What other fantasy books do YOU read?

[Lalwendë]

I think my favourite is the first one (Northern Lights in the UK), because the story moves along so quickly and there are some incredibly tense moments. I love the Gyptians because many of my own ancestors were canal boatmen and lived that lifestyle (without daemons of course ), but also Lyra's friendships are beautifully drawn. I also like the whole alternate universe Oxford and London. And Lyra's charistmatic but terrifying parents.

Then as the trilogy moves on, it all gets so much deeper. I think one of the greatest things about it, aside from it being a tremendous adventure featuring a girl for once, is it really stirs your interest in the works that inspired it, much as Lord of the Rings does.

One of the 'guides' available which help explain the books and their sources, I can really recommend getting one of these if you see them cheap, this one especially. It's also fun to go to Oxford and find the landmarks like Lyra's bench and the Pitt Rivers museum. I'd really like to visit the real Svalbard too, but it's maybe one for when I've won the lottery

[Gwathagor]

Northern Lights/Golden Compass was brilliant, but I found the other two preachy.

[Guinevere]

I read Pullman's "his dark materials" trilogy in 2007, originally just to form an opinion on his writing, because of his criticism of LotR. In several threads here and here it was mentioned how in public interviews he called LotR "just fancy spun candy with no substance to it", "a trivial book" "fundamentally an infantile book". That really got my hackles up, as you can imagine!!

To do Pullman justice, I found that the books were very thrilling to read, I really liked the first volume a lot. But the farther I got, the less convincing I found it and I was disappointed by the end. It was a good read, but I don't feel the need to go back and reread them, as with Tolkien's works.

[Lalwendë]

I've decided to just ignore what he says about Tolkien, it's his 'spin'. And he's a very opinionated man so he says controversial things. Lots of the British intelligentsia revile Tolkien - I think it's best to ignore what they say on the subject. His writing speaks for itself though, and it's amazing. To write what are basically books for children and young people which are so multi-layered and complex is a marvellous thing. His work is completely unpatronising, something which I found limits me from enjoying CS Lewis (I do tend to agree with him on Lewis), and it isn't afraid to be difficult.

The books will probably have continued appeal as there's a generation now growing up watching Doctor Who which is also not afraid to be difficult and throw bags of science and philosophy into the fun.

I find they get better with re-reading. Which tempts me to do this all over again and thus add to the stack of things I want to plough through this summer...

[Gwathagor]

That's interesting; I feel precisely the opposite about Lewis and Pullman. C.S. has always seemed to me fatherly rather than patronizing, whereas Pullman comes across as egotistical and often just plain mean-spirited.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

That's interesting; I feel precisely the opposite about Lewis and Pullman. C.S. has always seemed to me fatherly rather than patronizing, whereas Pullman comes across as egotistical and often just plain mean-spirited.

I agree with you speaking about him as a person, he's pretty aggressive in his arguments, though that's par for the course in the UK these days, and he's mild compared to most of the TV pundits. And CS Lewis was a very pleasant person apparently (even John Betjeman might admit that, and they were famous enemies ).

But I could never get on with Narnia which is a huge shame as it's full of magical stuff and I've loved the films. Maybe it was my age when I tried to read it for the first time. I was 12 and already onto adults' fiction so it might have been lost on me. I always feel a bit sad about it really.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But I could never get on with Narnia which is a huge shame as it's full of magical stuff and I've loved the films. Maybe it was my age when I tried to read it for the first time. I was 12 and already onto adults' fiction so it might have been lost on me. I always feel a bit sad about it really.

That's interesting. My experience went the opposite way: at first I way drawn to the magic and adventure, then I sort of cooled off because it was a bit too childish, but now I have a kind of nostalgic-y feeling about that childish tone and I almost like and appreciate it more now than I did at first.

To write what are basically books for children and young people which are so multi-layered and complex is a marvellous thing. His work is completely unpatronising, something which I found limits me from enjoying CS Lewis (I do tend to agree with him on Lewis), and it isn't afraid to be difficult.

Difficult. That summs it up fairly well, doesn't it?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

That's interesting. My experience went the opposite way: at first I way drawn to the magic and adventure, then I sort of cooled off because it was a bit too childish, but now I have a kind of nostalgic-y feeling about that childish tone and I almost like and appreciate it more now than I did at first.

If the little chap ever wants them reading to him then I suppose I might get another go at them. And I'd rather he attempted them before reading anything by Tolkien, because I think this also spoiled them for me. After reading Lord of the Rings when I was 12, I've been an extremely critical reader of other fantasy works. In fact in the immediate aftermath, the one fantasy epic which did manage to grab me was Gormenghast by Mervyn Peake.

Since then, I've enjoyed other fantasy series and novels, notably His Dark Materials, A Song of Ice and Fire, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, Harry Potter (I have a deep admiration for JK Rowling as a person) and Earth's Children. I've never really got on with Narnia, Discworld or Shannara - for example. Maybe it's just personal taste...

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Guinevere

I read Pullman's "his dark materials" trilogy in 2007, originally just to form an opinion on his writing, because of his criticism of LotR. In several threads here and here it was mentioned how in public interviews he called LotR "just fancy spun candy with no substance to it", "a trivial book" "fundamentally an infantile book". That really got my hackles up, as you can imagine!!

To do Pullman justice, I found that the books were very thrilling to read, I really liked the first volume a lot. But the farther I got, the less convincing I found it and I was disappointed by the end. It was a good read, but I don't feel the need to go back and reread them, as with Tolkien's works.

I thoroughly disliked Pullman's book. The writing was good but I felt the characters were flat and cliched. I don't think he's one to talk about anyone's book being 'fancy spun candy with no substance to it'. His own work, to me, seemed like utter drivel. It was incredibly childish, IMHO.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I thoroughly disliked Pullman's book. The writing was good but I felt the characters were flat and cliched. I don't think he's one to talk about anyone's book being 'fancy spun candy with no substance to it'. His own work, to me, seemed like utter drivel. It was incredibly childish, IMHO.

You know, that's what I thought at first - that his characters were rather flat and childishly-written. But then I found that it's almost like Pullman did that on purpose, so that you can read it on different levels - you can see or not see, in a sense.

I only read the books because my sister was reading them, and I did not expect the characters to be anything but childishly done and flat (since they are the kind my sister usually resonates to the most - as you can tell I do not approve of her reading list, but at least she reads something), but then I realised that if I don't read it with the assumption that they are flat they wouldn't be.

I mean, I'm not crazy about the series , but I liked it better than, say, the inevitable example of Harry Potter - much much better, in fact.

And I have to praise Pullman for the breadth of his knowledge and references - science, linguistics (both within English and in other languages), culture, and etc - in addition to the epic plot.



I know it's not the best way of putting it in words, but I usually measure books in breadth and depth. A book that is both deep and broad is something I really really like. There are books that are one but not the other, that I sometimes like. And there are those that are neither - which I don't know how anyone could like. Romances tend to be deep but narrower. Adventure stories (like, in this case, His Dark Materials) tend to be broad but seldom are as deep. And then it's a question of ballance and what you care about.

Books like Tolkien's are pretty rare. You can dig in any direction and you unearth more and more and more.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I mean, I'm not crazy about the series , but I liked it better than, say, the inevitable example of Harry Potter - much much better, in fact.

Books like Tolkien's are pretty rare. You can dig in any direction and you unearth more and more and more.

Truly? I quite liked the middle three books of HP. I mean, yeah, it had gaping plot-holes, but I had to admire Rowling's flair for creating a magical atmosphere. I would have rather loved it if she had put in more detail.

That, of course, is true. XD I keep trying to compare fantasy books to LotR, and so far most of them have been at least somewhat disappointing. Game of Thrones was the only one, for me, that came close to the standards I set.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

That, of course, is true. XD I keep trying to compare fantasy books to LotR, and so far most of them have been at least somewhat disappointing. Game of Thrones was the only one, for me, that came close to the standards I set.

For me Game of Thrones was like a mix between LOTR and HP - it had some of the depth of LOTR and addictiveness of HP.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

For me Game of Thrones was like a mix between LOTR and HP - it had some of the depth of LOTR and addictiveness of HP.

Good way of putting it. Though I didn't find HP 'addicting', I certainly found it entertaining. Well. At least books 3, 4 and 5. :P The others didn't appeal to me much.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I thoroughly disliked Pullman's book. The writing was good but I felt the characters were flat and cliched. I don't think he's one to talk about anyone's book being 'fancy spun candy with no substance to it'. His own work, to me, seemed like utter drivel. It was incredibly childish, IMHO.

I found the characters quite rich and interesting - they don't stay in one state but change throughout in unexpected ways, and Lyra is pretty unusual for a female protagonist, in that she's certainly no Mary Sue. She's full of flaws, and comes across like a real child rather than a mere character. The daemons even had excellent characterisation - to the extent that I'm now a bit scared of little monkeys. And I've found HDM to be as good a source for 'digging' as Tolkien is, though it's in completely different directions. If Pullman didn't note the deeper substance behind Tolkien's work then it's probably that he didn't care for the source material.

Anyway, I've just finished one of Alan Garner's novels for adults, and it was a perfect lesson in how less is more. Thursbitch* comes in at well under 200 pages, and mostly dialogue, it's worlds apart to anything by Tolkien but I'm a bit stunned by it, it's subtle, quite frightening, and as rich in meaning (especially linguistically) as Tolkien. He was inspired by the name thursbitch itself (meaning 'demon valley' - sharing the same roots as how Grendel is named in Beowulf), which is an abandoned farm in a hidden Cheshire valley, and by a stone which records the mysterious death of a local packhorse man. The novel imagines who this man was and the story interweaves with the wanderings of a modern man and woman in the same valley, which is described as a sentient landscape and the story never leaves the locale, and is structured like a mobius strip.

As a warning - I don't think this one is a young persons' book whatsoever (unless they are broad minded and very capable readers) as it has lots of weird magic and is written in a northern dialect, but I can't recommend it enough for anyone interested in the weirder side of British history and language or who wants to see how a fantastical story can work so well when presented in a completely different form to the norm. Garner seems to have taken up the issue of landscape and language that Tolkien left and has wandered off with it.

I am so looking forwards to Bonelands, which is supposed to come out this year and promises to finish off the story he started back in 1960 with the Weirdstone of Brisingamen.

*Sorry if that needs editing here!