteries.

Case in point (for those who are curious what I mean; spoiler windowed for those who aren't):

Spoiler

Sacsayhuaman is an ancient fortress in Peru comprised of massive tonned, intricately cut, and fitted stone blocks (like the weight of something like 500 automobiles each in some cases). A lot of academics will tell you that the Incans (who DID USE the fortress during their time) built it. Meanwhile they had none of the tools or wherewithal to do so on the scale it would have required. In fact, only one instance of Incans attempting to build like this occurred, and it ended in disaster just trying to move ONE of the blocks from the quarry to the location. The Incan's told the Spaniards who invaded and conquered them that they did not build Sacsayhuaman...but referenced an older race of giants. For decades since it's discovery by modern archaeologists and scholars it's been considered a forgone conclusion that the place was built by the Incans...simply because there were no other real viable conclusions to come to based on data (carbon dating only works with organic material around the stone and cannot date the stone itself). So if you go to the Wiki entry for this place, even it says that the Incans built it (which shows me that even the general masses who update Wiki entries believe that this is the case). Hancock offers up the theory that these "giants" the Incans spoke of were the builders and while not ACTUAL giants, could have been another early advanced civilization (also referenced by the Incans as the builders of the Nazca lines)...and then the best bit is that these scholars were pretty much put into their place in 2008 when a nearby temple was unearthed that is built of the same blocks in the same fashion...but this time it had enough organic material to be able to be carbon dated, and dates to 300 years BEFORE the Incan empire was every established...pretty much proving the place was not in fact built by the Incans.

Anyways, a fascinating look at alternate theories of a number of world mysteries. Great reading for those interested in history.

Now you have got me interested. Most of these books provide no proper citations at all. As a historian-in-training I want to look at this guys research methodology

[Macros]

30% into dancers lament, really enjoying it so far

[Andorion]

Started my third parallel read.

James Herriot's All Things Wise and Wonderful. My brother picked up this book at a sale and loved it. I picked it up today to see what it was about

It's a very different type of book. Its the autobiographical writings of an English vet practising in rural England in the mid 20th Century. Its funny, sad, shocking and heartwarming at the same time. Its very well written. There are apparently other works by this author. I will be picking them up.

In Altered Carbon, things are gearing up for the final confrontation. This book really picked up again in the last third of the story.

[QuickTidal]

 Andorion, on 17 March 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 17 March 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Finished DANCER'S LAMENT...easily the best work of ICE's to date. Just spectacularly involving from start to finish. Can't wait for the next volume.

Stuck properly into Hancock's FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS and really quite enjoying. It's funny, stubborn academics dismiss him as a pseudo-historian and often say that he backs up none of what he says with any kind of facts or data the way they claim to do. And I was listening to a podcast where he's quoted as saying "Most of the scholars who claim to debunk my work and books, have not actually READ my books"...and at this point I gotta assume that's VERY true. He really is just presenting the same facts and data (all laboriously footnoted and referenced throughout) and coming up with a slightly different conclusion as to the answers to certain global mysteries.

Case in point (for those who are curious what I mean; spoiler windowed for those who aren't):

Spoiler

Sacsayhuaman is an ancient fortress in Peru comprised of massive tonned, intricately cut, and fitted stone blocks (like the weight of something like 500 automobiles each in some cases). A lot of academics will tell you that the Incans (who DID USE the fortress during their time) built it. Meanwhile they had none of the tools or wherewithal to do so on the scale it would have required. In fact, only one instance of Incans attempting to build like this occurred, and it ended in disaster just trying to move ONE of the blocks from the quarry to the location. The Incan's told the Spaniards who invaded and conquered them that they did not build Sacsayhuaman...but referenced an older race of giants. For decades since it's discovery by modern archaeologists and scholars it's been considered a forgone conclusion that the place was built by the Incans...simply because there were no other real viable conclusions to come to based on data (carbon dating only works with organic material around the stone and cannot date the stone itself). So if you go to the Wiki entry for this place, even it says that the Incans built it (which shows me that even the general masses who update Wiki entries believe that this is the case). Hancock offers up the theory that these "giants" the Incans spoke of were the builders and while not ACTUAL giants, could have been another early advanced civilization (also referenced by the Incans as the builders of the Nazca lines)...and then the best bit is that these scholars were pretty much put into their place in 2008 when a nearby temple was unearthed that is built of the same blocks in the same fashion...but this time it had enough organic material to be able to be carbon dated, and dates to 300 years BEFORE the Incan empire was every established...pretty much proving the place was not in fact built by the Incans.

Anyways, a fascinating look at alternate theories of a number of world mysteries. Great reading for those interested in history.

Now you have got me interested. Most of these books provide no proper citations at all. As a historian-in-training I want to look at this guys research methodology

Yeah, it's basically just him doing the same or similar research into mysteries as academics and coming to slightly different conclusions. For example, the Piri Reis map (created in the 14th century)...most academics will pretty much swear that the lower portions of it (which APPEAR to map Antarctica, including the definition of the coastline BEFORE it was covered in ice) is actually just a misinterpretation of the coast of South America made by Reis (or the sources he used)...whereas Hancock (based on his own research and others) comes to the idea that Antarctica (discovered in 1818) was possibly mapped thousands of years prior and was in a continental position that allowed it to be less covered in ice at the time (prior to the Drake Passage existing). The idea that sourced maps could exist with the world looking like it was BEFORE we thought things WERE mapped...is an abhorrent conclusion to most scholars. Is it probable? Eh...I just come down on the line that history isn't and never should be "set". It's in flux as we learn and grow and study...and since we learn new things all the time that question our written history.

Definitely worth a look (for interests sake if nothing else). I'm sure some of it is reaching, but he makes some solid points and offers up enough data and research to make me at least entertain his ideas.

Put it this way, he's not crazy-ass Erich Von Daniken offering up Ancient Aliens (CHARIOTS OF THE GODS)...his theories are about humanity and civilization. And everything appears to be meticulously sourced and footnoted in the back. About 15% of the back of the book is sources.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 17 March 2016 - 03:53 PM

[Andorion]

 QuickTidal, on 17 March 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

 Andorion, on 17 March 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 17 March 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Finished DANCER'S LAMENT...easily the best work of ICE's to date. Just spectacularly involving from start to finish. Can't wait for the next volume.

Stuck properly into Hancock's FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS and really quite enjoying. It's funny, stubborn academics dismiss him as a pseudo-historian and often say that he backs up none of what he says with any kind of facts or data the way they claim to do. And I was listening to a podcast where he's quoted as saying "Most of the scholars who claim to debunk my work and books, have not actually READ my books"...and at this point I gotta assume that's VERY true. He really is just presenting the same facts and data (all laboriously footnoted and referenced throughout) and coming up with a slightly different conclusion as to the answers to certain global mysteries.

Case in point (for those who are curious what I mean; spoiler windowed for those who aren't):

Spoiler

Sacsayhuaman is an ancient fortress in Peru comprised of massive tonned, intricately cut, and fitted stone blocks (like the weight of something like 500 automobiles each in some cases). A lot of academics will tell you that the Incans (who DID USE the fortress during their time) built it. Meanwhile they had none of the tools or wherewithal to do so on the scale it would have required. In fact, only one instance of Incans attempting to build like this occurred, and it ended in disaster just trying to move ONE of the blocks from the quarry to the location. The Incan's told the Spaniards who invaded and conquered them that they did not build Sacsayhuaman...but referenced an older race of giants. For decades since it's discovery by modern archaeologists and scholars it's been considered a forgone conclusion that the place was built by the Incans...simply because there were no other real viable conclusions to come to based on data (carbon dating only works with organic material around the stone and cannot date the stone itself). So if you go to the Wiki entry for this place, even it says that the Incans built it (which shows me that even the general masses who update Wiki entries believe that this is the case). Hancock offers up the theory that these "giants" the Incans spoke of were the builders and while not ACTUAL giants, could have been another early advanced civilization (also referenced by the Incans as the builders of the Nazca lines)...and then the best bit is that these scholars were pretty much put into their place in 2008 when a nearby temple was unearthed that is built of the same blocks in the same fashion...but this time it had enough organic material to be able to be carbon dated, and dates to 300 years BEFORE the Incan empire was every established...pretty much proving the place was not in fact built by the Incans.

Anyways, a fascinating look at alternate theories of a number of world mysteries. Great reading for those interested in history.

Now you have got me interested. Most of these books provide no proper citations at all. As a historian-in-training I want to look at this guys research methodology

Yeah, it's basically just him doing the same or similar research into mysteries as academics and coming to slightly different conclusions. For example, the Piri Reis map (created in the 14th century)...most academics will pretty much swear that the lower portions of it (which APPEAR to map Antarctica, including the definition of the coastline BEFORE it was covered in ice) is actually just a misinterpretation of the coast of South America made by Reis (or the sources he used)...whereas Hancock (based on his own research and others) comes to the idea that Antarctica (discovered in 1818) was possibly mapped thousands of years prior and was in a continental position that allowed it to be less covered in ice at the time (prior to the Drake Passage existing). The idea that sourced maps could exist with the world looking like it was BEFORE we thought things WERE mapped...is an abhorrent conclusion to most scholars. Is it probable? Eh...I just come down on the line that history isn't and never should be "set". It's in flux as we learn and grow and study...and since we learn new things all the time that question our written history.

Definitely worth a look (for interests sake if nothing else). I'm sure some of it is reaching, but he makes some solid points and offers up enough data and research to make me at least entertain his ideas.

Put it this way, he's not crazy-ass Erich Von Daniken offering up Ancient Aliens (CHARIOTS OF THE GODS)...his theories are about humanity and civilization. And everything appears to be meticulously sourced and footnoted in the back. About 15% of the back of the book is sources.

I think my library has this...

The map thing is a very good point. I am usually open minded about this. I thought James Lovelock's Gaia theory was very convincing.
I'll definitely give this a read.

[HiddenOne]

Finished Red Seas and I liked this book. Although it wasn't quite as good as Lies, I still enjoyed the action. I did feel the ending went down too quick and easy, and the whole thing was fairly predictable, but still it grabbed my attention.

[JPK]

 HiddenOne, on 17 March 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

Finished Red Seas and I liked this book. Although it wasn't quite as good as Lies, I still enjoyed the action. I did feel the ending went down too quick and easy, and the whole thing was fairly predictable, but still it grabbed my attention.

If you go into REPUBLIC OF THIEVES expecting more like RED SEAS instead of another LIES, I suspect you can be one of those that doesn't end up hating it.