What other fantasy books do YOU read?

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

@ My Twin Sister: You'll like HP, at least on the first read. It's definitely captvating. Personally, I think that series is addictive because of the tangled intrigue/connections, but it lacks depth. I put off reading it until last year for those very reasons - to prove myself first wrong, and then right again. Then HP also has some plot-based faults, but I won't give spoilers.

This really depends on the reader, because I know many HP fans of various ages. And anyways, I think it is worth reading just to know and to compare, if you get my meaning.

I love the way you call me your twin sister (UNLESS you are referring somehow to Nerwen Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed the third and fourth books. The first two were a bit childish, and the fifth one is dragging more than it should. For me, it doesn't exactly lack character depth, but it lacks depth in theme and creativity. Sure, Rowling describes Hogwarts and some magical villages really well, but there's very little beyond that. I like a larger world to play around with, but that's my personal preference.

LadyBrooke: I agree. IMO romance kills a book, unless it's in small amounts. I think that is one of the (big) reasons I loved LotR so much. When I reached the end I was like "Yes, yes, yes! Such little romance!" Of course, Jackson simply had to put an unnecessary amount of it in the movies. Poor, dear Glorfindel

Thinlómien: Well, not exactly 'free' of evil, but having much more of a good side to them. God, I need to start being more specific...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I love the way you call me your twin sister (UNLESS you are referring somehow to Nerwen

No, I'm referring to you. And I believe you were the one that first called me that in reply to one of my first posts! (This one, to be percise... took me ages to find! I was such an idiot back then!!!)

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed the third and fourth books. The first two were a bit childish, and the fifth one is dragging more than it should. For me, it doesn't exactly lack character depth, but it lacks depth in theme and creativity. Sure, Rowling describes Hogwarts and some magical villages really well, but there's very little beyond that. I like a larger world to play around with, but that's my personal preference.

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.

[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)

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

No, I'm referring to you. And I believe you were the one that first called me that in reply to one of my first posts! (This one, to be percise... took me ages to find! I was such an idiot back then!!!)

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.

Did I? I don't remember, forgive me. I shall take a look at that post And you never struck me as an idiot, my dear. Quite the contrary.

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 going to give the sixth and seventh books a go, but only because my mother says they were better than the rest (and because my friends would kill me if I didn't read them). *Sigh* It's irritating how they gasp and gawk when I say I haven't read Harry Potter.

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

[Snowdog]

Happy New Year Barrow Downs! Hoping I will be a bit more active here this year? We'll see.

What the tale end of 2011 brought me book-wise was the Steve Erikson book series "The Mazatlan Books of the Fallen'. I'm just now reading book 1 which is Gardens of the Moon'. So far I like it!

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

What the tale end of 2011 brought me book-wise was the Steve Erikson book series "The Mazatlan Books of the Fallen'. I'm just now reading book 1 which is Gardens of the Moon'. So far I like it!

I tried that book. Couldn't get through it. Unfortunately, there's no library even remotely near where I live (the only relatively decent one is over a thousand miles away) so each book I read must be bought. What a pain.

[Lalwendë]

Has anyone read The Green Child by Herbert Read? This came up as the lead item on Wikipedia the other day and I was intrigued by it.

The Green Child is the only completed novel by the English anarchist poet and critic Herbert Read.[1] Written in 1934 and first published by Heinemann in 1935, the story is based on the 12th-century legend of two green children who mysteriously appeared in the English village of Woolpit, speaking an apparently unknown language.[2] Read described the legend in his English Prose Style, published in 1931, as "the norm to which all types of fantasy should conform".[3]

I know about the legend of the Children of Woolpit, but I've never heard of this novel before. From the synopsis, it strikes me that Guillermo del Toro might have read this before he penned Pan's Labyrinth...

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I never stated that he was pathetic or whiny. Just confused.

I know - I was mostly thinking back to my long debates about Jon Snow's nature with a certain Hookbill the Goomba who doesn't exactly agree with me.
I actually like the coldness you speak about, but I can see why it might turn people against him - his Brothers included.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Did I just not push in far enough? Rothfuss seems to be a divisive writer. What do you guys think of the many complaints I've seen that Kvothe is the epitome of a Mary Sue character?

I'm now about midway through the first book, and for the first 100 pages or so I wasn't sure if I liked it enough to finish it. It's got better after that, and even though I still think every now and then that I've seen it all before, Rothfuss has some surprises in store and I've been positively surprised more than once. Based on what I've seen so far, I don't think you'll miss a lot even if you don't read it, but it's entertaining enough. Except if all you want of literature is the absence of Gary Stus (thanks B-berry! ) because I think I can see where the people who complain about it are coming from.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Can't remember the colour of his eyes.

They're green. Sometimes a very dark green if he's in the right mood and there's a certain light, I seem to remember.

Originally Posted by Snowdog

Happy New Year Barrow Downs! Hoping I will be a bit more active here this year? We'll see.

I totally cracked up at your post title. And not just two, you see: there's Galadriel, Galadriel55 and Nerwen!

The part of my holiday that I didn't spend roleplaying was spent reading Neil Gaiman: Neverwhere and Anansi Boys. I enjoyed both tremendously. He's a truly talented writer who can create both interesting plots and many-layered characters.

Don't know yet what I'm going to read after The Name of the Wind - I might try The Wise Man's Fear, or then something else. Has anyone read anything by Joe Abercrombie - another writer I was recommended?

[Oddwen]

I've read The Blade Itself trilogy. It was different, but I'm not sure if I liked it or not - a re-read would cement a feeling about it but I don't want to yet. That and Watchmen have been the only things I've read that made me step back and bleat "What did I just read??", so take that as you will.

I do want to read his other series(es?) in the same world though.