OT-Black Company

[Xietor]

Were any of Glenn Cook's other books worth reading. I read the Black Company trilogy a few months back, and enjoyed them.

Someone on this forum had recommended the Black Company.

[Renojustin]

Nah, and Black Company got a little silly after the first few books, too. Really the George RR Martin precursor though. Cook was one of the Low Fantasy genre pioneers. If you liked Black Company, try Game of Thrones, etc by Martin, or The Deed of Paksenarrion trilogy by Elizabeth Moon.

Really the Song of Ice and Fire series by George RR Martin completely eclipses Tolkien in every way and is the best series I've ever read in my life, after 2000+ novels.

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll hurl.

[Saxon]

The first Black Company are the best, no question, but the later ones are still good. Not great.

Also worth a look are his Star Fisher books, where he redoes the Wagner ring cycle. Grand space opera, with a direct nod to the opera side. Written back when space opera had a bad name. Some one else did it more recently, Donaldson?, and it was much darker, but both are good.

And yes, the Song of Ice and Fire is very good as well. Last one needed an editor though, it was too sprawling and not focused enough on characters, unlike the earlier books.

[Renojustin]

I didn't like it nearly as much either on the first read, but after going through it again lately it really seemed much, much stronger.

[Endoperez]

Renojustin said:
The Deed of Paksenarrion trilogy by Elizabeth Moon.



How do the two latter books compare to the first?

I rather liked the first one, but I put down the second one because it kept head-shotting my suspension of belief. Okay, she's not happy, okay, she's going through a mountain range, she has a magic item?, what does this magic elf-place have to do with her?, there is a magic what hunting them?, etc. It felt like a tacked-on sidequest, in a bad way.

[Edi]

I liked Black Company all through the Books of the South, but it was the Books of Glittering Stone where it started to go into the really weird stuff, especially the Murgen book.

Glen Cook's new series, Instrumentalities of the Night is great. It's set in an alternate Europe, though it could use a good map or otherwise you have to guess what is where, which is frustrating. You know it's good when I recommend a book which is set in an alternate real world based setting, because normally I absolutely detest them.

As far as SoIaF, bleh. Started out good and had a lot of good ideas whose execution is all over the place, rambling around and too many characters are killed off simply on a whim, leading to the story to going nowhere. Certain other aspects of the books I find rather distasteful, as I have said in the past.

I much prefer stuff by J.V. Jones, Janny Wurts, Chris Bunch, Gail Z. Martin, David Farland, Sarah Ash and others.

[Tuidjy]

Edi beat me to it. The Instrumentalities of the Night are easily the equal
of the very best books of the Black Company.

[Wrana]

Well, I can only say that Black Company series is great. Of course, Book of Murgen IS weird - after all, it's supposed to be written by a man who "was mad almost half the time"! And Book of The Lady contains discrepancies with other ones - of course! Actually, the way Glen Cook makes different characters tell about the same occurencies differently is what marks him as good writer - one among the best in the genre, from my point of view. It is also very similar with real war memoires... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Of Instrumentalities, I've read only the first one, so don't currently know how well it develops further. His old Dark Empire cycle is surely good enough - a pity it wasn't finished.
Gerge Martin, relative to this, is just boring. It's much more interesting to read actual chronicles on which his novellization is based - and this speaks a lot, as chroniclers didn't aim at being amusing... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif
I would recommend Robin Hobb for "those who like their fantasy dark". Plus Barbara Hambly, of course. Plus some Russian writers, but they probably won't be translated into English soon... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Endoperez]

Wrana said:
one among the best in the genre, from my point of view.



That reminds me.

Gene Wolfe. Knight. And Wizard.

That's a strange pair of books. They aren't dark, exactly. At times, it's sweet and sappy. At times, it's more like horror, except it made me uncomfortable unlike any horror book I've read. Not afraid, but uncomfortable - I didn't know if I wanted to read what would happen, because if it went wrong, it would go bad.

A knight must be able to do more than most men, and so he does, because his name is Able, and he is a Knight. A princess is sacrificed because she knows she is a Princess.

Everything is absolutes.

It's like a legend that's grown in uncountable retellings, except it all happened like in the story. The legends just left out that everyone was afraid, all the time, but still did what they had to do; and that even though things might work out in the end, things didn't go as planned, not at all.

[Wrana]

Yes!!! Possibly the best among now-active authors. I don't know why I forgot to mention him - probably because he's really not exactly of the same genre. I use for such cases as this a term coined by Michael Moorcock: "epic fantasy". The definition is about as you have given.
His earlier books were also great - both Arete and Torturer cycles.

[sansanjuan]

Renojustin said:

Really the Song of Ice and Fire series by George RR Martin completely eclipses Tolkien in every way and is the best series I've ever read in my life, after 2000+ novels.

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll hurl.



Agreed though I would put it on equal footing with JR's stuff. Unparalleled character development. I read the first one in 1996 and lamented the next wouldn't be out for a coon's age. When it did come out I'd forgotten about the series (my retrograde amnesia). Now I'm rereading the first one thanks to a chance Father's Day gift from my step kids and looking forward to finishing them in succession.
-SSJ

[JimMorrison]

Eclipse is a very strong word, when referring to a pioneer in a field.

I mean, in some circles if you were to say "Hawking is such an amazing mathematician, his work completely eclipses Einstein!" - well, you might get stuffed into a particle accelerator. >.>

[Xietor]

Thanks for all the advice!

Jordan and martin were both very strong starters, but neither was the equal of Tolkien. Tolkien told a masterful story that actually had an ending. Yes he had sub plots, but they never distracted him from the main theme and he tied them all up nicely and concluded the series.

Jordan actually died before he finished his series, which began to decline from a lack of vision. Martin has too many subplots as well, and is having a hard time finishing his story.

[HoneyBadger]

The first book of SoIaF was so revolutionary, so full of hope and promise, that it literally took my breath away, but sadly, the rest of the series hasn't lived up to that. It's still very good, and contains a lot of very high notes, but the greatness of the first book is diluted by too much grub-work and wordiness. Martin, in my opinion, should have sat on the sequils, ignored publishers' demands, and even avoided signing with a publishing house until each book was as refined and good as he could make it-and retained some very strong editorship. It's a lot like the Matrix-it starts off eye-popping, but then degrades into an effort that still looks good, still intrigues, but disappoints as well, and ultimately, feels rushed and half-baked.

[Renojustin]

You guys are crazy. lol

George RR Martin owns us all.

[HoneyBadger]

Tolkien's greatness-and yes, I do appreciate his work a lot, although I think it has a lot of major faults as well-was the completeness of his world, and his willing and constant refinement and expansion on a central theme.

He also had the twin joys of a relatively new genre to work with, and make inroads into, and some real masters of that genre (Dunsany, etc) to be inspired by.

[HoneyBadger]

RenoJustin: I like GRRM, but honestly, he's not the best writer that ever came down the pike. His strength is in writing fantasy for adults, and that's good, but he's still writing the same tired old fantasy as everybody else. It's got some innovation, but it's got a lot of flaws too, and they're big, obvious flaws.

[Xietor]

GRRM and Jordan both are awesome storytellers. The 1st 3 books of Jordan's were among the best ever. As were GRRM.

But you must be judged on the work in toto, not on bits and pieces. And the end is considered a very important part of most stories!

[HoneyBadger]

Jordan's books weren't even worth reading to the end. I made it to around book 8 on the strength of the original setting, but it got so wordy and confusing-even after I shelled out 40$ for the world-book-and frankly, annoying, that I gave up on it completely.

[Wrana]

Well, this surely goes beyond the initial topic, but nevertheless:

Xietor:
Jordan and martin were both very strong starters, but neither was the equal of Tolkien. Tolkien told a masterful story that actually had an ending. Yes he had sub plots, but they never distracted him from the main theme and he tied them all up nicely and concluded the series.


Agreed with you and HoneyBadger that definite ending surely improves the writers' work. Tolkien, of course, was in a position better than that of modern commercial writers. Actually, what an approach such as theirs can bring is seen in Cristopher Tolkien's "sequels". And as Robert Asprin has written to his fans: "It's quite difficult to remain funny continuously for six books". And in less light-hearted genre it's possibly more difficult still. However, the recipe is simple: not to write soap operas. There ARE even modern writers who upkeep such a principle. I had already named some. And Martin & Jordan... they possibly don't even see the problem. Glen Cook surely does - and he makes memorable endings. That would be enough to say that those two aren't even close to him in work quality. However, I disagree about "very strong starters" - very strong relative to what? And what their "strength" consists of? They are quite primitive - and in Martin's case main plot is borrowed (& he doesn't do justice to his material, from my point of view)...

HoneyBadger :
The first book of SoIaF was so revolutionary, so full of hope and promise, that it literally took my breath away


What did you see as "revolutionary"? Remember that this was written after Dixon's Saint Dragon, for Cthulhu's sake! "Grub-work" I surely see, but greatness?! And as for "ignoring publishers"... It takes character, man! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Renojustin :
George RR Martin owns us all.


Please speak for yourself. I, for myself, is completely nonplussed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

HoneyBadger :
I like GRRM, but honestly, he's not the best writer that ever came down the pike. His strength is in writing fantasy for adults, and that's good


And you speak thusly after Tanith Lee??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif And what I've heard said about his "innovation" is using real world history as framework for his story. As I've said, I prefer actual chronicles. And in any case, Turtledove does this so much better! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Though even for Turtledove, who IS a real historician such method HAS caused much laziness in making his own material of late... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Which shows what it does for a writer. Though I'm not sorry for Martin in this case.

[MaxWilson]

RE Gene Wolf: I keep meaning to read him. Authors that I respect have praised him highly (Steven Brust comes to mind) and I'm curious to see what they're so in awe of.

RE GRRM: I would have enjoyed ASoIaF more if it weren't so perverted. I read an interview where GRRM commented that he liked Tyrion best because he empathizes with the "horny little $#@&^" and this made me look pretty hard at the books. I started to feel like all the incest (what, 5 or 6 counts?) and other unpleasantness was there to titillate and not to horrify, and that turned me off the books.

-Max

[Edi]

MaxWilson said:
RE Gene Wolf: I keep meaning to read him. Authors that I respect have praised him highly (Steven Brust comes to mind) and I'm curious to see what they're so in awe of.

RE GRRM: I would have enjoyed ASoIaF more if it weren't so perverted. I read an interview where GRRM commented that he liked Tyrion best because he empathizes with the "horny little $#@&^" and this made me look pretty hard at the books. I started to feel like all the incest (what, 5 or 6 counts?) and other unpleasantness was there to titillate and not to horrify, and that turned me off the books.

-Max


Quoted for truth. Never mind the way the Daenerys marriage scene is described, which amounts to basically a rather graphic description of pedophilia. *shudder*

No, I won't be touching his books too much, especially given how the plot went to crap in Storm of Swords when he killed off too many characters.

[djo]

It all depends on your tastes and sensibilities, of course, but Gene Wolfe is a serious writer is a way than none of the others mentioned so far are. Many of the other mentioned works have their merits. GRRM writes well, although I personally couldn't finish "Game of Thrones". Brust and Cook write fine entertainment. Tolkien sired the modern fantasy genre.

But Wolfe is the one you want, after Tolkien, if you want to discuss lasting value. They ain't gonna award a Nobel for science fiction or fantasy, not anytime soon, but if they wanted to, with Borges dead, it'd go to Wolfe. Many of his books are literary, no question. Some of them leave you with the impression that you weren't smart enough to read them. And that's not a path to popularity.

He writes on big themes, in original worlds, with incredible characters. He doesn't slow down for you...he writes the story, and it's your job to read it, whether he's using words that have been obsolete for several centuries, or whether his narrator is unreliable due to personality or injury, or whether he just hasn't told you the things the narrator knows, and expects you to have figured out on your own. But everything comes together, and the sum is far greater than the parts.

The aforementioned "Wizard Knight" duology is a good start. They are as straightforward as Wolfe gets, and you see the way he handles worlds and characters (and words, for that matter). He's taken the classic trope of the boy in our world falling into a fantasy world and coming of age as a hero and twisted it inside out a few times until it's become a study in the growing maturity of a hero. It's a world based on a well-known Earthly mythology, for cryin' out loud, and yet the whole thing comes off fresh and original.

I have to follow up on something Endoperez said upthread...


Endoperez said:At times, it's more like horror, except it made me uncomfortable unlike any horror book I've read. Not afraid, but uncomfortable - I didn't know if I wanted to read what would happen, because if it went wrong, it would go bad.



That's a familiar feeling. Wolfe can make you feel, and not the way you expected. There's a point in his "Book of the Short Sun" where the viewpoint character becomes scary, not because he's evil, but because he is good. It was like reading the life of a saint. I felt uncomfortable not knowing if I wanted things to go right.

Thus endeth my rant...

[djo]

And here's a link to a whimsical little essay on "Reading Gene Wolfe" by Neil Gaiman, himself no mean fantasist:

http://www.sfsite.com/fsf/2007/gwng0704.htm

[HoneyBadger]

A Game of Thrones was revolutionary, to me anyway, in that every single fantasy trope got turned on it's head, while still being set in a fantasy setting that lived and breathed and was intriguing. The hero of the story was a deformed midget, the princess was being sold as a slave to a bunch of barbarians, and nobody rescued her, her brother, the rightful king, was vile, and died 2 seconds into the book, the dragons were all dead, the villains were pretty much a matter of opinion, atleast at the time, and the overall theme was mature and dark and-atleast for the first book, full of intricate characters and machinations and elements which intrigued, rather than annoyed. It stood out to me, strongly, and made me want more-and then ofcourse the sequils disappointed and disappointed again. But for a time, for that first book, it was extraordinary to me, even the pornographic scenes, the confused and askew moral compass, and the character slaughter. I hadn't seen those things before, and they did make the world the author was creating more real. And there's no real reason that those elements couldn't have continued to make for a great series. It was the fault of the author that the series has fallen apart, not the content that he was continuing.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, I was initially attracted to the series by a recommendation that it was fantasy evil done *right*. Evil, in practice, isn't the megalomaniacal Dark Overlord who wants to turn the world into zombies, it's something a lot more human and (on some level) understandable. I liked "A Game of Thrones" because it wasn't entirely clear who the "good guys" and "bad guys" were or that the "good guys" were all going to wind up on the same side. It made it seem more relevant to real life. Some parts of the series have apparently continued to develop on that theme--Jaime has turned out to be a surprisingly complex character by all reports--but I haven't been following closely.

Steven Erikson's writing has its faults (SE and ICE have developed a lot of characters over the years and perhaps sometimes too many of them wind up in the a single book) but 1.) he writes a book a year, and the MBotF has a definite end in sight two years from now, and 2.) it's not pornographic. Ugly things happen (sieges and rapes and tragic murders just when you least expect it) but neither the author nor the protagonists enjoy it. Some of the more twisted villains do (Tanal Yathvanar springs to mind)...

-Max

P.S. I LOVE the redemption of the Jaghut villain Pannion in Memories of Ice.

[JimMorrison]

This thread has officially become awesome reading. 8 )

(Sort of OT Warning, I got really carried away, read only if your head hasn't already exploded from the rest of the thread.)


Unfortunately, I haven't a lot to add (edit just before actually posting, this is a LIE, I have a lot to add). For the last 10 years or so, I've upheld a strict policy of only reading non-fiction, or if I do read fiction, that it is something that has real literary merit. For instance, the last fiction that I read was "The World Inside", by Robert Silverberg. Great depth and storytelling, and really makes you think - I highly recommend it.

It's rare that fantasy is written anymore that really opens up your mind, and makes you THINK. Well, my mind, and making ME think anyways - after the sum total of all words which I have consumed. Isn't that sad? It's a genre that is supposed to be about imagination and vision more than any other, and yet what do people do with all of that potential? Well, they do one of two things - they either regurgitate more of the same to make a buck, or they create something vividly their own... but their creation ends up expressing little or nothing, it paints a pretty picture, but when you look closer, it doesn't show you anything more.

I do have my guilty pleasures from the past, including Anne McCaffrey (who seems to have few fans around here! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif come on, I found her when I was 11...), and the Dragonlance series which likewise started when I was in my prime of reading. Which btw, from what I recall, the original Dragonlance trilogy is not just fun, but rather innovative, AND thought provoking (at least, if you haven't read fantasy for 20 years already, and thought the duality of good and evil into the ground).


I would be very grateful if someone could turn me on to some modern fantasy that would really reward me for my time reading it. Unfortunately, I can smell empty literary calories a mile away - and I am on a strict diet now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif I'm intrigued by a couple of the authors referenced here, but also feel vindicated by the general pattern of "post 1: hey I think this author is so good and worth reading" segueing into "post 2: that author has good qualities, but let me list everything that's wrong with his work". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif Definitely saves me the time of finding out the hard way that some novel or series or other would just be me adding another name to my list of "hack authors I would like to lecture about the point of writing". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


Final note on that subject - I am not 100% against fluff, if it is not advertised as more. For example, the Stainless Steel Rat series by Harry Harrison. It's just FUN, and easy reading cause you know it's just fun. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif And of course any books that push themselves off as fluff, but really are more, like Hitchhiker's Guide, et al. That's not an easy trick to pull off, and I greatly admire it.

[HoneyBadger]

Did somebody invoke the name of James Bolivar "Slippery Jim" DeGriz? Wow, the Stainless Steel Rat was an enormous influence on me, in my formative years. I still read them. Harrison's DeathWorld series is another fun read, by the way-although I understand the last few books are in untranslated Russian, or something.

It's funny how both Harrison's Bill the Galactic Hero series and Hitchhiker's feature planets made from-or atleast covered with-pure gold.

Mostly I go for older authors-there's just so much material out there!-but here's a few of the new garde that I do recommend.

James Vandermeer-Vandermeer teaches creative writing in Florida, and I'd love to attend his classes, because his writing is amazingly imaginative, inventive, and evocative, rich with atmosphere, subtle flavors, and a strong presence. Reading his books always gives me the same feeling as going on vacation to somewhere exotic.

David Drake is a solid author who's written mostly military sci-fi, but has recently produced some very decent fantasy. The Lord of the Isles series is quite good-basically sword and sorcery, it's entertaining and fun, not too heavy, bu written with enough intelligence and imagination to intrigue.

Janny Wurts is another excellent author-often overshadowed by Raymond Feist whom she's worked with, I consider her the stronger of the pair. Try The Master of Whitestorm for starters: It's a standalone, and very powerful.

Neil Gaiman is, yes, as good as the hype. Everything he writes is gold, as far as I'm concerned, but I'd suggest starting with Neverwhere, if you've never read him, and follow it up with American Gods.

I have to mention John Crowley. If you haven't read "Little, Big", do so now. It's the best fantasy novel I've ever read, even though it's set in contemporary America.

I really, really like Tom Deitz. I'm often surprised that he seems to always go unmentioned in these sorts of discussions. I don't find many grievous faults in his writing, and the high notes are quite satisfying. It's not the deepest fantasy in the world, it's true, but there's generally enough substance to last one beyond a given book-and I like the way the books themselves make me feel. There's a sort of "double-fantasy" going on, because Deitz manages to capture the essence of a youthfulness, and a youth, that I find myself envying. I'd switch places with several of his human, flawed characters-with the many ups and downs they experience-than I would with many a larger than life "heroic legend". He writes about people I actually wish I knew, in real life, and how many authors do that?

Stephen Brust is a wonderful writer, and I can't recommend him enough, except that I just can't abide his Taltos novels. To me they read like an internet chatroom live action role-playing melodrama, where everybody's part dragon, part elf, and part supermodel, with a mandatory tragic past, lost love, sentient weapon, adopted children, sparkling emerald eyes, and enough powerful friends to gag a senate committee. So, take that as you will, but I do consider him extraordinarily talented, aside from that. Try "Cowboy Feng's Space Bar and Grill" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif It's not fantasy, but it's good.

David Gemmell is excellent. A bit over the top, consistently, and some of his stuff just doesn't "work" for me, but I think that's more me than him. Good, gritty stuff though, that I respect.

And Terry Pratchett. Light, humorous fantasy, that manages to be better, richer, deeper, more wonderful than 99% of the stuff that's really trying hard. Pratchett has my vote for immortality.


http://www.sff.net/people/Amy.Sheldon/listcont.htm

This is a really good site that lays out the details on a *lot* of fantasy authors-contemporary through classical. Should be helpful! (although it's too even-handed in my opinion, when it comes to recommending authors and books).

[Lingchih]

Why did you not mention Gene Wolfe, Honeybadger? His work is mostly sci-fi, but his two most recent books, The Knight, and The Wizard, are certainly high fantasy at it's best. Although some could even construe his masterworks, Shadow and Claw, to be fantasy.

[HoneyBadger]

Oh and Gene Wolfe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I was going to, but to be honest, I'm not as familiar with him as I'd like. I'll correct that in time, but I don't know enough about his writing to judge it very well.

[JimMorrison]

Okay Badger, you win my friend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif I'm going to check out Neverwhere, as this is not the first place I've seen the name Neil Gaiman just lately, so it must be a sign. If that works out, I may pick up some others - but I don't spend as much time reading as I used to, so we shall see how that goes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

At any rate, thanks! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Leif_-]

HoneyBadger said:
Stephen Brust is a wonderful writer, and I can't recommend him enough, except that I just can't abide his Taltos novels. To me they read like an internet chatroom live action role-playing melodrama, where everybody's part dragon, part elf, and part supermodel, with a mandatory tragic past, lost love, sentient weapon, adopted children, sparkling emerald eyes, and enough powerful friends to gag a senate committee. So, take that as you will, but I do consider him extraordinarily talented, aside from that. Try "Cowboy Feng's Space Bar and Grill" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif It's not fantasy, but it's good.



Personally, I had a sentient beltbuckle. And I'd recommend Brust's "To Reign in Hell" before "Cowboy Feng's". It's fantasy, captain, but not as we know it. It's also brilliantly written.

I also recommend Lois McMaster Bujold's fantasy, in particular her "Curse of Chalion."

[MaxWilson]

I also like Brust's TRIH. Very tragic.

-Max

[lch]

Hi, all this talk about the fantasy books got me interested and I found some images which would make nice Dom3 maps. Maybe one of the fans of the "A Song of Ice And Fire" series wants to make a Dom3 map out of Westeros with those images?

See http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Number=621022

[HoneyBadger]

I haven't read TRIH. Cowboy Feng was the first experience I had with Brust, and although it's probably not everybody's cup of tea, the extraordinary, even awesome, thing about Cowboy Feng is that every chapter in the book is written in a different writing style-and there are a lot of chapters. It's like reading an anthology of 16 different short stories by 16 different authors, except that they're all the *same* author, and they all continue the *same* story. That's special, especially to me because, as a writer, I like to play with different styles and mimic other authors.

By the way, speaking of modern writers, this is what I'm reading now:

http://www.johndiesattheend.com/

I'm only on the first few chapters so far, but it's really, really good! not to mention free, and easily accessible online.

[sum1lost]

Hey, honeybadger, as a writer, what do you think of the community at Pagesunbound?

if you aren't familiar with the site, it has a bunch of aspiring writers who are attempting to circumvent publishers by self-publishing online.

[HoneyBadger]

Well, I love self-publishing. I'll check the site out, thanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Leif_-]

sum1lost said:
if you aren't familiar with the site, it has a bunch of aspiring writers who are attempting to circumvent publishers by self-publishing online.



Commenting as a reader, I'm not interested in reading anything that have "circumvented the publishers." I don't want to have to sort through the slush pile myself.

[JimMorrison]

Leif_- said:

sum1lost said:
if you aren't familiar with the site, it has a bunch of aspiring writers who are attempting to circumvent publishers by self-publishing online.



Commenting as a reader, I'm not interested in reading anything that have "circumvented the publishers." I don't want to have to sort through the slush pile myself.



You make the assumption that the publishers' interests and your interests coincide, and that therefor they tend to make the best choices for you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Since you are here, I would assume that you are not a slave to the Best Sellers' list, so I actually find this comment a bit odd. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif Well that comment, not this one, I don't find this one odd at all. >.> Okay, the last comment, yes that was odd, but the one before it wasn't, neither is this one.

Shhhh.

[Leif_-]

JimMorrison said:
You make the assumption that the publishers' interests and your interests coincide, and that therefor they tend to make the best choices for you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



Not at all; but experience has shown that publisheres overall make good choices for me, and I'm willing to pay them for that work. Plus, what I've seen of self published writing tends to suggest that practically all of it is overwritten, underedited, badly clicheed tripe.

Besides, the interests of an author's are no more convergent with my own than are those a publisher's, so why should I believe that self-publishing authors would in any way benefit me as a reader?

[Makinus]

I started reading the first book in the Dragonlance series (Dragons of Autumn Twilight) and i´m finding a very interesting book...

While the characters are very typical RPG (the book was based in a series of RPG sessions after all) they are very well portrayed, being well developed even when stereoptical (spelling?)...

The honor-bound paladin, the gruff warrior dwarf, the powerful lawful evil/physicaly weak wizard, the care-free kender thief, the charismatic half-elven ranger, the strong warrior, the barbarian warrior and barbarian warrior/cleric (i think), while easily identifiable are given a good characterization, with motives of being in the group, origins, personality traits and quirks, bringing normally two-dimensional characters to life...

ím a third throught the book and, so far, enjoying the ride...

[HoneyBadger]

Plenty of good self-publishing out there, and yes it does need sifting, but so do the things publishers put out. Trust me on this: Most of the stuff that's published in a given year could have served just as well for toilet paper. The link I posted up above is as good as anything you're likely to pick out at Barnes & Noble, without a *lot* of research, and it's self-published and free to read. If you're just reading things based on publishers and their opinions, then while the average pick might be somewhat better than a random poke in the dark, you're likely to miss the very best writing that's out there.

I spend as much time researching what to read, as I do reading, but it's always worth it. I just don't have the time in this life to waste on writing that isn't great, because there's so much great writing to be had.

If anyone wants a recommendation from me on what's worth reading, by the way, I'm more than happy to give you a good selection. Often free on the internet. Just PM me or whatever.

And the Dragonlance series wasn't too bad, atleast for TSR. I read a lot of it when I was younger, and I especially liked the book about Huma, and Kaz the Minotaur. The volumes of short stories were also fun. It's not something I would waste money and time on now, but that's as much literary snobbishness and lack of time as it is criticism.

[Renojustin]

Dragonlance is fine for prepubescent nerds-to-be if you live in an undeveloped country with no video games or good novels.

[JimMorrison]

Leif_- said:
...practically all of it is overwritten, underedited, badly clicheed tripe...



I see you prefer your cliche'd tripe underwritten and overedited. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Well, Badger beat me to it. It's true for any art form, really. Financial success is not in any way an accurate barometer of skill, talent, or expression. Is there a lot of bad self-published writing out there? Well of course there is! Bad art is everywhere you look. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Just because the store has a bestseller list that will allow you to read the same few books as everyone else, which are mostly the same as the books you read before them, but with different authors - doesn't mean that the self-publishing houses won't have a competitive product.


And Reno, I am not sure what you actually hoped to accomplish with that post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Leif_-]

JimMorrison said:
I see you prefer your cliche'd tripe underwritten and overedited. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



If that's the alternative, yes.


Just because the store has a bestseller list that will allow you to read the same few books as everyone else, which are mostly the same as the books you read before them, but with different authors - doesn't mean that the self-publishing houses won't have a competitive product.



No, of course not. The reason why self-publishing, with rare exceptions, won't have a competitive product is because they'll lack skilled editors, proofreaders and typesetters. Publishing houses doesn't just publish books -- they also make sure the book is publishable, as in worth publishing.

[nordlys]

Back on topic, Cook is very, very, very good. I love pretty much everything he wrote, except Garrett books (they are ok, just not my kind of genre). I like his penchant to kill leading characters left and right, often not even bothering to describe their deaths. Last Black Company novel was a massive massacre.

I suggest his older Dread Empire series as well. First book is kinda slow, but then it picks up a pace. Similar to BC, but less fantasy and more genuine feudalism. As for scifi, the Starfisher spinoff novel "Passage at Arms" and stand-alone "The Dragon Never Sleeps" might be the best space opera novels ever.

[sum1lost]

Leif_- said:

JimMorrison said:
I see you prefer your cliche'd tripe underwritten and overedited. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



If that's the alternative, yes.


Just because the store has a bestseller list that will allow you to read the same few books as everyone else, which are mostly the same as the books you read before them, but with different authors - doesn't mean that the self-publishing houses won't have a competitive product.



No, of course not. The reason why self-publishing, with rare exceptions, won't have a competitive product is because they'll lack skilled editors, proofreaders and typesetters. Publishing houses doesn't just publish books -- they also make sure the book is publishable, as in worth publishing.


That might be what they are supposed to do, but they don't always do that well. Not only that, but publishers are not always the best judges of who is and who isn't good. A number of perfectly comptent (in a few cases now famous) authors have had a great deal of trouble getting some of their works published.

[Leif_-]

sum1lost said:
That might be what they are supposed to do, but they don't always do that well.



They're not perfect, no, but overall they tend to do their job competently.


Not only that, but publishers are not always the best judges of who is and who isn't good.



Of course not. They're just much, much better than the authors themselves are.


A number of perfectly comptent (in a few cases now famous) authors have had a great deal of trouble getting some of their works published.



I don't consider that a disadvantage of publishing, quite the contrary.

[HoneyBadger]

crack dealer, in practice.

Publishers, atleast the big ones with the most money, have one purpose, and that is to sell as many books as possible to as many people as possible. That's their purpose. They don't give a flying expletive about quality, if they can sell quantity. That's how they gain their success. They cut down trees, chop them up, smear ink on the wood pulp, and feed it to you. And if you don't believe that, then you're watching, and enjoying, television far too much, and it's brainwashed you.

How anyone could even concieve, let alone announce in public, in this forum particularly, that publishers-by and large-were arbiters and dispensers of only the finest quality literature, refined, weighed, and cut like a pure porcelain cocaine-illicit, and intoxicating-because they had their readers' best interests in mind, instead of being merchants of whatever addictive poison they could get people to pay money for and waste their time on; that here was some kind of happy circle of noble human enlightenment and betterment, where the cream rises to the top, bourne on the wings of our wiser, better angels from the hallowed temples of Publishdom...it's not just beyond me, it's beyond all naivete. Scary-crazy, like people who sell their homes and give the money to televangelists.

Publishing books is a big business, that operates like the gaming industry, like Hollywood, and like television. Why risk thousands and thousands of dollars on something that only a small portion of the population (well educated, discerning, bookworms) is actually going to appreciate, when you can get a higher profit by printing another easy to read schlockfest. And if you have something of quality already, and can make it sell better by tacking on a bunch of stuff that doesn't add to the quality, but DOES add to the appeal, then all the better.

Ever notice how books used to be mostly complete from beginning to end, but then they all turned into trilogies? And now they just go on and on for 7, 8, 9+ books? It's because the publishers know that once they have an audience, they can hold on to a lot of it and sell it books over and over again, until the writer drops dead. And the publishers don't even have to worry about the quality of the books because-guess what?-people will *keep reading them* even if they're awful, because they get hooked. Just like crack.

Ofcourse, I know the end results are better-but if you shoot someone, and they live and go on to win Nobel Prize for Peace because of their outspoken commitment to worldwide gun-control, does that make it ok?

[MaxWilson]

The homogenization of literature is not really the publishers' fault. It's not even really the big bookstores' fault. It is, at least in part, the fault of the Law of Unintended Consequences, stemming from a Supreme Court decision "Thor Power Tool Company vs. IRS Commissioner." http://www.sfwa.org/bulletin/articles/thor.htm

I'm sure technological and social change factors in there too. Anyway, the occasional discussions on self-publishing that I've seen indicate that getting a good editor (and cover artist) are MUSTS if you want to be successful at self-publishing, and self-publishing takes a lot of work. Unlike the music industry, artists in the book industry receive significant value from their publishers and don't tend to view them as antagonists.

Enough OT for me today...

-Max

[JimMorrison]

HoneyBadger said:
...Scary-crazy, like people who sell their homes and give the money to televangelists...



Oh man. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

The truth has claws. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif

I wasn't going to drag this thread around anymore, but thanks for hitting the part about the Reign of the Pointlessly Long Series. If Moby Dick or War and Peace were written today, they'd be split in 3 without hesitation. Then the publisher would ask for more. They would then beg for -anything- with the same characters, or in the same world, rather than get new creation that they would have to go through all the bother of trying to sell all over again.

[Renojustin]

Yeah, and if Tolkien lived back in 1930 or something, The Lord of the Rings would have been finished in 230 pages.

Side Note: scariest aliens ever in a novel = The Mote In God's Eye by Pournelle and Niven

[HoneyBadger]

Gormenghast was in several volumes too. The point isn't that authors suddenly jumped from tiny books to huge series, like it had never occurred to them before to continue their work along the same vein, it's that suddenly it was *expected* from them, to do so. Dozens of series suddenly came out, and grew longer and longer, because it was the fashionable and profitable trend.

Honestly, JimMorrison is spot on, calling it the "reign of the pointlessly long series", because a lot of these series have no business being as long as they are. If a body of work is very long, but of reasonable quality throughout, and each book adds to the body of work, then I'm happy as a clam about it. More goodness, what's not to like? But how many series can we look at and say, "every book here is sheer gold!"?

There are some. The Gunslinger series comes to mind, as does George Alec Effinger's awesome Marid Audran trilogy (which was only a trilogy because the author died), and ofcourse Terry Pratchet's Diskworld, which can continue on into infinity, as far as I'm concerned.

But for every author worthy of a major series, we seem to get 10 or 20 with diarhhea of the typewriter.

[Leif_-]

HoneyBadger said:
Gormenghast was in several volumes too. The point isn't that authors suddenly jumped from tiny books to huge series, like it had never occurred to them before to continue their work along the same vein, it's that suddenly it was *expected* from them, to do so.



Not coincidentally, this happened at about the same time that personal computers and word processors entered the scene.

[Saxon]

May I suggest The Sundering by Jacqueline Carey? The first book is Banewreaker. It is fabulous and is essentially the Lord of the Rings, told from the other side. Sure, the story is different, but the heart of it is there.

Why do the bad guys do it? What drove them to it? The books look at the characters of the “evil” characters and makes “the good guys” play a minor role and a somewhat evil one at that. If the Knight in Shining Armor has a sword and kills people, is he really that good?

I found this on George RR Martin’s website and must credit him for pointing out the LOR symmetry. He lists what he has been reading recently. Dan Simmons does the same on his site. Looking at what top authors are reading, with their comments, is often a much better guide at where to find quality reading than listening to random jokers like me in a forum.

[MaxWilson]

HoneyBadger said:
But for every author worthy of a major series, we seem to get 10 or 20 with diarhhea of the typewriter.



CoughcoughXanth!coughcough.

Sturgeon's Law, though.

-Max

[HoneyBadger]

Leif, the Mahabharata is a trilogy consisting of approximately 1.8 million words. I don't think they had personal computers and word-processors 2400 years ago.
Certainly, word-processors and pcs and even typewriters sped up the process, but this wasn't just a case of sudden invention increasing output. Those things didn't cure writers block, for one thing.

[HoneyBadger]

And Tolkien got his popularity in the 60's when the books were re-discovered by the hippies, not in the 30's, and it was in large part the popularity of his books that started the trilogy craze.

[Leif_-]

HoneyBadger said:
Leif, the Mahabharata is a trilogy consisting of approximately 1.8 million words. I don't think they had personal computers and word-processors 2400 years ago.



Yes, yes, there were long books and stories long before word processors entered stage right, but it was with the the arrival of the word processors that books of 300+ pages became the norm.

[Endoperez]

I think endings are one of the most important parts of any story. A good beginning can get you started, but what you'll end up remembering will probably be the ending. There are exceptions, though:

"Mrs. Whitaker found the Holy Grail; it was under a fur coat."
So starts Chivalry, a short story by Neil Gaiman

Also, the forewords of the Dragonlance novel Soulforge, and spesifically the quote about iron-making. It's a powerful start, even though the story isn't too special by itself.

[HoneyBadger]

Not really. Typing is typing. The difference is in what sells, and the bigger, thicker books carry-literally-more weight than short stories, and therefore more emphasis for the readers to empathise with the story/characters/plot, and want more of the same.

[JimMorrison]

And as has been pointed out in reference with the Wheel of Time, a reduced sense of obligation. Once the decision is made to NOT end on a third book, you can keep stringing people along forever. Even if the author dies early (not to make light of that per se, or to blame him for dying) or sales eventually fall off because the writing has gotten so bad, and so irrelevant, you have still conned 10 million people into paying 20$, 30$, maybe $50 for this stuff. If combined sales of a series top $100 million for unsatisfying junk, then what is the incentive for the publisher to find some brilliantly written, but short and controversial (AND unorthodox) story, that won't even hit best seller lists, let alone break $1 million in sales? They do not want quality, they don't care if in 20 or 30 years a book is considered a classic, and a revolutionary writing - they're making decisions to make themselves wealthy NOW, and nothing else, it's just business.

I can't believe this is still an argument. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

(Also I can't believe I went to do something else, and this post sat here unsent for 5 or 6 hours. O.o)

[MaxWilson]

Isn't that the way publishing has always been? The reason Dickens' novels are so interminably long is partly that he was paid by the word.

-Max

[HoneyBadger]

Oh and I loved the first Black Company book. Good voice and great use of battlefield magic! The part where the guy with the flying carpet is dropping these green strands down on the enemy, and the threads are cutting people up and leaving horrible, bright green wounds, that was honestly gruesome. I wish there had been more background on the original Taken, though.

[Wrana]

Though the thread became probably too long for any sane person to read http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif , I have currently found the time to accomplish this! Thanks to all who mentioned authors I haven't read already.
Thanks also for reminding about Margareth Weis. Though she's not on par with Barbara Hambly or Caroline Cherryh, she writes well enough. And while she started from very humble beginnings of T$R book-hack, she had overgrown this. Her later books stink of melodrama, though, sometimes. But generally good-written and enjoyable. I personally like Star of the Guardians cycle most, though it's not fantasy and so slightly OT here... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Another case of gaming-company-books-done-well is, of course, production of Games Workshop. Here they seduced some already known British authors into writing some books using a world where their game takes place as a shared universe. I enjoy Jack Yeovil = Kim Newman particularly, but Brian Craig (don't remember actual name) is also good. This series is generally worth to read (maybe less so for those who don't play Warhammer, but still good nevertheless) and dark fantasy is what World of Warhammer is all about!
Considering maps - it's probably good idea, though Martin's would hold no interest for me! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Glen Cook didn't place official maps in any of his books afaik, but there are good-quality ones produced by fans. There is good map of Turtledove's World of Videssos also...
As for publishers - well, I generally agree with HoneyBadger's idea, but must point out that I had to take part in preparing some few books for publishing and it's really exact & boring job. Few authors would make this work willingly - and especially make it well.

HoneyBadger said:
Leif, the Mahabharata is a trilogy consisting of approximately 1.8 million words. I don't think they had personal computers and word-processors 2400 years ago.


Well, and Iliada is ten times smaller and ten times better! But here we can't blame poor quality on publishers' establishment - it's just a case of graphomania. Which isn't rare among self-publishers, unfortunately - but I can't say that it's less common among authors liked by publishing houses, too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif What I can add to this is that even recommendations by good authors on a back page doesn't garantee the quality of the book - sometimes I doubt if these authors are even aware that their names are placed there. But maybe it's just money - or even just good personal relationships...

[HoneyBadger]

I like the Videssos books. They're currently free to read from the Baen free library.

[Wrana]

Yes. This can also mean that map can be used freely for non-commercial purposes, eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Turtledove and Barbara Hambly are also, by the way, the only professional medievists in the field. And it tells. Considering game use Hambly's maps are also good and could be useful.

[Beorne]

Stop writing on this thread! I have no time and I must absolutely read it all ... and it is increasing ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Aezeal]

a few points to start
1. I don't know any black company books (I don't think even the biggest stores here in Holland have them, but the more I encounter the name I'm thinking of ordering them)

2. I FULLY agree Martin writes great books and I think it is better than Tolkien in quite some ways.

3. dragon of .... etc.. is IMHO not a very good series and I don't think there is good character development at all.

4. I like Jordans books, even the late/last ones

Then I want to bring some autor's into the light (I guess most of you 'read them already but if you haven't these are books you must read.. even if you don't think they are as great as I think they are I'm sure you'll find them at least good and worth the reading time

Having said that I think it's strange that Steven Erikson hasn't been mentioned I think his Malazan books of the Fallen are one of the greatest series there are (for me this is the best series together with Martin)

I also like Feists (Magician and his serpentwar saga)

another series I like very much so far (only seen first book of this sereis (I think the rest isn't written yet): the name of the wind by Patrick Rothfuss

An oldie (don't know exactly how it really fits in timeline with other book but one of his books was amongst the first I bougth) I like too is Tad Williams (Dragonthrone series (real name to long) and his war of the Flowers book

Last but not least I'd like to mention Scott lynch's books about locke lamora (The lies of locke lamora and red seas under red skies) about a conman in a fantasy setting it's different and it's good

also: Drizzt books (RA Salvatore) and discworld novels are always fun between more "serious" series, and not bad at all

[Ballbarian]

I love the Drizzt books (RA Salvatore). My daughters have recently started reading my collection and appear to be hooked as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Xietor]

Feist is very very good. i think the only reason he is not mentioned is he is so well known.

I am surprised KO does not have a hero named Pug or Calais.

[HoneyBadger]

Feist? as in Raymond E Feist? Unknown? On which planet? Surely not Earth. He might not have sold *quite* as many books as Jordan or Martin, but it would be a close race.

If you look at some of the slightly older incarnations of this particular thread...and I can't help but grin at mentioning it...such as the OT Malazan Book of the Fallen, you'll find we've had some quite lively discussion about Feist, Jordan, Martin, Erikson, Williams, etc.

Will some kind administrator please sticky this thread already? It's head keeps getting chopped off and growing back with a new name, Hydra-style.

I loved the Icewind Dale books growing up, and found them much more to my taste than the Dragonlance ones. I very strongly recommend David Drake's King of the Isles series to any R.A.Salvatore fans out there.

[Edi]

We're not stickying threads like this because the top of the forum would get unacceptably cluttered. The current stickies are enough. If it wewre down to the moderators, there'd be three less than now, but we have orders with sound reasoning that prevents it from happening.

[HoneyBadger]

I wasn't really serious, Edi. Although it would be nice to have something stable that reflected the attitudes of the forum towards the subject matter and spirit of the game, so that we didn't recycle the same information over and over to every eager new person. Not that it's not fun to talk about, but it's the same conversation every six months or so.

[Wrana]

Well, as I suspected:

Aezeal:
Martin writes great books and I think it is better than Tolkien in quite some ways.


While I'm not great fan of Tolkien myself, I think that if you say that Martin is even close, you just demonstrate a lack of understanding the genre and/or lack of reading much good books. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif I surely don't hold it against you, but...

dragon of .... etc.. is IMHO not a very good series and I don't think there is good character development at all.


Well, you probably didn't read all that much of it as character development begins even in first trilogy.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif Though it's true that much of it wasn't by authors' merit but rather by players who played that module out (one of the best published adventures' series, by the way).

I like Jordans books, even the late/last ones


Which also speaks a lot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Steven Erikson hasn't been mentioned I think his Malazan books of the Fallen


Why I personally didn't read it, it WAS mentioned her (first page iirc). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Feists (Magician and his serpentwar saga)


Just boring. And this by the man who had read much of T$R fantasy in his time. Though usually liked by girls... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I have heard that there are some good monsters in there, but I couldn't make myself to dig through his bland language for them... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

the name of the wind by Patrick Rothfuss


Didn't read it. And probably won't since it's recommended by a man who thinks Jordan great. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Tad Williams (Dragonthrone series (real name to long) and his war of the Flowers book



Read it some years ago. iirc, not bad, but not particularly impressive either. Of course, there was the time I could read EVERYTHING... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Scott lynch's books about locke lamora ... it's different and it's good


Different from what, for Cthulhu's sake?!! "Conman in fantasy setting" is one of the oldest staples of genre! It's even present in one of R.E. Howard's short stories, not to mention Leiber with his Fafhrd & Grey Mouser! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif
And Lynch is particularly bad at it also. The only con in the first book which was good thought out is the one played by the Grey King on the main protagonist - and it worked mainly because the said protagonist didn't act as conman (or any criminal) should in the situation (not mentioning the magical help antagonist had). Read O'Henry, for Cthulhu's sake!
By the way, among Russian RPGers such fantasy is characterized by "dice rolling is heard" term. It's seen quite clearly that it was adventure module played out by not particularly good players under a novice DM. Feist is similar BTW, but he at least got his homework as DM done - it's mainly with writing all this down that he has a problem. Also, I don't see how anyone can call Lynch "different" after reading Feist. They are practically twins except Feist is older and was on the market much earlier... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Drizzt books (RA Salvatore)


Well, young girls loved them, that's for sure. After some RPG experience they either gained much irony considering these or just stopped to read them... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


Xietor:
I am surprised KO does not have a hero named Pug or Calais.



May it be because KO have read more quality fantasy? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

HoneyBadger:
I very strongly recommend David Drake's King of the Isles series to any R.A.Salvatore fans out there.


Being not a fan of Salvatore (or Greenwood, for that matter!) at all, I think I'll pass. Or is it somewhat better than Drake's usual? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Among T$R authors I would also consider Knaak already mentioned here and - just possibly - Gary Gygax himself. He writes not especially good, I must say beforehand, but he's a font of most AD&D initial ideas (as in: beholders, dark elves, and dungeon crawling adventures in general). The girl who'd written Curse of Asure Bonds isn't bad, but her name slips me and it's not very good by itself. Just not bland and not foolish, which is more than can be said about most "dice rolling" fantasy. It's also probably out of print by now.

[HoneyBadger]

Well, the unfortunate truth is, Wrana, that I've read and enjoyed a lot of fiction that just wasn't classic. Stuff that never was, never will be, "the highest quality fantasy", but I still managed to get entertainment and thought out of it. I can give you a very accurate list of the finest fantasy writers in the past 100 years, but I'm sad to say that not every one of them, at every given instance, is enormously readable. They're profound, deep, compelling, etc. but sometimes, yes, one just wants to escape, and not think all that terribly hard, while being taken on a tour of a world unlike our own.

At given points in time, I've enjoyed Martin, I've enjoyed Feist, I've even enjoyed Jordan. They aren't they best thing that ever came down the pike, but on a given day they occupied my brain in ways beneficial.

And even if people are reading crappy fantasy, they're still reading, and it's still fantasy, and that's a good thing in my book. And King of the Isles is 100% free from the Baen free library, so you're welcome to check it out and see for yourself.

[Edi]

After the first book of Serpentwar, Feist's writing started to get seriously stale. I loved the original Riftwar saga and the Empire trilogy he cowrote with Janny Wurts (who is one of my favorite authors, though she can be pretty wordy sometimes).

J.V. Jones also writes good fantasy, but the Book of Words trilogy can take some getting used. Barbed Coil is a first rate standalone book, though.

I also happen to like Michael Scott Rohan's Winter of the World trilogy. It's a rather original take on several elements of Finnish and Celtic mythology.

[Xietor]

heh. My sense of humor is not apparent at times. I was kidding about a hero named Pug or Calais.

But I do take issue with your condemnation of Feist. Some of his work is not good(talonhawk stuff), but Jimmy the Hand was one of my favorite characters.

Edit-Edi, my comment was directed at Wranna's dislike of Feist, not your comment immediately above mine. sorry for the confusion.

[Edi]

Uh, hello? Jimmy the Hand is a major character in the original series and also appears in Serpentwar. He's my favorite too, but the books after Serpentwar are nowhere near as good as the older works.

[Endoperez]

I like early Feist a lot.

Locke Lamora is about a group of gentlemen-thief-actor-geniuses in a low-fantasy world. It's more about the stuff they can pull off than about the magic, but it's so over-the-top it can only be fantasy. The Feist I like doesn't really have anything in common with Scott Lynches writing. EDIT: It seems I've missed Jimmy the Hand, though.

Name of the Wind is new. It's captivating. It has promise, and great build-up, but I'm not sure how well Rothfuss can deliver once the "past" has been told and it's time to actually move forward in the story.




Wrane wrote:
While I'm not great fan of Tolkien myself, I think that if you say that Martin is even close, you just demonstrate a lack of understanding the genre and/or lack of reading much good books. I surely don't hold it against you, but...



Tolkien helped make fantasy popular. He was one of the first. That means he made many mistakes that he would have been critized about had he not been one of the first popular ones. I think LotR could be written much better.


It could be written worse, as well. Unfortunately, someone decided to prove it true and wrote LotR, worse. Warning: bad fantasy ahead!

McKiernan's Silver Call starts with "warrows" that keep "sir Tuckerby Underbank's Unfinished Diary and His Accounting of the Winter War" safe, and then one of them (Peregrin "Perry" Fairhill) is hired to retrace his ancestor's steps when group of dwarves wants to reclaim mines of "Kraggen-Cor". Yes, there's a priceless chain mail of "starsilver, silveron, stronger than steel, lighter than down, soft as doeskin." The world is called "Mithgar". The big bad that was killed with the "red arrow" was called "Modru"

[HoneyBadger]

Feist's "Faerie Tale" I also found enjoyable. It's set in the real world, not Midkemia.

The point where Feist became hopelessly unreadable to me was 'Merchant Prince'. I like to call it "fantasy accounting", and as far as I can tell, is basically some kind of wacko Midkemian corporate thriller, from the little bit I could stand to choke down.

[MaxWilson]

I liked the whole Serpentwar series (Shards of a Broken Crown was a pretty good climax to a tale you thought had already climaxed in Rage of a Demon King). There are things I have liked about the Talon books--starting fresh with new characters is always nice--but I couldn't even finish Flight of the Nighthawks.

-Max

[Aezeal]

Wrana: hahahaha

seriously in most your post I only see things you don't like except the black company and hobb and tolkien it seems..

I don't see why hobb is so much better than most writers you don't like.. I don't even see why it his books are "for those who like fantasy dark".

I can see why you'd like Tolkien better than some writers that where mentioned (Martin) but I just disagree.. on so many points Martin is better.

and if you dont'read the books I recommended it's your loss not mine.. maybe others will have some use for them though.

[nordlys]

Wrana said:
The girl who'd written Curse of Asure Bonds isn't bad, but her name slips me and it's not very good by itself.



Kate Novak. Along with Jeff Grubb.


Just not bland and not foolish, which is more than can be said about most "dice rolling" fantasy. It's also probably out of print by now.



Most people mistakenly treat gaming fiction as literature. It was never supposed to be one. Gaming fiction = in-character gaming accessory. Embrace this fact, and TSR novels become highly enjoyable, no matter how boring the stories, bland the characters and mediocre the writing are.

[Wrana]

Time to return to this dope... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

HoneyBadger:
I can give you a very accurate list of the finest fantasy writers in the past 100 years, but I'm sad to say that not every one of them, at every given instance, is enormously readable. They're profound, deep, compelling, etc. but sometimes, yes, one just wants to escape, and not think all that terribly hard, while being taken on a tour of a world unlike our own ...
even enjoyed Jordan. They aren't they best thing that ever came down the pike, but on a given day they occupied my brain in ways beneficial.


Well, that's too bad. As I've said probably, I consider some books usually included in classics to be overrated - or having had their popularity based on situation in society at the time and not on their literary value... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif
And I also have read trash fantasy aplenty, but the 3 you mentioned are just too crappy for my palate. Maybe I'm spoiled for choice by having relatively much Russian trash fantasy at hand - many of which are of generally better quality, but unfortunately weren't (and won't be I think) translated into English. Also, there is always Robert Ervin Howard - and not only his fantasy, which I think isn't the best among his works... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

And even if people are reading crappy fantasy, they're still reading, and it's still fantasy, and that's a good thing in my book.


I'm not so sure that it is much better than reading nothing - especially as you somehow consider a fantasy better in some obscure way than, say, SF. I don't know whether you have read "Silver Eggheads" by Fritz Leiber which was a warning against brain-munching reading, besides being a very funny and well-written book of its own. But if you didn't, look for it (if yes, just remember how he calls such products and how he descibes procedures used to craft and sell them). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Edi:
After the first book of Serpentwar, Feist's writing started to get seriously stale. I loved the original Riftwar saga and the Empire trilogy he cowrote with Janny Wurts (who is one of my favorite authors, though she can be pretty wordy sometimes).


I don't know, I've just seen very bland language, with any characters speaking the same. And it wasn't particularly original either... Don't remember which of the books this was - I just understood that he's generally not worth reading unless I have absolutely no other choice... Thank you for mentioning other authors - I'll probably make some sort of list from this discussion to look up those that might be interesting. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Xietor:
But I do take issue with your condemnation of Feist. Some of his work is not good(talonhawk stuff), but Jimmy the Hand was one of my favorite characters.


Maybe you take this issue further by arguing for him? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Something like originality, quality of text-work, storyline-work... It would be appreciated. Understand, I'm not completely against "dice-rolling" fantasy - there are times when my brain won't absorb much http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif, but even among these, Feist doesn't look particularly good.

Endoperez:
Tolkien helped make fantasy popular. He was one of the first. That means he made many mistakes that he would have been critized about had he not been one of the first popular ones. I think LotR could be written much better.


Agree. I also dislike his attitude on some questions. And you will probably agree that even in his times, many elements could be made better... actually I think that as a writer R.E. Howard was better - or would be if he lived to Prof. Tolkien's years.

It could be written worse, as well. Unfortunately, someone decided to prove it true and wrote LotR, worse. Warning: bad fantasy ahead!


http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Another example is Terry Brooks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif He's not quite so obnoxious at it as he uses less copy-paste... but it remains copy-paste nonetheless, though he didn't repeat it all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

HoneyBadger : I like to call it "fantasy accounting"


Well, there is virtue in such. Just remember Asprin's MYTH Inc. series - though I prefer earlier ones which are more conventional fantasy... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif Another example is Lawrence Watt-Evans. It's just that Feist can't make it interesting... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Aezeal:
seriously in most your post I only see things you don't like except the black company and hobb and tolkien it seems..


You are wrong. I don't particularly like Tolkien. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

I don't see why hobb is so much better than most writers you don't like.. I don't even see why it his books are "for those who like fantasy dark".


Well, what you don't see isn't my problem, is it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif And Robin Hobb is a woman, by the way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

I can see why you'd like Tolkien better than some writers that where mentioned (Martin) but I just disagree.. on so many points Martin is better.


Such as? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

and if you dont'read the books I recommended it's your loss not mine..


Well, actually it's my gain - I see who recommends which books and choose to not spend my time on those. I should probably thank you! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

nordlys :
Kate Novak. Along with Jeff Grubb.


Thank you. Though I probably won't seek it out now anyways, but still thank you. Do you remember someone else from those T$R slaves actually worth some time? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Most people mistakenly treat gaming fiction as literature. It was never supposed to be one. Gaming fiction = in-character gaming accessory. Embrace this fact, and TSR novels become highly enjoyable, no matter how boring the stories, bland the characters and mediocre the writing are.


Well, it actually depends on what your palate can stand. And I personally am not interested in descriptions of the world badly thought out (read: Forgotten Realms http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ). And what interest can they really have? If they have all those "merits" you mentioned, the only thing which can be interesting are fantasy countries/cultures. But by the virtue of his/her talent (or lack thereof) your average storyhack just can't do juistice for them too! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Also, a quality of "in-character gaming accessory" can also vary widely. Just compare those of T$R authors with, say, short stitches in WarHammer Army books (wholly resulting from Games Workshop having enough sense to pay real writers!) - or flavor texts in Dominions units/countries/spells! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[nordlys]

Wrana said:
Thank you. Though I probably won't seek it out now anyways, but still thank you. Do you remember someone else from those T$R slaves actually worth some time? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



I found Prince of Lies and Crucible: Trial of Cyric the Mad very good. Generally, James Lowder and some Ravenloft authors are better than the rest.


Well, it actually depends on what your palate can stand. And I personally am not interested in descriptions of the world badly thought out (read: Forgotten Realms http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ). And what interest can they really have?



Places, events, people.. In novels they are displayed more vividly than in rules-filled proper accessories, so I read them just for that. Exploring the development of gaming universes (many ones) is sort of a hobby of mine, and novels do fill a lot of gaps the dry rulebooks leave behind. They don't have to be talented, they only have to be canon! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Also, a quality of "in-character gaming accessory" can also vary widely. Just compare those of T$R authors with, say, short stitches in WarHammer Army books (wholly resulting from Games Workshop having enough sense to pay real writers!) - or flavor texts in Dominions



I've read some WH40k novels, and didn't found them any better than typical D&D fiction. I guess there is a reason half of those real writers used pseudonyms while writing for GW http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif As for Dominions fluff, it is fascinating enough, but a single paragraph copypasted between related units hardly describes an universe in detail in space and time... as a matter of fact, it could use a solid shelf of Dominions fiction to fill the rest in! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[HoneyBadger]

I'm actually agreeing with you, Wrana, in case you missed that part.

I'm just explaining that first of all, getting people interested in reading is probably a good thing.

And bad sci fi (or future fantasy) isn't necessarily any better, or any more realistic or accurate, than bad fantasy.

Once again from the top: I'm NOT a fan of Robert Jordan, George Martin, Raymond Feist, Terry Brooks, Terry Goodkind, or David Eddings. I am familiar with their works, however, because I read them probably 10 years ago or more, and they do have their good qualities, generally concerning their earlier works, and in their attempt to recreate/reinvigorate the fantasy genre, by infusing it with as much creativity as they're capable of. I no longer bother reading them, because their works have become bloated, unimaginative, uninspired, and stale, and in some cases graphically violent and pornographic, in such a ham-handed way, vulgar way, that it's actually a turn-off. I simply find that I have better things to read.

I'm also not a real big fan of Tolkien or Piers Anthony, but I'll still re-read The Hobbit every few years, and once in a great while I'll read one of Anthony's more bizarre non-Xanth novels, if only because of how truly kooky they can get.

As far as Russian novelists go, I realize that Russia has a long and impressive tradition, and we are starting to see more translations over here in the 'States. I sadly have almost 0 background in the Russian language, although my mother did take Russian language courses when she was in highschool.

If you could recommend some works that have been translated, or better yet, translated, and made freely available on the internet (it's great advertizement, especially for relatively unfamiliar authors, and testing shows that it increases, rather than reducing, sales of hard copies), then I'd happily spend time seeking them out. Until then, it does little to *say* that the Russians have a better space-program, er novel, until it can be quantified with proof http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[JimMorrison]

Piers Anthony? Say it ain't so! The only thing I ever read, that filled my gut with a sense of ill-ease deeper than Gulliver's Travels could inflict me with, was a brief passage from some atrocious Xanth novel that a friend considered hilarious. Okay, deep breaths..... He just thinks he's some sort of high octane version of Dr Seuss, it drives me mad.

Okay, sorry. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif I guess reading these latest posts made me want so badly to be the reviewer that kicks a writer's teeth in, I feel better now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


I think the thing with Russian vs English fiction is a deeper and more subtle issue, really. I've been very entertained by much of the Russian fiction I've been exposed to - recently watched Daywatch/Nightwatch, and I've gotten a few Russian made CRPGs that are fun - but I can't say that I very highly rate the writing. And I think really, translation just does terrible things for any profound writing - because that precisely special combination of words that strikes something in you, well the other language may not even have them at all, or the translator may substitute a word that has additional connotations that weren't intended, or if it is your second language, some nuances simply may be missed. I think this issue is even greater when it involves the English language, as we have borrowed so many words from so many other languages, that for example if you enter "wise" into thesaurus.reference.com, you get a truncated list of 50 synonyms. Many translators may not know what all of the subtle differences are, and in creative writing, sometimes one word is substituted for another not on merit of connotation, but simply because of the shape and sound of the word. You lose poetic nuances like that the moment it is translated.

Fiction is a fickle mistress. At the point that someone says "I don't get it", the artistic expression is lost, and it has spelled doom for the story. People will generally tend to hold in higher regard the earlier things that they read and digested, because even if they are a bit trite or underdone, they'll still express many new concepts, and broaden one's horizons. So maybe if Piers Anthony was the first fiction I read, I'd like him - and maybe recommend him to people on some basis - but luckily, that is not the case. <3

[MaxWilson]

Don't judge Piers Anthony's writing by the never-ending Xanth series. Some of his books (Macroscope) and the first few (2-3) Xanth books are sort of mildly good. The never-ending Xanth stories are a money machine which he apparently thinks he'd be a fool not to milk--think of them as his day job.

-Max

[HoneyBadger]

Yeah, you'll notice that I took the time to clarify that I take my Piers Anthony strictly non-Xanth. As long as you avoid them, and any other series he's written, past say the third or fourth book, you'll be ok. Some of his series I've read farther than that, but I don't take responsibility for the quality. He may not be consistently great, and he's certainly not everybody's cup of tea, but what can I say? he writes well to teenaged males, and I used to be a very troubled teenager (I've since matured into a very troubled adult). Him and Tom Deitz are the first two authors that I'd point any hormonal adolescent towards, were I forced kicking and screaming into near proximity with them. I'd add Harry Harrison, but the sad fact is that a lot of his best early work hasn't aged all that well.

One thing that Piers Anthony does, that I really approve of, is that he always (or almost always) includes an Author's Note at the end of his books, taking the time to actually explain something of what was going on in his head or whatever, when he was writing the book. I for one appreciate having a little insight into my authors and their writing process, and it sets him apart from others mentioned, as much as any factor of his writing quality.

[Wrana]

And the last one, probably - thought to do it on Sunday, but wasn't up to it, sorry to all...

nordlys:
Places, events, people.. In novels they are displayed more vividly than in rules-filled proper accessories, so I read them just for that. Exploring the development of gaming universes (many ones) is sort of a hobby of mine, and novels do fill a lot of gaps the dry rulebooks leave behind. They don't have to be talented, they only have to be canon!


Unfortunately, T$R didn't give a damn about what is canon and what is not. Which caused many contradictions between authors describing their worlds. And I don't mean fiction only - there were quite a few contradictions in their accessories! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

I've read some WH40k novels, and didn't found them any better than typical D&D fiction. I guess there is a reason half of those real writers used pseudonyms while writing for GW


I didn't mean those - just because I don't play 40K and so wasn't interested in those books. Maybe they are quite bad - I'd only read one which wasn't bad for trash literature... I believe I named authors I meant - Jack Yeovil in particular and he never written in 40K series. He was reprinted some time ago, though... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

As for Dominions fluff, it is fascinating enough, but a single paragraph copypasted between related units hardly describes an universe in detail in space and time... as a matter of fact, it could use a solid shelf of Dominions fiction to fill the rest in!


Can only agree at the latter! But unfortunately it seems the only way to have it is to write them ourselves! aNd yes, copypaste isn't very tasteful, but general quality of texts is high - especially when it's not about low-end units.

HoneyBadger:
I'm actually agreeing with you, Wrana, in case you missed that part.
I'm just explaining that first of all, getting people interested in reading is probably a good thing.


And I also agree with most you've said! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif However, what I don't agree with is that reading *something* is necessarily better than reading nothing. Some reading can quite surely deaden the reader's brain just as TV can. And he remains thinking that he's (or she, as the case often is) a "man of books". Which can be quite pityful... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif
Considering earlier and later reading I think we agree of - though I think that to recommend some reading should be done with caution as trash can either make the person in question drop reading completely or make him/her trash reader only - a pity in both cases.

...if you could recommend some works that have been translated, or better yet, translated, and made freely available on the internet (it's great advertizement, especially for relatively unfamiliar authors, and testing shows that it increases, rather than reducing, sales of hard copies), then I'd happily spend time seeking them out. Until then, it does little to *say* that the Russians have a better space-program, er novel, until it can be quantified with proof


Generally can only agree. But I wasn't interested about who was translated into English. I'll try to find out. Considering Nightwatch mentioned here - its author is popular in the way J Rowling is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif What can be said for him is that he writes really a lot. Also, he had some school (meaning both specialized education and writers' seminars) so his language is smooth and he doesn't make many stupid mistakes. What I HATE him for is that he doesn't have one fresh idea in all his books! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif Nightwatch in particular wasn't fresh even when Polotta had written his Bureau 13. Polotta didn't pose as great writer, though - unlike the guy in question. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif
Generally, if you find one of the following names: V.Sverzhin, M. & S. Dyachenko, M. Uspensky, G.L. Oldi (or Gromov and Ladyzhensky), S. Vartanov, E. Ratkevitch, O.Gromuko - they are generally worth reading. There are others, too... And when I find whether any of them were translated into English, I'll notify you.
Considering translations - well, I generally agree with what JimMorrison said. But this fortunately doesn't stop people from making translations of what they want their countrymates to read. Sometimes it's quite successful - I've read a really good translation of Jasper Fforde (!) in Russian not very long ago. It takes time and effort, of course - but is hardly impossible.
Considering Pierce Anthony - his afterwords to Avatars series I consider to be actually the best things I've read from him. They were quite interesting material and I'm thankful for them. And generally I see him as better SF than fantasy writer. Though, of course, series become stale quite soon in any case.
There is one more thing I would like to mention considering quite common drop of quality which was discussed here - the so-called "gritty realism". This means naturalistic descriptions and general "weary-of-the-world cynicism" approach - quite laughable from people who generally live very sheltered lives in wealthy civilized countries. Of course, this isn't the cause of bad writing, but merely one of its symptoms. I don't mean that naturalism is bad in and of itself, but it's often used to mascuerade total lack of knowledge on the subject of writing...

[Aezeal]

still... Jordan was doing a great job http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif, so is martin btw... and Erikson.

Erikson has a nice gritty realism series.

PS locke lamora > grey mouser and I said con-man not criminal

[Renojustin]

Aezeal said:
still... Jordan was doing a great job http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif



Apparently you have the attention span of a god if you got past the fourth or fifth book in the monstrosity that it became.

[JimMorrison]

So, you are relating the writed of Nightwatch to..... Harry Potter? Ouch man, just ouch. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

There were some interesting things portrayed in those films. Not immensely thought provoking for someone who likes to spend much time deep in thought, but still not mindless, either. Though I do have to say, I mostly just found it very weird. But again, most of that comes from translation. I can only imagine that typically the people hired to subtitle movies, are a level of skill lower than those people who translate entire novels, who are generally a level of skill lower than they need to be in order to accurately portray the beauty of the original writing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

It's a tricky equation, where generally the way a book is written, is as important as what it is about. One is incomplete without the other, and in the process of translation, it's as if taking an oil painting, and redoing it as a water color. The brushstrokes are different, the colors are different, and the overall feel is going to simply be different, even if what it portays is still the same.

Ultimately, I think this is what is so great about foreign movies, games, music, etc. The only part that needs good translating is the dialogue, as long as the content is portrayed accurately in the more visual and/or interactive form, then it sidesteps the issues of language.

[Ballbarian]

Wrana said:
However, what I don't agree with is that reading *something* is necessarily better than reading nothing. Some reading can quite surely deaden the reader's brain just as TV can. And he remains thinking that he's (or she, as the case often is) a "man of books". Which can be quite pityful...
Considering earlier and later reading I think we agree of - though I think that to recommend some reading should be done with caution as trash can either make the person in question drop reading completely or make him/her trash reader only - a pity in both cases.




One man's trash is another man's treasure.

If considering oneself a "man of books" means limiting one's reading to works of literary art (however you might define art) and belittling the work of others, then I will never be more than the common, dead brained, pitiful fool that you have described. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Sorry if that comes across sounding flamey as that is not my intention. It has just always struck me as incredibly wrong when someone puts down a different style as being trashy and those who appreciate that style as pitiful or otherwise deserving only sympathetic dismissal as poor ignorant fools.

All of that said, I wanted to point out that I really appreciate all of the great suggestions for reading in this thread from Wrana and others. Many of the books that I have enjoyed through the years were suggested by friends and family.

[Wrana]

To Aezeal: of course, you can continue to repeat youself. It's pretty effective way of discussion, actually, if cheap. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif But anyway that doesn't make truth of nonsense. And I ask you another time: what you can state as the "greatness" in question? As for con-man - that particular one is certainly not criminal. He's a fool, just as I said. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

JimMorrison:
So, you are relating the writed of Nightwatch to..... Harry Potter? Ouch man, just ouch.


They occupy the same niche anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Meaning they owe as much to advertising. As for book itself, I actually related it to old Polotta's Bureau 13. Though this isn't the only book this guy has looted for ideas... And by the way - movies I hadn't seen, due to the fact that I don't like the books author (there are 5-6 of books now, by the way, and counting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ).
About both problems and great gain of translation I can only agree.

Ballbarian:
If considering oneself a "man of books" means limiting one's reading to works of literary art (however you might define art) and belittling the work of others, then I will never be more than the common, dead brained, pitiful fool that you have described.


Well, you don't look like the part to me. Good masking? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif
And I DO NOT consider myself a "man of books" - actually a good way to get deadbrained in my book. For one thing, I do not qualify by old standarts. And another thing is I just don't think that reading itself makes a man better which was the point.
As for "different style" - you either missed the point OR try to use the common line of "different is beautiful, small is beautyful, etc., etc." And I see it's already advertised enough, thanks. So I reiterate. The point was not about "different style", but about lack thereof. And I do NOT define the art. I just prefer to not take or PASS trash for quality. And may I hope that other party do not do this, either. Especially the second part. Of course, modern "critics" tradition just loves to do it. And with enough word equilibristics can even be quite successful in the task. Do you want to make their work for free? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Or will you agree to the obvious fact that there are books (for example) which are worth reading and those which are not?

[Aezeal]

No your way of discussion isn't cheap lol... ask balb about that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

PS no dissing harry potter.. I'd not call the books good in many ways but they where fun to read (ways in which it was good: mostly character development which was much better than in most fantasy books)

[Endoperez]

It isn't hard to be better than most fantasy books, though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Aezeal]

well I mostly see only those who get published in the netherlands, I read them english though.. but still I guess that is quite a selection already (for example.. never seen the books this thread started about http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif)

[nordlys]

Wrana said:
Unfortunately, T$R didn't give a damn about what is canon and what is not. Which caused many contradictions between authors describing their worlds. And I don't mean fiction only - there were quite a few contradictions in their accessories! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif



Well, [censored] happens. Not a single "shared world"-type work of fiction is guaranteed to be contradiction-free. Hell, even single-author series occasionally slip. I remembed having a huge flame with some Tolkien fan over the issue of orcs' intelligence, as he referred to some obscure late letters where Tolkien decided orcs are some kind of mindless beings, thus assumedly "overriding" their obvious sentience of published novels.

At least TSR didn't have to retcon whole accessories as insane ravings, like White Wolf had to do with "Dirty secrets of black hand" and some other 2ed stuff, essentially "replacing" it with another accessory and erasing most traces of its lore in 3ed. I only remember them to officially rule non-canon the "Lord of the Necropolis" Ravenloft novel, dissing its revelations on Dark Powers as Azalin's hallucinations. They also removed the references to Soth from Ravenloft by the end of 2ed, and various Forgotten Realms references in 3ed, when Ravenloft was licensed to Swords&Sorcery, but that was for legal reasons, and they just changed names to generic crap like "Dark Knight" or "Morninglord".

...Not to mention that finding bugs and contradictions in such works is an entertainment in itself http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


I didn't mean those - just because I don't play 40K and so wasn't interested in those books. Maybe they are quite bad - I'd only read one which wasn't bad for trash literature... I believe I named authors I meant - Jack Yeovil in particular and he never written in 40K series. He was reprinted some time ago, though... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



I haven't read the Genevieve novels if that's what you mean. Yeovil is a pseudonym, I saw him/her mentioned in an article by some other early GW writer I've recently read as one of those who used pseudonyms as to keep their reputation untarnished by gaming fiction http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[MaxWilson]

nordlys said:
Well, [censored] happens. Not a single "shared world"-type work of fiction is guaranteed to be contradiction-free. H***, even single-author series occasionally slip.



And some (Steven Brust comes to mind) seem to insert contradictions deliberately, just to mess with readers' heads. This is the same author who, knowing that some fans like to read the Vlad series in chronological order, admits that he deliberately wrote /Dragon/ to take place both before AFTER after /Yendi/.

The fiend! [shakes fist at heavens]

-Max