Book Fucking Talk

[PrinceofNothing]

Malazan: Book of the Fallen. Probably my favorite fantasy series now.

I keep seeing it pop up and I picked up some parts second hand but I am using those as structural reinforcements for now. Can you tell me what makes it stand out for you?

I'm busting through the complete ouvre of John C. Wright and as far as pulp entertainment goes, I'd say he's a clear winner. Orphans of Chaos is a bizarre fusion of mythology, sf, children's boarding school and fantasy that has no right to work but absolutely does and Superluminary was a charmingly ridiculous Space Opera where people named after greek gods zap around the universe battling space vampires and launching entire novae at eachother.

On the serious front, I had the pleasure of Reading Soldier in the Mist by Gene Wolfe, which is a dreamy, immaculately researched tour of Bronze Age Greece by a foreigner with memory loss, sort of like Memento meets Jason and the Argonauts.

 

[Beoric]

I keep seeing it pop up and I picked up some parts second hand but I am using those as structural reinforcements for now. Can you tell me what makes it stand out for you?

Its more or less the author's actual play narrative (GURPS, I understand), as written by someone who can actually write. I enjoyed the series quite a bit.
Oddly enough, even though the overarching plot is what you would expect from a sandbox campaign (ie. essentially none), and each book focusses on different characters, I doubt it would make much sense unless you started from the beginning.

 

[bryce0lynch]

So, I thought I was free ...

I got a subscription renewal notice from The Paris Review yesterday. I had decided to let my subscription lapse. Now, I'm thinking I should renew. And resubscribe to Asimov & Analog also.

They are very good writing, particularly The Paris Review, but are seriously depressing and introspective. This is not the bread and circuses of joy and distraction. Further, they are all short form fiction. I could be reading the long form authors & poets.

And, of course, they distract from writing the book. Currently I'm ironing my linens, vacuuming the floor, fitting out my table, building screens for my windows and then converting the wooden prototype to aluminum in the truck camper. Once that's done I think my next project is hard core working on the book to finish it.

Or I could reup those subscriptions and have them as an excuse ...

 

[squeen]

You are not alone, I clean like a demon whenever I'm trying to avoid working on something.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

I am currently reading Games: Agency as Art by C. Thi Nguyen, a philosopher who studies games and gamification. It's both a good discussion of what games do, and something that you might find useful for a conceptual and terminological repertoire for discussing games, Bryce.

 

[squeen]

I read the first 50-pages of Another Fine Myth last night. It is as good as I remember it. I suppose it is satire of fantasy (wizard's apprentice shtick), but the story is presented earnstly. What's more, it still feels fresh, i.e. hasn't been done to death over the last 40 years. The multiverse notion is perhaps a bit more common nowadays, but the particulars of this story are still unique.

What really drives the story well IMO is the characterization and dialog. The dialog between the apprentice and instructor (Aahz) is good. I believe the author once wrote he was inspired by the Crosby & Hope "Road" pictures --- and if you've ever seen any of them, I think you'll agree he gets the quick-banter and subtle con-man-like subplots spot on. It's light reading, but I found it to be an engaging treat. Also, it's rewarding that the second book is even better than the first IIRC.

The mentor/demon, Aahz, is equal parts cranky and crafty---but, because he of is other-world savvy, also acts as a kind of stand-in for the reader...and I think well embodies the "meta" mentality of the 1978 D&D player (pre Rrrrrole playing). The description of the apprentice "learning magic" is a nice take too.

In many ways, Aahz's persona reminds me of both Bryce and EOTB, if that is possible.

 

[Osrnoob]

I am reading The Ruins and so far its great.

Very DnD me thinks

 

[PrinceofNothing]

Herodotus's History, Book Five! His Biographic descriptions of the cultures of Scythians, Geitans, Egyptians, Lycians and the manifold other tribes of Asia Minor should be fuel for a thousand different fantasy cultures and the tales of the exploits of the God-Emperors of Perisa make for stirring reading.

For the missus: Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell is suprisingly good. If Charles Dickens had gotten into Urban fantasy this would be the likely end result.

On the SF front, Stanislaw Lem's the Cyberiad proved very interesting, an irreverent, lyrical set of robo-short stories where Lem tackles just about every science fictional concept in the world with humor, gusto, boldness and wit. The "Jorge Luis Borges of SF" the blurb says. And since I actually read that one too, now I know what that means!

The Aleph and Other Stories by Jorge Luis Borges; I must ruminate on this one. Its good, no question, but how good? The Immortal is terrific, no question, and The Theologians is wonderfully rich, but what are we to think of, say, The House of Asterion, with its mystery reveal? Of interest to those who enjoy history, philosophical puzzles, mythology and philosophy, but not enough helicopter chase scenes.

 

[squeen]

For the missus: Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell is suprisingly good. If Charles Dickens had gotten into Urban fantasy this would be the likely end result.

I saw the series (BBC?) and added it to my reading list.

 

[TerribleSorcery]

I saw the series (BBC?) and added it to my reading list.

It's very hard to prevent that kind of Victorian top-hatted Neil Gaiman fantasy from sliding off the edge into the abyss of cheesiness. I thought she did a good job actually, I liked it even though it's not normally my bag.

 

[Osrnoob]

It's very hard to prevent that kind of Victorian top-hatted Neil Gaiman fantasy from sliding off the edge into the abyss of cheesiness. I thought she did a good job actually, I liked it even though it's not normally my bag.

The ending is a bit weak IMO. So much pomp and promise for a very eh lets not do this ending

 

[Osrnoob]

Its also a very early 2000s post Infinite Jest book.

More than the footnotes, the nodding pretention. I loved that at the time. GOBBLE GOBBLE FOOLS But I don't know how the times sail

 

[grodog]

The Aleph and Other Stories by Jorge Luis Borges; I must ruminate on this one. Its good, no question, but how good? The Immortal is terrific, no question, and The Theologians is wonderfully rich, but what are we to think of, say, The House of Asterion, with its mystery reveal? Of interest to those who enjoy history, philosophical puzzles, mythology and philosophy, but not enough helicopter chase scenes.

I recently read a few collections by Patrick Murphy, who reminded me strongly of Borges, and thought I should re-read some (or read some new ones) soon. Thanks for the reminder, Prince

For the missus: Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell is suprisingly good. If Charles Dickens had gotten into Urban fantasy this would be the likely end result.

Trent likes this one a lot, but I've not read it yet. Hearing you compare it to Dickens, however, is not encouraging

Allan.

 

[bryce0lynch]

I recently read a few collections by Patrick Murphy, who reminded me strongly of Borges, and thought I should re-read some (or read some new ones) soon. Thanks for the reminder, Prince



Trent likes this one a lot, but I've not read it yet. Hearing you compare it to Dickens, however, is not encouraging

Allan.

I found the concept interesting and almost the entire thing very tedious.

 

[Osrnoob]

Shoutouts to lost in the funhouse

If you want your strange I got it

 

[PrinceofNothing]

Trent likes this one a lot, but I've not read it yet. Hearing you compare it to Dickens, however, is not encouraging

Think like Nicholas Nickleby or The Pickwick Papers, not A Tale of Twin Cities. Its long, its got a lot of droll humor, there's a sort of noninvasive attempt at mago-historical universe-building that I found rather charming and the magic is well done. However, I won't argue with anyone who finds it too long.

Shoutouts to lost in the funhouse

That sounds almost intolerably meta. You remain an engima, difficult to pin down. Have you ever had the pleasure of reading Bleakwarrior by Alaistar Rennie? He is the author of the short story "TerrorSluts for Eternity Versus the Ungodheads of the Interdimensionals" which I have not yet had the pleasure of reading, but Bleakwarrior is written in that same vein.

 

[Osrnoob]

As John BarTH?

I have not, color me intrigued

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

I read Mark Lawrence's Broken Empire trilogy earlier this week and it was like an extremely puerile version of Prince of Nothing (the Bakker series, not the poster here). On the other hand, I also read How Forest Think by Eduardo Kohn earlier this week and it was excellent if flawed, with a firm intellectual framework oriented around Peircean semiotics that sometimes stumbles by trying to be overbroad, but is otherwise an excellent anthropological work on the representational relations between humans, nonhumans, and combinations thereof.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

I read Mark Lawrence's Broken Empire trilogy earlier this week and it was like an extremely puerile version of Prince of Nothing (the Bakker series, not the poster here).

It's Grimdark but in an edgy teenage boy sort of way (so maybe the comparison is indeed ah Polysemic as you would say). I liked the descriptions of the bandit gangs (who can forget Red Kent?) but the series as a whole has a 90's sort of EDGE that makes it good reading in public transport but not exactly hearty fare. Some fun ideas but Puerile is probably accurate. The PoN series is dark all the way up to the building blocks of its universe, the writing style, the message it is conveying etc. etc.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

PoN is also very critical of Kelhus between the lines - he's a fantastical stand-in for the possibilities of neurologically-informed technical manipulation of our senses of self, which Bakker has written about elsewhere. I think that ironic tension - where the book offers you the chance for a facile reading of Kelhus as superman and saviour but really doesn't want you to believe that - is much more interesting than anything Lawrence does with Jorg, who comes across as a wee hard man, sort of a cod-Nietzschean with flashes of nu-atheism, that we're more or less meant to straightforwardly sympathise with past the first book. That's the core puerility for me - Jorg is a childish fantasy of power that the audience are meant to sympathise with, in contrast to Kelhus who is the nightmare of what the powerful could do to you.