[Astra]

Can you name all 3 books in the series please?

[Dolorous Menhir]

The Night's Dawn Trilogy (UK):

The Reality Dysfunction (1996)

The Neutronium Alchemist (1998)

The Naked God (2000)

If you are reading this outside the UK - these books are huge, it's on the order of 5-6000 pages total, if I remember right, and so each of the three entries was split up into two or even three sub-books in the US and Canada. I'm not sure why, but it must be for similar reasons to the broken down versions of "The Eye of the World" and "The Great Hunt" that I've seen in bookstores recently.

So they may be known under different names. I've got the first two in single paperback versions, and they are so big the binding just gave out on a second reading - you might be better off with hardback versions. This may have been sorted with more recent editions though, mine are about 8-9 years old now, which is a troubling thought in itself.

Hamilton has also written other books associated with the Night's Dawn universe:

A Second Chance at Eden (short story collection, covers time interval between almost-present day up to the story of the father of Joshua Calvert, short time before the action of the main trilogy) - this volume is proof of Hamilton's story telling ability, as he doesn't use his typical grand-epic-with-weak-ending structure and instead writes several excellent short stories. You can read it independently of the trilogy, and I would recommend it, but a Night's Dawn veteran will draw much more from the stories - in particular the titular story, about the early days of the original Edenist habitat, and also the story of Calvert's father and his ship, the Lady Macbeth.

There is also the Confederation Handbook, which is basically an encyclopedia for the books. It doesn't contain any particularly new info or new story material, it's more for the overly-dedicated fan (naturally I own a copy).

edit: just looked up Hamilton's web site - the total word count for the trilogy?

1.2 million

You can see why a reread is no small task.

[Astra]

Thanks a lot.
I will buy them in the UK.
I will also check out second hand shops. Sometimes they have amazingly good books.

[Agraba]

Al Capone??? The infamous liquor smuggler in the 20s? But.... why?

Werthead, I have a question. Does South Park's little depiction of the "True Meaning of Life" actually accurately summarize what L. Ron Hubbard's series is all about? I'm talking about a galaxy emperor tyrant's culling of several alien races due to overpopulation, and instilling negative emotions in their souls before sending them into the human race.

[Dolorous Menhir]

deleted because it's a major spoiler. sorry.

[Werthead]

AAAARRRRRGGHHHHH!!!

DM! Giga-spoiler! Suggest that you put that in spoiler brackets (although I think it may be too late). I liked that plot point but I know plenty of people who hated it. Plus it does kind of give away the main plot strand which is much better appreciated if it hits you unawares.

Quote

Werthead, I have a question. Does South Park's little depiction of the "True Meaning of Life" actually accurately summarize what L. Ron Hubbard's series is all about? I'm talking about a galaxy emperor tyrant's culling of several alien races due to overpopulation, and instilling negative emotions in their souls before sending them into the human race.

Err, no. That's actually the core belief of the scientology 'religion' (i.e. Tom Cruise and John Travolta really believe this happened). The Mission Earth books themselves are actually rather less imaginative.

[Dolorous Menhir]

All right, removed. You really consider that a big spoiler though?

[Werthead]

Indeed. That whole part of the story is a make-or-break thing for the series. I've had friends reach that part and go "WTF? That's rubbish!" and not read any further. And it does sound kind of whacked out outside of context.

[lfex]

Agraba said:

Al Capone??? The infamous liquor smuggler in the 20s? But.... why?.

I have once read an interview with Hamilton in which he mentioned that he wanted to have an easily recognizable historical villain, but he didn't want to use obvious candidates like Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan etc.

[sarlinspellweaver]

Hmmm...

Tolkien btw has somewhat unfairly been branded as both simplistic and poor in literary competence. These are two very seperate issues, and both to a degree governed by individual taste. Needless to say, I think much of his recent reputation derives from the films, which whilst excellent on their own merit, failed to capture much of the complexity and depth of the original books (no offence meant to Jackson: I certainly couldn't have done that well).

I don't think anyone could class Tolkien's work as simplistic - certainly not in terms of detail, but also not in terms of the background philosophy against which his work is set. I know that it is tempting to view it as a simple good vs. evil, black-and-white story, but LotR in the context of Tolkien's wider writing is anything but. Galadriel for example, is a well-known example of somebody very definitely on the 'good' side - indeed she is paralelled with Sauron several times as his antithesis, yet she was part of the rebellion of the Noldor in the Silmarillion, was present at the kin-slaying and disobeyed the Valar and refused to recant (she was only permitted to cross into Valinor in recognition of her toils during the War of the Ring). Anyone who has read (or seen) Frodo 'testing' her, will also know that she is put through her paces as a character - she is anything but a mere plot device. Obviously, this is but one example, but I've used it because I imagine most people are at least familiar with Galadriel, and I don't want to bore everyone with Turin, Feanor and tales from Gondolin.

On the point of language, I can only say that I believe Tolkien to be an extremely good writer at his best. Yes, he has bad moments (I wouldn't dispute for a moment that the tangent lore, and the relatively slow start are anything but unforgiving to the new reader at the start of LotR) but I think what is being confused for 'poor' is in fact a level of literary complexity that is not present in many books today. By complexity, I do not mean merely difficulty, but almost an intricacy to his prose that verges on the poetic. I'll just give one example to demonstrate:

'The Two Towers said:

All was dark about it [Minas Ithil/Morgul], earth and sky, but it was lit with light. Not the imprisoned moonlight welling through the marble walls of Minas Ithil long ago, Tower of the Moon, fair and radiant in the hollow of the hills. Paler indeed than the moon ailing in some slow eclipse was the light of it now, wavering and blowing like a noisome exhalation of decay, a corpse-light, a light that illuminated nothing.

This is anything but unsophisticated simplistic writing. Of course, it's highly likely that it isn't to your taste! Tolkien doesn't do characterisation in the modern sense, and much of his play revolves around events and lore (so to an extent it might be appropriate to say that plot is of greater significance than character), but for me, the overriding power of Tolkien's work lies in the manner in which he presents it: the very prose itself. It's the writing itself that I feel is unparalleled within the genre of fantasy, which IMO is now overpopulated with kidult writing styles.

In comparison, Erikson does remarkably well, and certainly he joins a score of authors who have demonstrated equal (if not greater) talent in the generation of setting, characters and plot-lines, but I still feel that nobody within the fantasy genre has yet written a book that seriously matches the aesthetic quality of Tolkien's writing (the closest that I have read is probably Donaldson).

[Agraba]

Okay, my next book will definately be "Reality Dysfunction", and will be the deciding factor of whether or not I get "Neutronium Alchemist" and "Naked God". Also, since Hamilton seems to be pretty renowned as a sci-fi writer, this will give me an opening impression on Science Fiction. My only knowledge of science fiction thus far is Star Wars (a bit clever - I wish you ended with Return of the Jedi, Lucas) and that small show Lexx (which is good for kicks when watching, but if it was in a book, I would consider it absolute drivel). Since I have absolutely no literature impressions on sci-fi, I still have absolutely no opinions of the genre (unless Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker series is considred sci-fi, which then would give me a positive thought about it).

If Reality Dysfunction really impresses me, then I'll buy the next two books (and even if Alchemist goes down a bit, I'll still have hopes of redemption for #3). If it's decent but iffy (like Eye of the World to me), then I'll just go to chapters and read Alchemist for a while, and decide there whether or not I shall buy it, but I won't yet buy the Naked God. If it just doesn't do it for me, I won't touch the rest of the series, and I'll be off sci-fi for a while.

I also have planned for after the Naked God (or Reality Dysfunction [if I left the series early from disgust]), Gaiman and Pratchett's Good Omens, and if I liked that, Gaiman's American Gods. And after that, I will start reading R Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing series (though I'm not too sure on this one, since it seems very love-hate; you either have your rabid fans or those who consider it fluff, which goes alongside Robert Jordan, and that's a real skeptical-factor). All that, unless Hamilton's series leaves me with such an amazing impression that I absolutely want to devour more sci-fi books. In the latter case, I'll look more closely in this thread at other sci-fi suggestions.

Again, thank you so much everyone.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Well, I hope you like the Reality Dysfunction - just want to note, it's a big series, and takes an accordingly long time to get going. But it's worth it.

[Werthead]

Mmm, I'd say the **** hits the fan about page 400 (of the single-volume version or about a third of the way into the book). But there's tons of stuff happening before that.

But is it a representative of the genre? Erm, not really. I think you'd have to also read Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama, Gibson's Neuromancer, Chris Priest's The Prestige, Iain Banks' Consider Phlebas and Frank Herbert's Dune plus some Isaac Asimov, Philip K. Dick and about a dozen other writers to get a good flavour of the genre. But Hamilton is as good a place as any to start.

Btw, Jay, did you mean you think Reynolds is 'less so' as in not as good as Hamilton & McLeod, or as in between them and Banks?

[Agraba]

Guy Graviel Kay seems to be a popular recommendation here, and people seem to love him, but I read some of the summaries of his books and it seems sort of unappealing. Five students find themselves trapped in a new world, with a certain destiny to fulfill. It seems a little like a cheesy game called Final Fantasy 10.

After Good Omens, (after hamilton's series), if I were to pick between Kay's Fionavar Tapestry series and Bakker's Prince of Nothing, which of the two would you[general] more strongly suggest?

[Astra]

I have not read all of G.G.Kay.
Only 2 books and atm I am 1/3 into the third book.
1. Tigana - superb
2. The Song of Arbone - 3.5 of 5 stars. Interesting to read but the end is somewhat ....grey..
3. reading now The Last Light of the Sun. I like it so far, but my final opinion will be based on the end of the book.

[Werthead]

Agraba said:

After Good Omens, (after hamilton's series), if I were to pick between Kay's Fionavar Tapestry series and Bakker's Prince of Nothing, which of the two would you[general] more strongly suggest?

Hell, don't read Fionavar Tapestry, it stinks like ten-year-old supermarket cheese. Grab Tigana, A Song for Arbonne or The Lions of Al-Rassan instead. They are so far beyond Fionavar in quality it is actually difficult to believe they were written by the same person.

[Werthead]

Ah, yes, I think I'd concur with that. Reynolds is very good (particularly Chasm City) and attempts a more ambitious prose style than Hamilton, but I think he has a significant problem writing satisfactory endings and tying together his plot threads, something that Hamilton seems to be muchstronger at, whilst Banks succeeds in both areas. I haven't read MacLeod so can't speak to his quality. From the look of it my next SF purchases will be Walter Jon Williams' Dread Empire's Fall series (having had it recommended to me at length by George R.R. Martin's other half).

[namo]

Werthead said:

Hell, don't read Fionavar Tapestry, it stinks like ten-year-old supermarket cheese. Grab Tigana, A Song for Arbonne or The Lions of Al-Rassan instead. They are so far beyond Fionavar in quality it is actually difficult to believe they were written by the same person.

I shall try them at some point then : I read Fionavar Tapestry last summer and it left cold.
Similarly, Robin Hobb attracts a lot of praise but of the Assassin's serie, I only really liked the first book.
Terry Goodkind, I actually liked it at first but grew disgusted.
Lastly, Robinson's Mars trilogy didn't get through to me, except for a few excellent twists.
I wanted to start with works I had disliked, but I am generally easy to please.

The works I place above all others in SF/Fantasy paradoxically have to go beyond the genre itself :
Tolkien's Silmarillion (poetry), Herbert's Dune series (mind-blowing) and Zelazny's Lord of Light (too good to be explained).

Also : Zelazny's Amber is really good, I am still traumatized by P.K. Dick's Ubik (and some of his short stories), Ursula K Le Guin (peculiar but endearing style), Bradbury's works, GRRM, Asimov (though Foundation goes from very good to boring ; also read the robots stories), Cordwainer Smith.

We slowly arrive at the "just fun to pass time" books, like Jordan, Eddings's Belgariad (people will despise me for that !), Pratchett, etc...

Thanks for all the good advice !
It seems I have much to read... but as a non-native speaker I started out with a disadvantage.