What other fantasy books do YOU read?

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Ditto. I also think that she could really use some better vocabulary. Whenever I think of HP I think of "reckon" - she repeats that word waaay too often. I know she wants to imitate British slang, but it just gets on my nerves. As for the 5th book - I only read the 6th one to find out what Harry's OWL results were. I didn't see any other point in reading on.

Correct choice of words can make or break a book. One of the main reasons I absoulely hated Eric Rücker Eddison's Worm Ouroborous books (which some people regard so hightly they put them and Tolkein on equal fantasy footing, or even say Eddison is infinitely superior). was the language. In an effort to try and make the story as "old time epic" as possible, Edding's chose to usually go with extremely archaic language ("spake' instead of speaks, "crokindrell" instead of "crocodile" etc.) at the beginning this seemed to me okay, but as the book wore on, the choices of language and grammar just became wearying. Olde tyme spelling is fine for a period appropriate piece of literature (Oroborous was written in the 1920's so the "it was the way they talked then" argument doesn't really work here) but after a few hundred pages it get's tiresome. It's rather had to get into a book if you have to have a dictionary next to you and look up every other word. Eddison's work might have been good if it was being read to you, a la a saga or a play (in fact the one thing I came away from the book with was that it would probably make a very good tv series) but read on the printed page, it just got frustrating. I also did not like the end of the story, where the heros discover that not only have all the villians escaped but escaped more or less unharmed (i.e. all thier efforts and sacrafices were basically for nothing) and jump for joy becuse it means they can go through the whole palaver of the book all over again (minus the fairly large number of individuals who died the first time round trying to let the heroes win.). I have no problem dealing with things like odd language, but only when the story is worth it, and in my opinion, in Ourobrous, it isn't
I sort of feel the same way about David Lindsay's A Voyage to Arcturus also often considered a classic. In this case, after having read it through three times, I kept getting the impression that to understand it would require a couple years of modern philisopy, in particular Wittgenstein, and even then you'd have to 100% agree with those philosophers for the book to be meaningful.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

I also did not like the end of the story, where the heros discover that not only have all the villians escaped but escaped more or less unharmed (i.e. all thier efforts and sacrafices were basically for nothing) and jump for joy becuse it means they can go through the whole palaver of the book all over again

Sorry, Alfirin, but I think you missed the point - the villains didn't escape, they were destroyed and then resurrected by the Gods at the request of the heroes, who, being victorious, found that their existence lacked purpose without villains to fight. It's almost a satire on heroism as an end in itself, if only Eddison didn't seem to endorse that absurd heroism - allegedly he was a big fan of Nietzsche, and the end seems to represent his version of the myth of Eternal Return (cf the book's title!).

Tolkien knew The Worm Ouroboros, and I think LotR can to some extent be read as a critique of Eddisonian heroism, starring a reluctant hero who is driven to heroism by fate and love for his home rather than chosing it as a way of life; and cf also Faramir's words in Ithilien: "I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend".

- That said, I quite like TWO for its vivid descriptions and some unforgettable characters on the villains' side (Gro!); but I'll gladly admit it comes nowhere close to Tolkien in depth.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Sorry, Alfirin, but I think you missed the point - the villains didn't escape, they were destroyed and then resurrected by the Gods at the request of the heroes, who, being victorious, found that their existence lacked purpose without villains to fight. It's almost a satire on heroism as an end in itself, if only Eddison didn't seem to endorse that absurd heroism - allegedly he was a big fan of Nietzsche, and the end seems to represent his version of the myth of Eternal Return (cf the book's title!).

Tolkien knew The Worm Ouroboros, and I think LotR can to some extent be read as a critique of Eddisonian heroism, starring a reluctant hero who is driven to heroism by fate and love for his home rather than chosing it as a way of life; and cf also Faramir's words in Ithilien: "I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend".

- That said, I quite like TWO for its vivid descriptions and some unforgettable characters on the villains' side (Gro!); but I'll gladly admit it comes nowhere close to Tolkien in depth.

Yeah, you're right. In my defense It's really been a long long time since I read the book, and my memory is far from perfect. I sort of remembered that things were as you said, but that ending seemed so momumentally absurd to me that I was sure I had remember it wrong. I stand corrected on my error (though that doesn't meant I suddenly like the book). I understand that on a certain level, the "life is a chess game" concept may have some appeal to some, but taking it to the level of, at the end of the game, putting all the same pieces back on the board and starting the game all over again leaves me flat. For the hero to desire to seek new challanges I understand, for him to desire to seek the exact same challenge as soon as he has won does not.

[Durelin]

Currently reading the Deverry series by Katharine Kerr (first book is Daggerspell. (Well re-reading so far...)

I still like the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan a lot, though I am several books behind now and need to re-read...

I re-read constantly a series of 'young adult' Arthurian fantasy by Gerald Morris. He recently finished the series. Really excellent and fun.

I also like the Redwall series a lot, though I agree it can be repetitive (he's written so many of them it's no surprise, and they all really stand on their own)...Brian Jacques is very missed.

My favorite book of all time if I have to give one is Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis, who of course has been mentioned, but I think mostly with the Narnia series...

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

I understand that on a certain level, the "life is a chess game" concept may have some appeal to some, but taking it to the level of, at the end of the game, putting all the same pieces back on the board and starting the game all over again leaves me flat.

Quite understandable. It's sort of interesting as a twist of convention, but that's it. What I liked about TWO wasn't the plot but, as I said above, the characters and, horribile dictu, the writing.

I've got to add a disclaimer here: I haven't yet read TWO in the original, only in two German translations, one of which was in more or less modern literary German while the other tried to reproduce Eddison's artificial archaism, but of these two I preferred the latter. I got the impression that E. uses archaism successfully to create a certain atmosphere both lofty and remote - e.g. calling a crocodile a crokindrell takes us back to a time where a crocodile wasn't to be seen in every zoo and made into handbags, but a mythical beast of the same order as a manticore or a hippogryff. But I withhold final judgment of his prose until I've read him in his own language (praise be to Project Gutenberg!).

One thing I dislike about the book is how he uses Demon, Goblin, Imp etc. as mere names for various humanoid races which don't seem to differ that much. When I hear Demon I expect to see a being of the under- or otherworld, not just a handsome heroic humanoid with decorative horns slapped on.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Quite understandable. It's sort of interesting as a twist of convention, but that's it. What I liked about TWO wasn't the plot but, as I said above, the characters and, horribile dictu, the writing.

I've got to add a disclaimer here: I haven't yet read TWO in the original, only in two German translations, one of which was in more or less modern literary German while the other tried to reproduce Eddison's artificial archaism, but of these two I preferred the latter. I got the impression that E. uses archaism successfully to create a certain atmosphere both lofty and remote - e.g. calling a crocodile a crokindrell takes us back to a time where a crocodile wasn't to be seen in every zoo and made into handbags, but a mythical beast of the same order as a manticore or a hippogryff. But I withhold final judgment of his prose until I've read him in his own language (praise be to Project Gutenberg!).

One thing I dislike about the book is how he uses Demon, Goblin, Imp etc. as mere names for various humanoid races which don't seem to differ that much. When I hear Demon I expect to see a being of the under- or otherworld, not just a handsome heroic humanoid with decorative horns slapped on.

I understand, it's sort of like the cringe I get everytime I see any anime (and there are a lot of them) that has a natural born creature that happens to be made of rock and decides to call it a Golem. Not every rock based creature is a Golem, just as not every monster that sucks blood is a vampire.
It's really silly, but when you talked about an archaic German version, I suddenly had images of a version written in the old Gothic blackletter type (actually depending on when the book was fist translated into German, a blackletter version may actually exist; a lot of German publishers were still using that typeface for books in the 1920's)

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

Personally, I hated the way it seemed that Slytherin automatically meant you were evil, with a few exceptions (and those weren't presented well either).

I heartily agree and add to that that for some reason almost all Slytherins look like trolls. In the 7th book Malfoy shows some, errr, loyalty, but then it doesn't really last...So fits your description perfectly. But I won't press that point to avoid spoilers.

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

...of course, Remus and Fleur are my favorite characters so....

*giggles* My personal favourite as a character is dear Belatrix....

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I thought the vocabulary in the narrative was fine. The truly awful bits were the dialogue. Yes, 'reckon' does seem to be her favourite word! She does a really poor imitation of British slang, sadly. They don't speak that badly

I'm quite sure that the anglophones across the pond use more colourful words than "reckon" and "bloke" (the two most common words there, IMO)!

Originally Posted by Galadriel

It's irritating how they gasp and gawk when I say I haven't read Harry Potter.

I sympathise. They did it to me before I read it. And they still do when I say that I know many better books than HP.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

PS - Can anyone tell me how to quote different bits of a paragraph at a time? I've no idea how

You can copy/paste the bit you want to quote, hilight the text, and click on the "quote" icon on top of the post-box-writing-thingy. The computer will automatically quote it for you. Or, you can type [QUOTE ] (except without the space) when the quote starts and [/QUOTE ] (again, no spaces) when it ends. You can add a =name for it to say "originally posted by X" (like this: [Quote=X ]...[/QUOTE ]).

Edit: Ah, wait, LBrooke has already said that. I posted before I got to her post. Ooops!

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

*giggles* My personal favourite as a character is dear Belatrix....

Bellatrix? Why would that be? My personal favourites are Mad-Eye and Snape Harry is such a goody-two-shoes.

I sympathise. They did it to me before I read it. And they still do when I say that I know many better books than HP.

This.