SF & F Mega-thread: I had to google 'spock pirate depilatory'

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > SF & F Mega-thread: I had to google 'spock pirate depilatory'

«‹›941 »

Nae: Sep 3, 2020; what.

Captain Monkey posted:

I worked at a library until very recently, and all of my coworker friends loved Library of the Unwritten but it was so bad. I'm glad I'm not alone.

It was like when I met a guy getting a PhD in English that liked Rothfuss. I was completely boggled.

I try to remind myself that it takes all kinds to make a world, but the subjectivity of taste still rattles my brain sometimes. Is there something wrong with me because I couldn't get into Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel? Do I have bad taste because I bounced off of that to read Yet Another Steven King Novel? I don't know, probably. I felt like nothing happened in Name of the Wind but people who love prose never shut up about it. Maybe I'm the fool for not loving 'the cut-flower sound of a man dying'; who's to say?

I guess it's a good thing that different readers have different tastes, since that means I'm more likely to find people who like what I write, but drat. Taste is weird.

# ? Nov 11, 2020 19:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 23, 2024 09:13

a foolish pianist: May 6, 2007; (bi)cyclic mutation

Nae posted:

I try to remind myself that it takes all kinds to make a world, but the subjectivity of taste still rattles my brain sometimes. Is there something wrong with me because I couldn't get into Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel? Do I have bad taste because I bounced off of that to read Yet Another Steven King Novel?

Yes, and you should check yourself into some kind of facility ASAP.

# ? Nov 11, 2020 19:58

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

NikkolasKing posted:

I wonder how you gauge a novel's success in the long term?

I was just notified that Jurassic Park will be having its 30th anniversary on the 20th of this month. All of Crichton's books sold well but easy come and easy go. I think some of his books are popular enough still but hard to really tell.

In any event I always preferred he novel to the film for a few reasons. The novel actually has more action for one thing. Love the section with the raft and the T-Rex or when the raptors corner the kids in the computer room. Might have to do a reread.

Loved the novel as a kid - I think it was the first "adult" book I ever read - but I revisited it a few years ago and, while I still like it, the film is the superior piece of art. The book is a classic sci-fi/airport thriller novel in the sense that it has a fantastic premise but a dim grasp of how human beings work and (as an example) has really bad dialogue and character writing. It's darker than the film, which makes for an interesting contrast and is classic Speilberg, but darker doesn't necessarily equal better.

It's also maddeningly inconsistent. The raptors are treated like the most lethal monster imaginable when they're ripping through the main compound, but fifty pages later Grant and Ellie and Gennaro slide down into their clandestine nest and follow them out onto the beach as though they're going birdwatching.

Having said that, there's genuinely fantastic stuff in the book - the breeding aspect of the dinosaurs is explored way more, the idea that they can't be controlled or contained; and the implications of that in the ending are also really great. The final paragraph of the book, which goes beyond the movie's triumphant helicopter rescue and takes place on the mainland in Costa Rica, stayed with me through the years (spoilering it, because if you've watched and enjoyed the movie - and we all have - then you should read the book too, flawed though it is):

Guitierrez pushed up from his chair. He waved to Tim and Lex, playing in the pool. 'Probably they will send the children home,' he said. 'There is no reason not to do that.' He put on his sunglasses. 'Enjoy your stay with us, Dr. Grant. It is a lovely country here.'
Grant said, 'You�re telling me we�re not going anywhere?'
'None of us is going anywhere, Dr. Grant,' Guitierrez said, smiling. And then he turned, and walked back toward the entrance of the hotel.

edit - also, the opening of the book is excellent; an American nurse working in a Costa Rican village has a helicopter show up during a storm, with a badly mauled worker on it who gasps the word "raptor" before he dies. The American with the chopper claims he was run over by a backhoe but she can tell it was done by a large animal. After they leave she looks up "raptor" in her Spanish dictionary and it's not there, but she finds it in her English dictionary, and the prologue ends with that ominous definition: "raptor: bird of prey."

Which, like, it's called Jurassic Park and has a picture of a dinosaur on the cover, but that's still a bloody great opener.

freebooter fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Nov 12, 2020

# ? Nov 12, 2020 08:27

Eason the Fifth: Apr 9, 2020

Nae posted:

I try to remind myself that it takes all kinds to make a world, but the subjectivity of taste still rattles my brain sometimes. Is there something wrong with me because I couldn't get into Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel? Do I have bad taste because I bounced off of that to read Yet Another Steven King Novel? I don't know, probably. I felt like nothing happened in Name of the Wind but people who love prose never shut up about it. Maybe I'm the fool for not loving 'the cut-flower sound of a man dying'; who's to say?

I guess it's a good thing that different readers have different tastes, since that means I'm more likely to find people who like what I write, but drat. Taste is weird.

If it's any consolation, I bounced off Jonathan Strange, too. I feel like it uses a lot more words than it needs to. I know verbosity is part and parcel of the genre, but the older I get, the more I like novels that cut as much fat as possible.

# ? Nov 12, 2020 16:30

Deptfordx: Dec 23, 2013

I also couldn't get into the book, but the TV adaptation that the BBC did is great, albeit it takes a couple of episodes to really get going.

# ? Nov 12, 2020 17:10

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Deptfordx posted:

I also couldn't get into the book, but the TV adaptation that the BBC did is great, albeit it takes a couple of episodes to really get going.

This is the same.reason that TV adaptations of Jane Austen are always massively popular even though most novice readers find Austen tough going initially.

Regency dramas require a lot of reader knowledge (clothes, manners, bearing, carriages, homes, architecture, etc) to really know what's going on. TV explains all that stuff naturally by just showing it, so it's more accessible.

I'd suggest people watch the adaptation then go back and try reading the book again, you should find it a lot more accessible.

# ? Nov 12, 2020 17:18

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

freebooter posted:

Loved the novel as a kid - I think it was the first "adult" book I ever read - but I revisited it a few years ago and, while I still like it, the film is the superior piece of art. The book is a classic sci-fi/airport thriller novel in the sense that it has a fantastic premise but a dim grasp of how human beings work and (as an example) has really bad dialogue and character writing. It's darker than the film, which makes for an interesting contrast and is classic Speilberg, but darker doesn't necessarily equal better.

It's also maddeningly inconsistent. The raptors are treated like the most lethal monster imaginable when they're ripping through the main compound, but fifty pages later Grant and Ellie and Gennaro slide down into their clandestine nest and follow them out onto the beach as though they're going birdwatching.

Having said that, there's genuinely fantastic stuff in the book - the breeding aspect of the dinosaurs is explored way more, the idea that they can't be controlled or contained; and the implications of that in the ending are also really great. The final paragraph of the book, which goes beyond the movie's triumphant helicopter rescue and takes place on the mainland in Costa Rica, stayed with me through the years (spoilering it, because if you've watched and enjoyed the movie - and we all have - then you should read the book too, flawed though it is):

Guitierrez pushed up from his chair. He waved to Tim and Lex, playing in the pool. 'Probably they will send the children home,' he said. 'There is no reason not to do that.' He put on his sunglasses. 'Enjoy your stay with us, Dr. Grant. It is a lovely country here.'
Grant said, 'You�re telling me we�re not going anywhere?'
'None of us is going anywhere, Dr. Grant,' Guitierrez said, smiling. And then he turned, and walked back toward the entrance of the hotel.

edit - also, the opening of the book is excellent; an American nurse working in a Costa Rican village has a helicopter show up during a storm, with a badly mauled worker on it who gasps the word "raptor" before he dies. The American with the chopper claims he was run over by a backhoe but she can tell it was done by a large animal. After they leave she looks up "raptor" in her Spanish dictionary and it's not there, but she finds it in her English dictionary, and the prologue ends with that ominous definition: "raptor: bird of prey."

Which, like, it's called Jurassic Park and has a picture of a dinosaur on the cover, but that's still a bloody great opener.

As much as I enjoy the book, the ending really annoys me, to the point I just skip it.

I don't mean the dinos escaping, I mean hunting down the raptor nests. The highest suspension levels in the novel is when the raptors attack the main compound and most of our heroes are trapped in one of the lodges and the kids are in the computer room. Once power is restored and the raptors are dealt with, it's a great moment of triumph.

And then the novel just keeps going and going and going. We've reached the peak and now we just trudge along. I really do like how much more detail the dinosaurs breeding is given because the movie just has one scene that comes and goes and adds nothing. But there had to have been another way to write about killing all the raptors without also dragging the story out so much.

As for dialogue, no arguments there. Crichton did so love his big speeches and using his characters to espouse his views. But I've always loved this one:

�You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away � all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

Out of curiosity, did you read/like Sphere? I did a binge of Crichton years ago and Sphere was my favorite book by him for a lot of reasons.

NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Nov 12, 2020

# ? Nov 12, 2020 18:02

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

NikkolasKing posted:

As much as I enjoy the book, the ending really annoys me, to the point I just skip it.

I don't mean the dinos escaping, I mean hunting down the raptor nests. The highest suspension levels in the novel is when the raptors attack the main compound and most of our heroes are trapped in one of the lodges and the kids are in the computer room. Once power is restored and the raptors are dealt with, it's a great moment of triumph.

And then the novel just keeps going and going and going. We've reached the peak and now we just trudge along. I really do like how much more detail the dinosaurs breeding is given because the movie just has one scene that comes and goes and adds nothing. But there had to have been another way to write about killing all the raptors without also dragging the story out so much.

As for dialogue, no arguments there. Crichton did so love his big speeches and using his characters to espouse his views. But I've always loved this one:

�You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away � all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

Out of curiosity, did you read/like Sphere? I did a binge of Crichton years ago and Sphere was my favorite book by him for a lot of reasons.

Hollywood: Hmm that's a lot of words how about if he just says "life finds a way" and we leave it at that?

# ? Nov 12, 2020 18:09

a foolish pianist: May 6, 2007; (bi)cyclic mutation

NikkolasKing posted:

�You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away � all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

That whole big speech just shows that the insane anti-environment attitude that he showed in State of Fear (which is a terrible book and turned everyone on to the fact that Crichton was a terrible person) was present way earlier.

# ? Nov 12, 2020 18:37

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

NikkolasKing posted:

Out of curiosity, did you read/like Sphere? I did a binge of Crichton years ago and Sphere was my favorite book by him for a lot of reasons.

No, I should check it out; I think I tried reading The Lost World and bounced off it, partly because it was boring and partly because retconning Malcolm's death irritated me, and I never tried any Crichton again.

I also distinctly remember that speech of Malcolm's and, upon re-reading the book as an adult, realised how much Crichton uses him as a mouthpiece for authorial lecturing throughout the whole book. (Nobody is that lucid while slowly bleeding to death on a morphine drip!)

Another good point of divergence between the book and the film (but Spielberg, making a lighter film, was right to change it for his own vision): Hammond getting his just desserts by falling down a ravine and breaking his leg and then getting eaten by compies while he sulkily blames everybody except himself for the failure of the park.

# ? Nov 12, 2020 23:38

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

freebooter posted:

No, I should check it out; I think I tried reading The Lost World and bounced off it, partly because it was boring and partly because retconning Malcolm's death irritated me, and I never tried any Crichton again.

I also distinctly remember that speech of Malcolm's and, upon re-reading the book as an adult, realised how much Crichton uses him as a mouthpiece for authorial lecturing throughout the whole book. (Nobody is that lucid while slowly bleeding to death on a morphine drip!)

Another good point of divergence between the book and the film (but Spielberg, making a lighter film, was right to change it for his own vision): Hammond getting his just desserts by falling down a ravine and breaking his leg and then getting eaten by compies while he sulkily blames everybody except himself for the failure of the park.

Well, Film and Book Hammond are night and day in their purposes in their respective narratives so very different endings makes sense. Book Hammond was a clear sociopath or narcissist, superficially charming but entirely obsessed with himself. I always recall how it's described in the book that he's just calmly eating ice cream while everything goes to hell and people die.

The movie wanted him to be, well, the comparison is always Walt Disney. I don't know anything about Disney but Movie Hammond is certainly portrayed sympathetically as a man who just wants to bring wonder to the children of the world but had no idea what he was doing.

In the novel he's like "we can charge people whatever we want These animals belong to us! Exploit everyone and everything!""

Crichton never portrays corporations or businessmen positively, if we want to look for positive political messages in his stories.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 01:59

KKKLIP ART: Sep 3, 2004

Just finished The Traitor Baru Cormorant.

God dang y'all. Can't wait to read the second, but putting it on hold for Rhythm of War.

E: No I'm not. I'm just going to make bad decisions and power read.

KKKLIP ART fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Nov 13, 2020

# ? Nov 13, 2020 02:33

tildes: Nov 16, 2018

KKKLIP ART posted:

Just finished The Traitor Baru Cormorant.

God dang y'all. Can't wait to read the second, but putting it on hold for Rhythm of War.

E: No I'm not. I'm just going to make bad decisions and power read.

You�re probably going to have to read all three now just fair warning.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 07:34

mllaneza: Apr 28, 2007; Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1993-1952

tildes posted:

You�re probably going to have to read all three now just fair warning.

Yeah, plan on that. You're on the ride. It's an E ticket.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 07:56

tildes: Nov 16, 2018

So I got the capital fleet trilogy by Scott Bartlett for a dollar, and I would not recommend it unless you like your military sci fi to start with a very long and heavy-handed parable about why implicit bias training is bad and forcing people to do it is maybe the real racism. I feel like it has to pick up from there since I can�t imagine this sustains an entire trilogy, but such a bizarre choice to begin with this.

(Maybe I�m being uncharitable/misreading its intentions idk but I strugggggled w this one)

tildes fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Nov 13, 2020

# ? Nov 13, 2020 11:02

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

NikkolasKing posted:

Well, Film and Book Hammond are night and day in their purposes in their respective narratives so very different endings makes sense. Book Hammond was a clear sociopath or narcissist, superficially charming but entirely obsessed with himself. I always recall how it's described in the book that he's just calmly eating ice cream while everything goes to hell and people die.

The movie wanted him to be, well, the comparison is always Walt Disney. I don't know anything about Disney but Movie Hammond is certainly portrayed sympathetically as a man who just wants to bring wonder to the children of the world but had no idea what he was doing.

In the novel he's like "we can charge people whatever we want These animals belong to us! Exploit everyone and everything!""

Crichton never portrays corporations or businessmen positively, if we want to look for positive political messages in his stories.

I mean, movie-Hammond is still a bullying corporate rear end in a top hat to his employees, which is a key part of how his cuddly, idealistic dreams fall apart. He's a Walt Disney figure in that sense, too.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 11:17

KKKLIP ART: Sep 3, 2004

tildes posted:

You�re probably going to have to read all three now just fair warning.

I purchased the other two. But I will absolutely stop in my tracks to read rhythm of war and pick it up later if I don�t get done with the second one.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 14:18

Copernic: Sep 16, 2006; ...A Champion, who by mettle of his glowing personal charm alone, saved the universe...

finished A Stranger In Olondria which is a superb book, at risk of falling into love with its own prose but never quite losing sight of the narrative. The tone reminded me strongly of Gene Wolfe -- a lush but unsettlingly foreign world. The main issue is that the point is ultimately the healing power of BOOKS! which is ultimately kinda whatever. Curious if anyone else read it.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 17:34

quantumfoam: Dec 25, 2003

Finally caught up on this thread after mostly reading the SFL Archives and playing Jagged Alliance 2 for the past 3 weeks.

The random hating on Brandon Sanderson in this thread always baffles me, or is it just the same few people that rant about him? Sanderson is Isaac Asimov 2.0, without the ego & sexual misconduct of Isaac Asimov 1.0(to my knowledge). Then again like I said in the OP, not everyone enjoys the same authors or genres that other people do.

Robert Heinlein dying and the SFL Archives reaction to it and the ongoing reactions to it are interesting. 99.999999% of the current Heinlein criticism got shouted down because "how dare you insult this recently dead man/visionary of SF" and the Heinlein Defense Squad people have been using the criticism-free time to theory-craft/crowdsource bulletproof reasons why Heinlein's incest fetish and Heinlein's views on consent and sexual relationship dynamics aren't creepy and horrifying to people who didn't grow up reading Heinlein stories like they did.

quantumfoam fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Nov 13, 2020

# ? Nov 13, 2020 18:01

Groke: Jul 27, 2007; New Adventures In Mom Strength

Jagged Alliance 2, so you are a man/woman/porpoise of culture as well.

I haven't even read any Sanderson myself yet but he comes across as a very nice, good-natured dude.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 18:35

anilEhilated: Feb 17, 2014; But I say fuck the rain.; Grimey Drawer

Copernic posted:

finished A Stranger In Olondria which is a superb book, at risk of falling into love with its own prose but never quite losing sight of the narrative. The tone reminded me strongly of Gene Wolfe -- a lush but unsettlingly foreign world. The main issue is that the point is ultimately the healing power of BOOKS! which is ultimately kinda whatever. Curious if anyone else read it.

Yeah, but I have kind of given up on recommending more obscure books. Loved it, the sequel-of-sorts feels weaker.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 18:49

jng2058: Jul 17, 2010; We have the tools, we have the talent!

So....Sanderson.

Personally, I'm mixed on his writing. I think he did as well as anyone could have with the nearly impossible task of finishing Wheel of Time, and almost certainly better than the other candidate for the job, George R.R. Martin, would have. For one thing, he actually got the books written, which is more than we can say for George in the last several years. There are things I quibble with in his WoT writing choices, and he's admitted that he had trouble getting some of the characters right, especially in The Gathering Storm, but on the whole he did a good job and gave us a satisfying ending. Certainly better than if WoT had just stopped at Knife of Dreams!

It's his writing on his own projects that gives me trouble. I bounced off The Way of Kings hard the first time I tried to read it years ago, and when I picked up the audiobook this year, I got farther into it but still stalled and ended up listening to other things. It's still there on my phone, taunting me every time I open Audible. :sigh:

But for all that, I don't see any reason to dislike the man himself. Have you seen his YouTube channel? He's giving away an entire college class in writing fantasy and science fiction for free to anyone who wants to watch it. Sure beats paying a couple hundred bucks to Masterclass for that kind of education!

So yeah, he seems like a chill dude who works hard and is generous with his time. That I'm having trouble with some of his work doesn't mean I should dislike the guy. :shrug:

# ? Nov 13, 2020 18:59

Ben Nevis: Jan 20, 2011

Copernic posted:

finished A Stranger In Olondria which is a superb book, at risk of falling into love with its own prose but never quite losing sight of the narrative. The tone reminded me strongly of Gene Wolfe -- a lush but unsettlingly foreign world. The main issue is that the point is ultimately the healing power of BOOKS! which is ultimately kinda whatever. Curious if anyone else read it.

I read this and enjoyed it. It wasn't quite the story I thought she was telling, so I had some disconnect there for awhile.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 19:02

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

I make no pretenses to be a great judge of writing, I can only say what I liked and why. It's like how in the Sanderson thread I mentioned my vague knowledge of the fandom is that Mistbon Era 2 is held in lesser regard than Era 1 and a lot of folks were like "actually, Era 2 is way better written."

I guess I can see this but The Final Empire is far and away my favorite Sanderson novel. (Oathbringer is second place.) I guess it could be the bias of it was my first novel of his I ever read but I dunno, I never had any special attraction to A Game of Thrones even though it was my first Martin novel, and goddam Fellowship of the Ring is so interminably boring for me up until until the Council of Elrond. I have relistened to TFE three times, enjoying it more each time. It has a great set of characters and world and it introduced me to the meticulously detailed Sandersonian way of writing magic. And it is a wonderful standalone story to boot. I think you can just read it and be satisfied while The Way of Kings leaves you with so many unanswered questions.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 19:24

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

A lot of people like those unanswered questions, those hints at how big and strange the world is.

edit: By all accounts Sanderson is a genuinely nice person. Some people take fault with him still being actively mormon, given the LDS church's problematic teachings and history. As an exmo myself, I can certainly understand that perspective, even if I don't really agree with it myself.

Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Nov 13, 2020

# ? Nov 13, 2020 19:29

StrixNebulosa: Feb 14, 2012; You cheated not only the game, but yourself.
But most of all, you cheated BABA

quantumfoam posted:

Finally caught up on this thread after mostly reading the SFL Archives and playing Jagged Alliance 2 for the past 3 weeks.

The random hating on Brandon Sanderson in this thread always baffles me, or is it just the same few people that rant about him? Sanderson is Isaac Asimov 2.0, without the ego & sexual misconduct of Isaac Asimov 1.0(to my knowledge). Then again like I said in the OP, not everyone enjoys the same authors or genres that other people do.

With all due respect to those who love his writing: I find Sanderson's writing to be flat, and I don't believe he's as imaginative as Asimov - though that's my own snob pretention, as I tend to think of sci-fi authors as more creative than fantasy ones, given that they have to work with harder constraints (in general.)

I think of Sanderson as the fast food of fantasy works: easy to read/eat, consistent, and there's lots of it. This makes him highly marketable, while more quality authors are only picked up by more discerning audiences.

I also don't hate this. Sanderson and his work has a place in the genre and I'm honestly happy with anything that gets people to read, and I also love that he's not outright sexist or awful.

Bonus: if Sanderson were a women, I suspect his work would be classified as YA. See City of Brass as a non-YA mark getting categorized as such because the author is a woman. Mistborn especially could land that label, imho.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 19:41

quantumfoam: Dec 25, 2003

Groke posted:

Jagged Alliance 2, so you are a man/woman/porpoise of culture as well.

I haven't even read any Sanderson myself yet but he comes across as a very nice, good-natured dude.

You may want to rethink that statement. Jagged Alliance 2 has been fun, however Jagged Alliance 1 is my true love. So many things in it mess with you hard, especially in the first week. Plus Bloodcats & Crepitus are no match for Metaviran eels. Once you get past the first week, JA1 is really good.

Sanderson is one of the authors I swear I've read, but have no memory of reading them a day/week later. Offhand, the only modern authors whose writing styles grate on me are the guy who wrote the Quantum Thief series and Adrian Tchaikovsky. I'd love it if William Gibson would stop regurgitating pastiches of his older plots/books and move beyond writing the same 4 character archetypes, but have accepted that it will never happen.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 19:57

McCoy Pauley: Mar 2, 2006; Gonna eat so many goddamn crumpets.

I really enjoyed K.J. Parker's "Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City," and am enjoying even more his short story collection "Academic Exercises." What should I read next by him if I've enjoyed those? Some of his other series folks have mentioned here sound like they're real downers, and my appetite for fiction that's a downer is significantly diminished in 2020. What else by him is similar to the two books I've liked? Is "The Father of Lies" worth reading?

# ? Nov 13, 2020 21:00

pseudorandom name: May 6, 2007

How to Rule an Empire and Get Away With It is the obvious answer.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 21:09

asur: Dec 28, 2012

McCoy Pauley posted:

I really enjoyed K.J. Parker's "Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City," and am enjoying even more his short story collection "Academic Exercises." What should I read next by him if I've enjoyed those? Some of his other series folks have mentioned here sound like they're real downers, and my appetite for fiction that's a downer is significantly diminished in 2020. What else by him is similar to the two books I've liked? Is "The Father of Lies" worth reading?

Does Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City not have a hosed up and weird revenge plot? Every book I've read by KJ Parker fits that definition and it starts to get a little old. I enjoyed the Fencer, Scavenger, and Engineer trilogies along with The Folding Knife but stopped there.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 21:10

MockingQuantum: Jan 20, 2012

asur posted:

Does Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City not have a hosed up and weird revenge plot? Every book I've read by KJ Parker fits that definition and it starts to get a little old. I enjoyed the Fencer, Scavenger, and Engineer trilogies along with The Folding Knife but stopped there.

Not really, it's surprisingly true to the name. It's largely about one guy, through a twist of fate, getting thrown into heading up the defense of a city against a siege. It's very good. I guess it qualifies as "competence porn" at times if you're into/against that sort of story.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 21:15

shirunei: Sep 7, 2018; I tried to run away. To take the easy way out. I'll live through the suffering. When I die, I want to feel like I did my best.

jng2058 posted:

So....Sanderson.

Personally, I'm mixed on his writing. I think he did as well as anyone could have with the nearly impossible task of finishing Wheel of Time, and almost certainly better than the other candidate for the job, George R.R. Martin, would have. For one thing, he actually got the books written, which is more than we can say for George in the last several years. There are things I quibble with in his WoT writing choices, and he's admitted that he had trouble getting some of the characters right, especially in The Gathering Storm, but on the whole he did a good job and gave us a satisfying ending. Certainly better than if WoT had just stopped at Knife of Dreams!

It's his writing on his own projects that gives me trouble. I bounced off The Way of Kings hard the first time I tried to read it years ago, and when I picked up the audiobook this year, I got farther into it but still stalled and ended up listening to other things. It's still there on my phone, taunting me every time I open Audible.

But for all that, I don't see any reason to dislike the man himself. Have you seen his YouTube channel? He's giving away an entire college class in writing fantasy and science fiction for free to anyone who wants to watch it. Sure beats paying a couple hundred bucks to Masterclass for that kind of education!

So yeah, he seems like a chill dude who works hard and is generous with his time. That I'm having trouble with some of his work doesn't mean I should dislike the guy.

Naw he is a legit good dude. Shame about his writing being utter trash but there are some good bits here and there. By trash I mean digestible shlock as I look at Sanderson kinda how I look at the marvel movies. I will say I disagree about the impossibility of finishing WoT as tons of it was already complete with copious notes. I feel like any published writer could have finished it and honestly someone who understands characterization would have been a far better pick.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 21:17

ToxicFrog: Apr 26, 2008

MockingQuantum posted:

Not really, it's surprisingly true to the name. It's largely about one guy, through a twist of fate, getting thrown into heading up the defense of a city against a siege. It's very good. I guess it qualifies as "competence porn" at times if you're into/against that sort of story.

This actually sounds like the kind of thing I'd really enjoy, but I punted on Engineer partway through the second book because both the main characters (Genocide Man and his sidekick Rapist Lad) were utterly loathsome, and the recurring theme of the book was this superhumanly skilled sociopathic manipulator feeding all the remotely likeable and sympathetic characters into the meat grinder.

Is 16 Ways better in that respect?

# ? Nov 13, 2020 21:56

McCoy Pauley: Mar 2, 2006; Gonna eat so many goddamn crumpets.

ToxicFrog posted:

This actually sounds like the kind of thing I'd really enjoy, but I punted on Engineer partway through the second book because both the main characters (Genocide Man and his sidekick Rapist Lad) were utterly loathsome, and the recurring theme of the book was this superhumanly skilled sociopathic manipulator feeding all the remotely likeable and sympathetic characters into the meat grinder.

Is 16 Ways better in that respect?

Yeah, based on your description of the Engineer trilogy I'd say 16 Ways is a lot better -- sounds positively lighthearted and frothy in comparison to what you describe.

I guess the 16 Ways sequel is a good idea -- I'll check that out next. Really enjoying the short stories in Academic Exercises, so maybe I'll line up another Parker short story collection after that.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:00

MockingQuantum: Jan 20, 2012

ToxicFrog posted:

This actually sounds like the kind of thing I'd really enjoy, but I punted on Engineer partway through the second book because both the main characters (Genocide Man and his sidekick Rapist Lad) were utterly loathsome, and the recurring theme of the book was this superhumanly skilled sociopathic manipulator feeding all the remotely likeable and sympathetic characters into the meat grinder.

Is 16 Ways better in that respect?

"Loathsome" is probably the last word I'd use to describe the main character(s) in 16 Ways. I'd put it this way, it's the first KJ Parker I read, and I was surprised to learn that he had a reputation for hateful (but well-written) characters and very bleak endings. Nobody's really that unbearable, nobody's superhumanly skilled, it's all very well put together and interesting and human.

# ? Nov 13, 2020 22:10

Stupid_Sexy_Flander: Mar 14, 2007; Is a man not entitled to the haw of his maw?; Grimey Drawer

Mistborn was pretty good, but I've bounced off every sanderson novel since.

I don't think he's a bad guy, or at least I haven't heard anything bad about him, I just feel like his books are too boring. I read to be entertained, and he's not that entertaining. That's all.

I'd still recommend his mist books, or at least the first set. Nothing has really snagged me since though, even his superhero stories and I am a sucker for those.

# ? Nov 14, 2020 00:34

AARD VARKMAN: May 17, 1993

I've actually never read a superhero novel. Any recommendations?

# ? Nov 14, 2020 00:36

buffalo all day: Mar 13, 2019

TheAardvark posted:

I've actually never read a superhero novel. Any recommendations?

Kavalier and Clay?

If by superhero you mean capes and tights they�re all bad. Anyone who tries to recommend one to you is going to qualify and hedge because deep down they know it�s true.

# ? Nov 14, 2020 00:54

Stupid_Sexy_Flander: Mar 14, 2007; Is a man not entitled to the haw of his maw?; Grimey Drawer

Got anything in mind for plot?

There's superheroes and cops, zombies, superhero vs superhero, etc.

# ? Nov 14, 2020 00:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 23, 2024 09:13

AARD VARKMAN: May 17, 1993

buffalo all day posted:

Kavalier and Clay?

If by superhero you mean capes and tights they’re all bad. Anyone who tries to recommend one to you is going to qualify and hedge because deep down they know it’s true.

I guess I'm looking for something more like novels where people get superhero-esque powers but not capes and tights? Like Steven King's firestarter could be looked at as a "superhero" story. Or hell, Unbreakable lol

# ? Nov 14, 2020 01:04

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > SF & F Mega-thread: I had to google 'spock pirate depilatory'

«‹›941 »