I loved the Covenant novels. My dad showed me them when I was around 12 years old and I ate them up! THOMAS COVENANT IS AN ANTI-HERO! As I read everyone's critiques of those books, I wanted to scream that.
He does things that shouldn't be done. That is what compells you to read. Also, read Mirror of her Dreams and A Man Rides Through, best plot I have ever read. I was 16 while reading them, The first one is development, the second I finished in a day
My favorite book, tied with Ender's Game which I recently read for the 5th time in two years, is 1984. It is not just SF, it is the story of totalitarianism and revolution. I cannot get enough of that book. Please tell me others loved it as well.
Second of all, Wetwilly, I was 17 when I read Scarlet Letter, and I admit it was tough to get through. I reread it recently, now 18, and I LOVED IT. His use of prose and symbolism practically inspired me. Of course, I was in a class where we analyzed his writing and symbolism. I urge you to reconcider such a fine book.
Chaucer, Orwell, Emerson, Thoreau, and Poe prevail!
posted
Oh, I think Hawthorne is a fine author, Rilnian, I just don't think high school is the place to introduce it. It's a book that most people can't appreciate until they have an adult point-of-view. Dostoyevsky is the same way, and he's got to be my all time favorite author. In fact, a lot of the literary canon is like that.
But, unfortunately, the vast majority of people only ever read the canon in high school, so they never learn to appreciate it. They just learn that they hate it in high school and never give it another chance when they're mature enough to appreciate it. I think a lot of potential readers are turned off to reading in high school and never come back.
posted
OK. Since someone else revived this old discussion, I just have to ask:
Am I the only one here who was forced to read "The Northwest Passage"? The teacher made us read it IN CLASS. I can't even remember what it was about, I just remember the deep horror I felt every time I saw the cover. My book had so much drool on it the pages crimped, because I kept falling asleep on it. Fourth period...right after lunch. I nearly failed the class, because every time I turned the page, I couldn't remember what I had just finished reading. Each new page was like starting a dreadful, new, incomprehensible story.
And she followed this one up with "Tess of the D'Urbervilles." (Heavens...I don't think I spelled that right, but I'm too lazy to look it up.)
After reading some of these posts, I wonder if I'd feel differently about these two books, should I find the energy to read them now.
posted
I found there was nothing worse for literary appreciation than being required to read something in school. I hated George Orwell's 1984 when I had to read it for class...but I loved Animal Farm when I found it in the school library. And I might have been led to Orwell's essays or his Homage to Catalonia much sooner if I'd only loved 1984 the sooner.
[...did a rewrite 'cause of a pathetic attempt to underline titles...]
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited June 22, 2006).]
posted
I've just read the entirety of this thread, and I have at least 1 question:
Amongst everything else on my list, I'm currently reading Jordan's WoT series, and am currently on the 3rd installment. I've read some negative feedback on his books following the 3rd. What's wrong with them? What is lacking? Or did I miss something?
posted
Neitge, the problem with Jordan's WoT series is that he evolves as a writer after book 4 and the story progresses at a glacial pace. He really puts the story into low gear. There are essentially three MCs and yet he ignores one of those characters entirely in one book and another in a second book. He spans about one week but uses three books to do it.
Good Writing
[This message has been edited by Verdant (edited June 23, 2006).]
posted
Just looked at Jordan's WoT series. Is it worth reading? Looked interesting and I wanted to know from those who have read it.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Do I think it's enjoyable? Not particularly. Derivative, and slow, with characters who don't engage my interest.
Do I think you can learn from reading it? Yes. It is, after all, hugely successful. For it to be so, it must have elements of merit, elements that make people want to come back time and time again. Personaly, I don't find it an enthralling world to be part of. But clearly, hundreds of thousands of people do.
posted
I also find the story to be moving slowly, but I also think it is one of the things that makes WOT so great. While Jordan definitley spend far too much time describing the weave of a dress or the cut of a coat, he also spends the same amount of time building suspense and real characters that respond to their world in real ways.
I think the reason it has taken 94 books to cover a week or so's time is because of the massive number of REAL characters, both main and supplemental, and the reactions to each other's actions...
I am a huge fan of WOT because of Jordan's ability to create a genuine world with genuine characters. It is one of the things I strive to do in my writing and something hopefully I'll learn from him one day.
quote:"Lord of the Flies": again, something I didn't buy into. If a gang of [British] schoolkids were trapped on an island, I'm not so sure the descent into barbarism would've been inevitable...and if they did, I don't think they'd've developed the rites and rituals in the manner they did.
Oh, dang, it's happened! Lord of the Flies is one of my all-time favorites. I adore that book.
Everything by James Patterson except Along Came a Spider and Kiss the Girls. How does this guy churn out 6 books a year?
Almost everything by Terry Goodkind. Wizard's First Rule was decent enough just to make me pick up the second book, and I hate starting a series and not seeing it all the way through.
The Dune serise. Ditto.
LOTR, I found it very boring.
Books I LOOO-OO-OO-OO-OO-OO-VE:
The Dark Tower Series by Stephen King.
A Song of Ice and Fire series by Martin.
Anything by Bret Easton Elis.
As for TWOT, all I liked about it was the prologue of book 1.
I really want to give this series a chance after hearing so many rave reviews regarding the first 1-5 books, but can't find the same pace and sense of action as in that one prologue. Every time I get into the first few chapters I fall asleep. Does anything in the series capture the same feeling of the prologue?
posted
i realies now ALOT of books out there don't deserve half of the acclaim they have ,Dune while having great IDEAS and plot was badly presented... You know something's wrong when a character comes back from the dead and your asking.. who's he again? I just finished reading a farewell to arms by E.H. , when the narrator's wife died i felt sad FOR the narrator , but i didn't miss the wife , she was too docile and two dimensional no character in her at all.. Eragon is an example of a book that needs to be burnt at the stake with its author , pure cliche ,not one original idea.. But its so easy to entertain a 10 year old , it sold well..
Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found LotR incredibly boring my first read-through, but the second time I read it, I started to like it more, and now I'm on my third time through and I've gone from finding it extremely dull to quite fascinating. His style is so subtle that the first time through it's hard to see everything he has put in the story. For instance, at first it seems like all his characters are the the same, but the more I read it, the more I can see that there are indeed differences between each character and they become more complex than I had at first thought. The first time I read through it, I also missed a lot of the humor he puts in it, but now I see it everywhere, particularly in the first few chapters of FotR. In fact, I actually laugh aloud when I come across those parts now. The more times I read through that trilogy, the more I can see the brilliance of it. It's no wonder so many authors try to achieve what he did--and, IMHO, they have all fallen short.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On rereading "The Lord of the Rings"...even at this late date, I still pick up the odd detail that eluded me on the forty or fifty previous reads. (Last time it was the details on how Theoden and the army of Rohan got down to Minas Tirith, past the Ghan-buri-Ghan part.)
On comparing Tolkien to other writers...few, if any, of the commercial fantasy writers have Tolkien's technical expertise on the history of language and the English language, and this shows up (I realize long after I first read the book) in so many different places.
A sidebar on "Lord of the Flies"...Somewhere, I once saw a commentary on how the writer (William Golding?) had the moon rise after the sun set, then set before the sun rose again, and put it through a few more convolutions as well. I did not notice this when I read it, not being savvy enough at that age...but it's the sort of thing that Tolkien went to great lengths to get right in his work.
While not a huge fan of the book, I was highly interested in the thoughts behind it, and I always wondered if they would have slipped that quickly into their behaivors.
A British TV channel had the same question, so they set it up. They bought/rented a house and put 15 or so random boys in it, and let them lose. the cameramen were there, but couldnt intercede unless one of the boys was going to get Seriously hurt.
It was an interesting show. They descended pretty quickly. Wish I could remember the name of the show
posted
Well, it's my suspicion that a lot of the so-called "reality shows"---and particuarly the high-profile ones---are in some way fixed. Nothing concrete, just a gut instinct that most of what would happen naturally wouldn't be interesting unless it was fixed---which leads me to think that they are fixed.
On the "Lord of the Flies"-like show you mention---well, you make it clear that their lives were never in danger. I also have to wonder about food and clothing. Shelter is clearly provided. And they "descended" in the full presence of a camera crew. I'm sure it was interesting...but was it "reality?"
David Eddings - just about anything he wrote. Snore. Haven't read anything he wrote with his wife, because all the stuff that came before was so ridiculously stupid.
TWOT I am definitely beginning to loathe. It should have ended in many previous places. I only keep reading because I care about what happens to *one* character - and when a major plot point involving her was handled in the most unbelievable, stupid way ever, I almost gave up entirely.
Piers Anthony. Bad times. How many dorky puns can be worked into one novel? How many dorky puns can be worked into HUNDREDS? Let's find out!
Eragon, of course. Just bad all around.
Fantasy I love: ASOIAF - I'm a fan of dark fantasy, anyway, but George Martin really knows how to make characters and surprise you with his stories. Man - Tyrion Lannister and Petyr Baelish have to be the coolest fantasy characters _ever_.
Hart's Hope - such a cool way to write a book. The story's great, too. I think every writer should read it, just to see how the storytelling conventions can be bent.
There's lots more that I love, but I just woke up and my horrid sunburn is distracting me.
quote:Lord of the Flies - While not a huge fan of the book, I was highly interested in the thoughts behind it, and I always wondered if they would have slipped that quickly into their behaivors.
It's an allegory. I don't think realism is what Golding was going for.
As far as Eragon: it's YA Lit. Of course it's one giant cliche. That's what YA Lit is. Keep in mind, your average ten-year-old has fairly limited knowledge. They don't know it's a cliche, so to them, it isn't. Why bother writing something new if your audience isn't familiar with the old stuff?
[This message has been edited by wetwilly (edited July 02, 2006).]
posted
On Piers Anthony...I really didn't like the "Xanth" books I read (the first three and one or two later ones), and also felt that Anthony also dredged up some unsold manuscripts for publication that would better have been buried...but then I really liked a couple of volumes of autobiography he turned out along the way, as well as some novels and short stories, and most of his commentary in afterwords-to-novels as well.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I must say too, that I used to own a game shop. Ninety hours a week surrounded by D&D, ShadowRun, RuneQuest, Traveller, Rifts, Warhammer, Vampire the Masquerade, Whitewolf, Magic the Gathering [-- name just about any other game -- devotees totally did-my-head-in toward anything that even remotely whiffs of being RPG derivative.
Even now, anything with a kenda, halfling, vampire, ogre, troll, orc, paranoid central computer, genestealer, tinker gnome, bearded dwarf female or intelligent spell-casting dragon, makes me wretch.
But I still like Covenant.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited July 20, 2006).]
posted
Thank God someone else agreed! If you read those, please read Donaldson's Mirror of her Dreams, and A Man rides Through. Very good books, I need to read them all again...so little time.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as Eragon: it's YA Lit. Of course it's one giant cliche. That's what YA Lit is.
Oh, come on! You can say the same thing about mysteries, sci-fi, horror, thriller, fantasy, or any other genre. You could even call all literature one big cliche, and could make a good case of it, but it's bull.
Every genre has its own little quirks, and YA is no different. The style is simpler, often more concise, but that's not a detriment. The stories are just as unique and diverse in that genre as it is in any others.
Eragon wasn't awful because it was YA lit. It was awful because Paolini isn't that good a writer. There are many other successful pieces in YA that are very original and really good reads. I think of Cornelia Funke, Diana Wynn Jones, Garth Nix, and J.K. Rowling, just rattle off a few. And just because the YA audience can read it, doesn't mean that the more mature audience can't enjoy the stuff that's written there. Sometimes they can appreciate the stories more because of their older age.
posted
At the risk of being counter-progressive and/or unpopular I'm going to target "Crime and Punishment," a book I had so much hope for in High School Literaure Class...only to discover how dreadful the writing was and how abominable the philosophical message was. And the perverted idea of using the story of "laserus" from the bible to symbolize and defend the idea that a murderer [without a cuase] can be redeemed so easily for such a horrible [and lacking in motivation] crime.
Drivel. Utter Drivel!
And I have this to say about Eragon. It is cliche, it is predictable, but that doesn't mean it cannot be enjoyable. Originally I was quite critical as I read through the two books on the recommendation of friends... then I realized I was being more critical on him than I am even with my own work. It is no great masterpiece, it probably is over-rated, and I disagree with the vast majority of Paolini's presented philosophies [such as his justification for vengeance] HOWEVER---as a novice I give him respect that his career is beginning.
Card himself once said "I am a little embarassed when my first novel gets dragged out," the point is we as humans--and authors--improve. I have confidence in paolini's potential to create future literature, and I think there's something to be said for his being both published and sucessful. Maybe that is completely due to 13 year old girls who eat into his characters and want to marry him---but that's an audience I doubt I could get to buy my books, so I give him credit for that. He's no great author, but he's not terrible either. As for unoriginality I give him credit for the rules with which he constricts his magic. If Rowling (who is a better author) would govern her magical world with rules, limits, and gave us the clarity and scope Paolini does I know I'd enjoy Harry Potter more.
So, at the risk of sounding like a jealous young writer, Paolini isn't amazing but it isn't dreadfully awful. I enjoyed his books fine and believe he will improve over time. If my first novels publish I certainly hope my readers will have similar faith in me.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited August 06, 2006).]
posted
Dostoyevski's "Crime and Punishment," right? You've gotta beware of the translations---I'm often told these kind of works read much better in Russian than in English translation. (Yep, they're impenetrable to me in English---I can't read Russian---I can only make a stab at French if it's simple enough.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to assume you had a bad translation of "Crime and Punishment," Zero, because that is one of the greatest books ever to grace the genre of the novel. To call it (or anything else Dostoyevsky wrote) utter drivel is a pretty strong statement and flat wrong. The man was a genius.
The Richard Pevear/Larissa Volokhonsky translation is the best I've read. The Constance Garnett translation is not good, but it is unfortunately the most popular, so I'm guessing it's probably the one you read in High School. (Yes, I've read multiple translations...does that make me a loser?)
The dreadful writing definitely has to be chalked up to the translator. Keep in mind it was originally written in Russian, so any English version you have is not going to be anywhere close to the original book, at least on a language level.
quote:And the perverted idea of using the story of "laserus" from the bible to symbolize and defend the idea that a murderer [without a cuase] can be redeemed so easily for such a horrible [and lacking in motivation] crime.
Don't blame Dostoyevsky for that one; I'm afraid this failing is on your part. You missed the point of the novel by a pretty long shot. Possibly you didn't give it the thought it deserves because you were turned off by the bad writing of the translation, which is certainly understandable.
It's a great novel. You're missing out if you write it off too quickly.
[This message has been edited by wetwilly (edited August 07, 2006).]
posted
Hello, yes in fact I did read the Constance Garnett version. I am so turned off though I don't feel any inclination to try the other. I was annoyed by the bad writing and that most definitely affected my judgement, however, on a philosophical basis the arguments and ideas he presents--to me--are flat wrong. It is possible they weren't addressed perfectly and I have made many misunderstandings, but the whole basis of the story starts off on a ridiculous foot. The crime lacked motivation, the criminal was a moron, and the deep philosophy surrounding the characters inner struggle and the quite apparent suggestion of his redeemability was ridiculous... I think even laserus would have frowned a bit more if he'd committed random double homicide...
At the end of the day my point is I am glad you appreciate the book but I don't feel like I am compelled to honor it as genius.
quote:utter drivel is a pretty strong statement and flat wrong. The man was a genius.
Einstein was an undisputable genius because many of his theories have a solid foundation in terms of empyrical evidence and math. They are supported a million times over in real-life and so they have proven themsleves and thus his genius is proven. But to say that Dostoyevski's (forgive the horrible spelling) theories and ideas about life and man are genius is completely relative. Thought provoking perhaps, but not proven genius nor is my opinion "flat wrong."
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel exactly the same way about Hemingway. People treat him like the Jesus of American fiction, but I can't stand the guy's books. I think they're utter drivel, so I can see where you're coming from thinking one of "The Greats" is an idiot (which is also a Dostoyevsky book, by the way).
posted
Some of the recent commentary here plays into my implied thesis in other posts---that how well you relate to something often relates to the difference between studying it in school and reading it for pleasure on your own.
On Hemingway...I didn't like "The Old Man and the Sea," (had to read it for school) but liked "The Sun Also Rises," "For Whom the Bell Tolls," "A Farewell to Arms," and many of his short stories and articles (read them years later, after I'd left school.) I liked what I read of his Scribners contemporaries, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Thomas Wolfe (again, came to them on my own). (Some of this was set off by reading a thorogoing biography of their joint editor, Max Perkins.)
Other examples...I didn't like Orwell's "1984" (read first in school), but did like his "Animal Farm" (found in the school library at the same time).
I read and liked Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End" about five years before I had to study it in a high school class (and was quietly amused by the teacher missing a point about racism in South Africa that comes up in the narrative).
I read two books by William Golding in school ("Lord of the Flies" and, I think, "The Inheritors"---the latter in the abovementioned high school class), didn't like either, and haven't been tempted to read anything else Golding wrote. (I can't think of any titles.)
I shudder to think what my reaction to Heinlein or Asimov would have been if I had first been assigned them to read in school. (A short story by Asimov was in one grade school textbook of mine, but it wasn't assigned reading.) Being used as textbooks in schools might do wonders for your royalty statements, but it's not going to endear you to a generation of readers.
[Edited for...would you believe I misspelled "Heinlein"?]
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited August 08, 2006).]
posted
Nothing kills a story for me quite as quickly as an error in the plot. Bang - DOA story. I don't care who the author is or how much I liked his/her other books. I love Lawrence Sanders' light-hearted style, especially in the McNally books - but when he based an entire story on the fallacious story line that a woman no longer ovulates after a tubal ligation - he completely lost me. I read to the bitter end, but I didn't like the book (and have completely blanked the title).
And in recent times, I've never read worse schlock than the "Left Behind" series, which I understand was written by a variety of contract authors. Ugh! Ouch! Oi! OK, I read the first one and it was an interesting concept. I read the second one and wondered who the audience was - 3rd graders? I got to the third one and determined that no, the target audience was kindergartners and anyone with an extreme devotion to the Christian Right (the ones that make conservative me look middle-leaning-left). I'm ashamed to say I still have them because I don't want to embarrass myself by trading them in at the used book store (which has shelves of them already). I'm not sure I consider these books "real" writing, but they certainly are an excellent "how not to" tutorial.
My apologies to anyone who is thrilled with the "Great American Writers," but I could never slog my way through an entire book written by Hemingway and I absolutely detest Steinbeck. I read to be entertained, to disappear into another world - I do NOT want to be taught a lesson, or have to decipher some underlying meaning the author is trying to convey and I most certainly don't want to read something that makes me depressed. If I want to get depressed, I can go talk to my teenagers.
Re GRRM ASOIAF series - I have to say I love 'em. So much that I sprang for the hard cover copy of "A Feast for Crows." He's wordy. He takes off on tangents. He is not a "tight" writer. But I am so enthralled with the characters and the various story lines that I forgive him all of that. I mistakenly thought it was a trilogy, got to the end of Book #3 and literally screamed when I realized that wasn't the end. What happens to...? And....? Got my 20-year-old son hooked. He called me after finishing the first book and said "There's no way you can NOT read the second book, after the way the first one ends."
Well talk about wordy - and this is my first post in this forum, too! LOL
[This message has been edited by JulieW8 (edited August 10, 2006).]
posted
hey, one thing I noticed about Eragon is that you guys arent taking Paolinis AGE into concideration. He was fourteen when he started writing, and the writing actually reflects that. come on, give the guy some credit. he worked FIVE YEARS on that book.
Another thing, why do so many think that Tolkein was a bad writer? that guy is considered by everyone in my family to be a classic.
never read LotF, but I can see where you might be angry with the guy.
posted
I started writing when I was fourteen, but I don't think I got the hang of it until I was [stops, counts on fingers] thirty-one. In a weird way I'm grateful now for all those rejections I got between fourteen and thirty-one---they were doing me a favor.
Besides, most readers---including us (but not me in this particular case 'cause I haven't read it yet and may never)---we wouldn't know when he wrote it from what's on the printed page itself. We might hazard a guess...
posted
5 years, whoop-de-doo. I managed about 20 pages of Eragon before I threw it back at the person who lent it to me.
Another book which dissapointed me recently was, Lies of Locke Lamora. A friend said it was in the same league as Erikson and Scott Bakker, I manged 100 pages of that.
posted
I seem to be a little more tolerant of non-fiction of late than fiction---I'll buy a fiction book, read part of it, and move on to another book...but non-fiction, no matter how badly written, tends to hold me to the end. Maybe my interests have shifted.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
just been reading and learned another thing: HOW MANY PREQUALS TO DUNE ARE THERE?
I read Her Majestys Wizard over the weekend and HATED IT!! the descriptions where awfull, there was no logic, and the people where like the Simpsons, they never learned!!
reading The Man in the Iron Mask right now, like it so far.
orson scott card's "homecoming series". loved enders game, liked most of the rest of that series, but these books? self-indulgent claptrap with two-dimensional characters, predictable plots, repetitive conflicts, and plodding, plodding pace.
a sense of duty saw me through, but that was all. obviously the publishers saw something i didn't see.
posted
Hmm. I confess I only read the first of the Homecoming books.
<sigh!>
Too many books, too little time.
(In other words, don't keep reading something that you don't absolutely HAVE to keep reading, for whatever reason--life is too short and there are too many other books out there that you will find reason to HAVE to read instead.)
posted
I hear you. I remember when I prided myself in finishing books I'd started, no matter how sloggingly difficult they were to get through. I guess it was a particularly sloggish one that made me decide it wasn't worth it to keep reading just to say I'd finished.
I do know that I never finished 1984 or ATLAS SHRUGGED or LOST BOYS, but I stopped each one for different reasons.
posted
I don't see anything wrong in not finishing a book---time is always short and there's usually something to read (or reread) waiting beyond that book. The books I've failed to finish include things like Finnegan's Wake (impenetrable, only book I've ever read that I've tossed across the room), War and Peace (also impenetrable, but put down in a more peaceful way), down through assorted science fiction novels (usually from circumstances beyond my control), lots of non-fiction (not compelling enough to go on with, or, again, no time), comic strip collections (usually found politically objectionable---to me, at any rate) to this Volume Two fantasy novel about centaurs I picked up a few months ago (just failed to engage me).
Just this last week while cleaning up in my home, I found under the debris of my life this book---SF novel, self-published, I believe---that a friend (and non-SF reader) gave me, that I never got past Page One of.
Of course that pales before the long list of books I've never read...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
