Reading in October 2009

I just finished the Return of the King (second read) and I am bummed. Why is it always so sad? I know, cause it's so dang good. :D

I also just watched the movie this weekend and I have to say they were really true to the book
except for the whole Sharky thing.
I'd forgotten. Such a good movie.
 
I just finished the Return of the King (second read) and I am bummed. Why is it always so sad? I know, cause it's so dang good. :D

I also just watched the movie this weekend and I have to say they were really true to the book
except for the whole Sharky thing.
I'd forgotten. Such a good movie.
I'm also re-reading The Lord of the Rings (7th time, currenly on The Two Towers). I'm also following some chapter-by-chapter discussions over at Tor.com, which I accidentally discovered.

At first I found the online discussions pretty interesting, and fun to read (whenever I finished a chapter). But I'm starting to find the discussion a little on the critical side, and over there it seems as though the vast majority of people hate the movies, and they're constantly talking about how Jackson butchered them. Personally, I find that kind of Tolkien purism annoying. I mean, I've read the books 7 times, taking a university course, read some scholarly analyses... I am a serious Tolkien fan. And yet, despite the fact that I disagree with most of the changes that Jackson made, I still think the movies are 90% perfect. I think he did an amazing job, and honestly, they could have been SO much worse in the hands of another director.
 
Last edited:
At first I found the online discussions pretty interesting, and fun to read (whenever I finished a chapter). But I'm starting to find the discussion a little on the critical side, and over there it seems as though the vast majority of people hate the movies, and they're constantly talking about how Jackson butchered them. Personally, I find that kind of Tolkien purism annoying.

Have pity!
:p
I am far from Tolkien fan such as yourself. I read The Lord of the Rings 5 times. Got tired of it after the fifth time, didn't read it for 4 or 5 years and am not planning to read it in the next 5 years. However, I like the book very much and I disliked the movie and I belive that
Jackson butchered
He didn't do justice to the book. He made a good movie on its own if you can forget about the book. One moment of the movie I trully liked, was the beginning, until they left Hobbiton and...found themselves in Bree??? The first huge disappointment.
Another good moment - Boromir's death...very powerful moment.

What I am trying to say is that you don't have to be Tolkien purist in order to dislike the movie.
 
Readin' Matthew Woodring Stover's Blade of Tyshalle

Since I read Heroes Die, this book has been on my list. I hope I'll get to it one day...

Currently 170 pages or so into Royal Exile by Fiona McIntosh. It started pretty dull but I think it's getting a little bit more interesting.
 
Is it 8 books Indigo series by Louise Cooper?

That's the one, yes. Cooper's not a very well known author, it seems. But I really love all of her books. Book eight of the Indigo series didn't have the atmosphere of the other books, but it was still very enjoyable and a satisfying end to the series.

After finishing Indigo, I moved on to Severed, which I believe would be classed as a thriller. It was a pretty fast-paced, easy read, so I got through that pretty quickly. Now that I've finished it, I think I'll return back to fantasy again. Plenty of books on my to read pile, but not so sure yet which one to read.
 
Just a thought about A Wizard of Earthsea : I reread it a few years ago and was surprised by how dry I found it. The story-telling was cut to the bone, and the prose felt concise just to the edge of curt. There is no narrative fat, no stylistic curliques, only a story told in direct, but still evocative language.

I don't think this is just because it was a novel for young readers, I think it's because it was published early on in the Tolkein craze, before multi-decker fantasy novels became the norm. Most of the fat novels of the time were either literary works like Gravity's Rainbow or best-sellers like Allan Drury's political novels. Mid-list writers, and I think Le Guin would have been one of those at the time, though on the rise, had a word count cap. In most cases that was probably just fine, forcing economy of expression. If you look at her later work, I think you'll find she's only published a couple of novels that exceed 350 pages.

Away from Le Guin and veering toward topic, a couple of years ago I read Mischief by Douglas Clegg and was disappointed by it. I had the rare experience of thinking it undernourished, not long enough to do what it was attempting: Make a setting so ominous and threatening as to cause shivers just by mentioning its name, Harrow House. For me, Clegg tried gamely, but the novel fell apart by the end, and I wasn't sure I wanted to read any more of his work.

I'm glad I didn't stick to that decision. I just finished, and very much enjoyed, Clegg's Isis, a novella just reissued by Vanguard Press. Isis was originally published in a small, expensive edition by Cemetary Dance Publications a few years ago. Like the CD edition, the Vanguard edition has very nice illustrations by Glenn Chadbourne, evocative of the period in which the story is set, a kind of hazily evoked late 19th, early 20th century. And imagine my surprise to find out while poking around the Internet that this novella is connected to Clegg's continuing series of stories about Harrow House.

In spite of being a novella, the story unfolds in leisurely fashion, Clegg recreating the pace if not always the diction of the times -- and that's not necessarily bad -- through the first person narration by Iris Villiers, the youngest of four children and the only daughter. As the story unfolds, she and her brothers have been moved from their earliest home on Long Island to the family estate above the cliffs of Cornwall to look after their grandfather. Her father and oldest brother are strangers to her, the former always away to work, the latter off to school. Besides herself, her mother and her grandfather, an old man becoming senile, only a few servants and her twin brothers, Harvey and Spence inhabit the estate. Harvey and Iris are best friends.

Clegg neatly explains the title's allusion to Isis and Osiris, delineates the characters well enough, shows the pressures on Iris and the oddity of the household, and presents a believable brother and sister love without mawkishness. There are some minor flaws, mostly, I think, typos that got past the proofreaders, and one phrasing that struck me as not of the time: While a contemporary setting would allow "nude photographs of women" as acceptable if not proper sentence structure, I believe the more stringent grammar in effect at the time would have phrased it, "photographs of nude women," since no one expects their photos adorned in kimonos or mukluks. That said, the flaw, if it is one, didn't take me out of the story for as long as it took to explain my nit-pick.

Speaking of "nude photographs," don't let the illustrations fool you into thinking this is a children's story. While the mid-teens I know could handle it, I wouldn't recommend this for anyone younger; there are themes here that could be troubling for young or immature readers. For anyone else, if you like Gothic Victorian/Edwardian ghost/horror stories and have no constitutional objection to them being written well after the fact, I'd strongly recommend this book.


Randy M.
 
Last edited:
Well, the book is considered YA isn't it? That might be why it seemed a little bare-boned. I personally liked how it was kind of short and sweet.I really liked Bonehunters, and I read it in 2 weeks which is way faster than usual for me (when it comes to Erikson).

I wasn't aware it was consider YA - although that seems like a fair designation. Honestly, I had heard nothing about it other than that most people loved it and after seeing it on multiple lists of the one of the best of the genre I thought I'd try it.
 
I finished up Canticle by Ken Scholes. It's even better than Lamentation was - this is a very promising series.

Now I'm reading Eyes Like Leaves by Charles de Lint - a novel written over 20 years ago that's just now getting published.
 
That's the one, yes. Cooper's not a very well known author, it seems. But I really love all of her books. Book eight of the Indigo series didn't have the atmosphere of the other books, but it was still very enjoyable and a satisfying end to the series.

Thanks. I will add it to my TRL.
 
I'm actually quite impressed with the Bonehunters, and can't really think why it got such bad press at the time.

Yeah, I think Bonehunters is one of the stronger books in the series. It has the best pacing IMO (at least thorugh Reapers Gale- I haven't read the others yet). The Siege early in the book is probably the first time Erikson in the series has had that level of of event in the first 500 pages. Seemed like there was something always interesting happening in Bonehunters. In contrast I thought both Midnight Tides and Reapers Gale were kind of a slog in their first halves.
 
I'm actually quite impressed with the Bonehunters, and can't really think why it got such bad press at the time.

I consider it one of the best, right up there with Midnight Tides. There were several scenes throughout that elevated it to the top. Under Y'Ghatan for example, which I found to be very impressively written and rather poignant a scene.
 
I'm also re-reading The Lord of the Rings (7th time, currenly on The Two Towers). I'm also following some chapter-by-chapter discussions over at Tor.com, which I accidentally discovered.

At first I found the online discussions pretty interesting, and fun to read (whenever I finished a chapter). But I'm starting to find the discussion a little on the critical side, and over there it seems as though the vast majority of people hate the movies, and they're constantly talking about how Jackson butchered them. Personally, I find that kind of Tolkien purism annoying. I mean, I've read the books 7 times, taking a university course, read some scholarly analyses... I am a serious Tolkien fan. And yet, despite the fact that I disagree with most of the changes that Jackson made, I still think the movies are 90% perfect. I think he did an amazing job, and honestly, they could have been SO much worse in the hands of another director.

These are my favorite books and movies of all time. After just recently watching the movie and reading the book at about the same time, I can honestly say the movie had the same feeling as the books, especially toward the end (I still get choked up when they say goodbye in either form :(), even if the exact story wasn't followed.

Sorry, back on topic... um... still reading Perdido Street Station, but it's a little slow going. I'm completely interested in the setting and characters, but the plot is moving in slow-motion.
 
Agent and Seak,
I'm with you. LOTR - Great books and great movies - they compliment each other nicely. I thoroughly enjoyed my re-read over summer vacation.

As for me I am close to finishing the prologue of Knife of Dreams. It is really long. But I am also taking my time and soaking it up. When I read the series through the first time it was in one big head long rush.

Can some one with a better memory remind me which of the books the Dumai (sp) Wells part is in. I remember being blown away when that whole thing happened - it has been referenced several times in KOD and was fairly pivotal.

Cheers fellow readers.
 
Can some one with a better memory remind me which of the books the Dumai (sp) Wells part is in. I remember being blown away when that whole thing happened - it has been referenced several times in KOD and was fairly pivotal.

Cheers fellow readers.
Dumai's Wells is the climax to Book 6, Lord of Chaos.
 
I finished Neil Gaiman's The Graveyard Book, which is entertaining and fun, but I think as both a winner of the Hugo and Newbery (as well as other awards) it is rather a weak, but probably safe, choice (though I admit to not having read all of the competition). The characters aren't as developed as they could be, and I thought there were several missed opportunities in the plot. It's definitely not Gaiman at the height of his power; it's Gaiman coasting on his charm. Fine as entertainment, but rather lightweight as an award winner.
 
I finished Neil Gaiman's The Graveyard Book, which is entertaining and fun, but I think as both a winner of the Hugo and Newbery (as well as other awards) it is rather a weak, but probably safe, choice (though I admit to not having read all of the competition). The characters aren't as developed as they could be, and I thought there were several missed opportunities in the plot. It's definitely not Gaiman at the height of his power; it's Gaiman coasting on his charm. Fine as entertainment, but rather lightweight as an award winner.

I like that characterization; it fits. Even so, it makes a fine read for this time of year, and I'd team it up with Bradbury's The Halloween Tree, Gaiman's (superior) Coraline and, a bit more adult, Roger Zelazny's A Night in the Lonesome October. I have reservations about the Bradbury and the Zelazny, but they have a great feel for this time of year. All of these could be characterized as horror stories for people who aren't all that fond of horror stories, all of them have a similar charm.

Randy M.
 
DurzoBlint - thanks for your thoughts on NoV. I'm probably going to give this one a pass. New Weird isn't really something that appeals to me, and it sounds like the "weird" is the biggest selling point of that novel.

For my part, I've just finished Salem's Lot, and I can now conclusively say that vampires are so overdone that not even Stephen King can make them scary again. Maybe this was different in the '70s when he wrote it, but since he plays the vampire legend pretty straight -- it's the horrible rotting undead monster version, fwiw, but still the standard vampire -- there were no surprises and, because there were no surprises, it didn't work for me as a horror piece at all. There wasn't even any suspense about who was going to survive the story: the prologue tells you exactly who lives, so you know going in that everybody else is going to die.

Also the worldbuilding bugged me in one nagging respect (minor spoilers follow, but since this book is about 30 years past the statute of limitations on spoilers, I'm not blacking anything out):

Everybody killed by a vampire in Salem's Lot rises up again as a vampire, and just about everybody who is fed upon by a vampire dies, so pretty much if a vampire bites you, you are going to die and rise again as a vampire. Also vampires apparently go crazy for blood every night, since at one point the boss vampire eats a fairly useful human servant because he can't resist his hunger.

Given that this is true, how in the hell have vampires not already overrun the world? I feel like this quirk of the worldbuilding was put in to make a vampire/zombie crossover (they infect everyone! the entire town is turning into monsters!) without really considering the obvious implication that if every time a vampire bites somebody this happens, and vampires are thousands of years old (because we are told that they predate Christianity, and based on some events in the book this doesn't appear to be a lie), they would have infected the entire planet centuries ago. Why this has not happened is never explained, and since lots of other things are explained, this oversight is a little irksome to me.

I had a similar problem with Needful Things in that it really makes no sense at all that Leland Gaunt can go around re-opening his hell shop endlessly. In the United States in 1991 that is just not true. We see news reporters descend on Castle Rock (five of them get taken out by an explosion late in the story so there must be lots of them around, and the loss of five national news reporters would in and of itself be major news even if nothing else happened at all) and we know that some of the survivors figured out exactly what was going on with the hell shop, so WHY IS THIS NOT MAJOR NATIONAL NEWS SUCH THAT LELAND GAUNT CAN'T KEEP DOING IT AOWIUOEAWNOREINR [headasplode]

Anyway so I'm going to start Retribution Falls next.
 
DurzoBlint - thanks for your thoughts on NoV. I'm probably going to give this one a pass. New Weird isn't really something that appeals to me, and it sounds like the "weird" is the biggest selling point of that novel.

I haven't read this, but from what I picked up around the traps it didn't sound like New Weird at all. Anyone else read it?

I stayed up to all hours finishing up Carlos Ruiz Zafon's The Angel's Game last night. A definite page turner. I really enjoyed Shadow of the Wind (which just poked it's nose into genre territory), and I really enjoyed how this book kept you wondering how far into genre territory it had gone throughout most of the novel, and the link back to Shadow of the Wind.
I can see that some people would find this book melodramatic at times, but for some reason I was able to ignore it and move on.
There's some beautiful prose in here and smatterings of great dialogue, but it's not as strong on that front as Shadow of the Wind.
It makes me wonder how much great fiction I miss out on simply because it doesn't get translated to English.
 
I haven't read this, but from what I picked up around the traps it didn't sound like New Weird at all. Anyone else read it?

Nights of Villjamur -

I just don't think the book worked for me, it just seemed like a lot was left unexplained or was added unnecessarily.

I wouldn't consider it "new weird" especially when you consider the definition from wiki - Definition

There is considerable debate about whether or not New Weird is a movement among like-minded authors, or merely a label that has been applied to them after the fact to describe perceived similarities between their works.[citation needed] It has even been dismissed as a marketing ploy, albeit a very deliberate and self-conscious one. Many of the authors who are associated with the movement either disavow belonging to it, or simply don't care what categorical labels their readers craft to name their work.

However, despite this confusion, the introduction to the New Weird anthology edited by Jeff VanderMeer and Ann VanderMeer, published by Tachyon Publications in February 2008, claims a specific definition for New Weird that clarifies the issue considerably:

New Weird is a type of urban, secondary-world fiction that subverts the romanticized ideas about place found in traditional fantasy, largely by choosing realistic, complex real-world models as the jumping off point for creation of settings that may combine elements of both science fiction and fantasy. New Weird has a visceral, in-the-moment quality that often uses elements of surreal or transgressive horror for its tone, style, and effects — in combination with the stimulus of influence from New Wave writers or their proxies (including also such forebears as Mervyn Peake and the French/English Decadents). New Weird fictions are acutely aware of the modern world, even if in disguise, but not always overtly political. As part of this awareness of the modern world, New Weird relies for its visionary power on a "surrender to the weird" that isn't, for example, hermetically sealed in a haunted house on the moors or in a cave in Antarctica. The "surrender" (or "belief") of the writer can take many forms, some of them even involving the use of postmodern techniques that do not undermine the surface reality of the text.

Part of this genre's roots derive from pulp horror authors, whose stories were sometimes described as "weird fiction".[citation needed] The "weird tale" label also evolved from the magazine Weird Tales; the stories therein often combined fantasy elements, existential and physical terror, and science fiction devices.
 
finished "The Company" by K J Parker, so now i can head over to the book club without being afraid of spoilers. I wouldn't say i liked it, it's not a book written to please readers, but to shake them, provoke and disturb the mind. It does that, and it confirms the author's high appeal for me after reading The Engineer and the Fencer books. Now i have only the Scavenger series left to read.

I'm also more than halfway through "Servant of the Empire" which picked up the pace a little, so i guess i'll manage to finish it next week.

"Shardik" by Richard Adams just arrived from BookDepository in less than a week from ordering, so it will probably jump to the top of my TBR pile. It's been one of the first adult fantasy i read in the early 90's, and i want to see how well it has stood the test of time.
 

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.
Back
Top