Jump to content

April 2010 Reads


Myshkin

Recommended Posts

I finished The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck which was just lovely, in a totally harrowing, tragic way. Then I read The Mystery Knight which was good. Tried a few of the other stories in Warriors, but I haven't liked any of them so far, so it looks like it was a bit of a waste of money. Now I'm reading the latest Saxon story from Bernard Cornwell, The Burning Land, which is enjoyable so far but pretty much exactly the same as the previous books in the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished The Silmarillion.

This is a wonderful, wonderful book, obviously written by the same mind that wrought The Lord of the Rings, however it does not quite do the same thing as that masterpiece.

The Silmarillian is, basically the Bible of Middle-Earth. It recounts the creation of the world, the descent of many godlike beings (Valar and Maiar) from God (Ilúvatar). The way the world is constructed is basically a myriad of Tolkienized versions of pagan European mythologies combined under an umbrella of the Christianity that, ultimately, encompasses all.

The magnitude of this book is so epic that it simply produces emotional clout on every page. The stunning precision with which all the stories fit together can make ones jaw plummet to the floor. Somehow J.R.R. Tolkien (with no small help from his son Christopher, and the wonderful author Guy Gavriel Kay) was able to create a majestic mythology that seemed to expand in all ways, encompassing all these different branches of folklore and mythology, humanity, elves, gods, dragons, magic, battles, love and greed, and yet SOMEHOW he managed to keep it linear. The scale of the book may seem like it spews forth names like an angry volcano, but there is always a pattern to it, a meaning, there is never a wasted word, and I'm sure Tolkien would appreciate those who recognized such emotional dedication to his creation. Modern authors that write cheap copies of Tolkien's work such as Terry Brooks like to mask their work to look similar but it's all just a mask and if a kid enjoys the Shannara works of Terry Brooks, let them, but as the child's mind matures so to will he look for work more mature, and I'm confident that their more inquisitive mind will find that there is more to see, hear, taste and LEARN from Tolkien's work than from something like Brooks, which is what makes Tolkien so incredible. Brooks may have an elf character that simply appears to deliver a message then is gone forever, but Tolkien always kept in mind a greater thing, he made his art more than just aesthetics. One can therefore study what Tolkien wrote and interpret, while ultimately coming away with something, a piece of wisdom to utilize in life. That is what makes him the master and no one can touch his ass.

That all said, I think The Silmarillion is just as wonderful a thing as The Lord of the Rings, but the two things go about telling their stories very differently, and I don't think those who fell in love with The Lord of the Rings will necessarily enjoy The Silmarillion. The Silmarillion is packed with characters that are mostly two-dimensional and appear and disappear within three pages, their part all played out. Most characters do not develop and we do not watch as they learn lessons, grow old and die, usually Tokien settles with, "Then Elendil departed from Nümenor, fought many wars against Sauron and was thrown down dead." (<- not a real quote) so we never get the chance to grow attached to them.

Make sure you come to this book with the proper expectations and be prepared for a longer read than The Lord of the Rings, for it's scale and depth is several times the size, but don't expect to love the characters very much (except perhaps Morgoth, HE IS AWESOME! (and has remarkably good characterization compared to the rest)).

So to sum up the character issue, The Silmarillion doesn't dwell on any particular ones, it has bigger fish to fry, and I like to picture each character being a simple scale on this metaphoric fish. In The Lord of the Rings, each character gets to be his own fish and gets their own fry time. So don't expect that.

Now to finish The Chronicles of Prydain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Renegade's Magic this last week, finishing up Hobb's "Soldier Son" series. I really have mixed feelings about this book. On it's own, RM is okay, perhaps a bit slow to start, and sort of similar to Avatar plotwise. But I don't think this series stands all that well together - each book has such a different tone and focus that you feel that subplots and characters get marginalized without much resolution. In fact, the major conflict didn't feel entirely resolved; while Nevare's all happy in the end, I'm left feeling wtf about the point of it all. I also think that the changes in weight in the third book seemed to undercut the more sympathetic attitude towards larger people in book two. Overall, it's not a bad series, and I appreciate that Hobb's trying for something new with plot and setting, but it just ends up a bit off for me.

Let the Great World Spin by Colum McCann was my latest read. It's one of the more acclaimed litfics of last year, and lately, several people i know irl have raved about it to me. I'm sad to report that it took me a while to get into this book. I just found his prose awkward, over-written. It's a novel I appreciated, and at times admired, but it just never touched me inside. I think I felt like I had seen this all before. Like in Crash or 21 Grams.

I'm excited to be getting back to this excellent non-fiction book - The Immmortal Life of Henrietta Lacks - that I bought and set down a few weeks ago. More in the next update!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier this evening I finished The Book Thief by Markus Zusak, a gift from some dear friends on this board (thanks guys!). Set during World War 2, it tells the story of the early teenage years of Liesel Meminger. As a foster child, she comes to a a small German town, discovers her love of books and the written word, and feels the impact of the war on her and her new family. This was a well written book and the author deserves credit for not writing yet another story of the holocaust, instead choosing to cover essentially "a small slice of life". One of the first things a reader will note is that the book is not narrated by the main character, but by the personification of Death. However, unlike Terry Pratchett's similar character, this Death doesn't really make much of a narrator. In fact, except for the ending, which was quite poignant, I felt it hurt the story a bit. The best part of the book, of course, was Liesel's love of books and how it led to her earning the title of this novel.

I need something to read until the next Dresden Files book comes out next week so I'll poking into Kop by Warren Hammond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished The Silmarillion.

This is a wonderful, wonderful book, obviously written by the same mind that wrought The Lord of the Rings, however it does not quite do the same thing as that masterpiece.

The Silmarillian is, basically the Bible of Middle-Earth. It recounts the creation of the world, the descent of many godlike beings (Valar and Maiar) from God (Ilúvatar). The way the world is constructed is basically a myriad of Tolkienized versions of pagan European mythologies combined under an umbrella of the Christianity that, ultimately, encompasses all.

The magnitude of this book is so epic that it simply produces emotional clout on every page. The stunning precision with which all the stories fit together can make ones jaw plummet to the floor. Somehow J.R.R. Tolkien (with no small help from his son Christopher, and the wonderful author Guy Gavriel Kay) was able to create a majestic mythology that seemed to expand in all ways, encompassing all these different branches of folklore and mythology, humanity, elves, gods, dragons, magic, battles, love and greed, and yet SOMEHOW he managed to keep it linear. The scale of the book may seem like it spews forth names like an angry volcano, but there is always a pattern to it, a meaning, there is never a wasted word, and I'm sure Tolkien would appreciate those who recognized such emotional dedication to his creation. Modern authors that write cheap copies of Tolkien's work such as Terry Brooks like to mask their work to look similar but it's all just a mask and if a kid enjoys the Shannara works of Terry Brooks, let them, but as the child's mind matures so to will he look for work more mature, and I'm confident that their more inquisitive mind will find that there is more to see, hear, taste and LEARN from Tolkien's work than from something like Brooks, which is what makes Tolkien so incredible. Brooks may have an elf character that simply appears to deliver a message then is gone forever, but Tolkien always kept in mind a greater thing, he made his art more than just aesthetics. One can therefore study what Tolkien wrote and interpret, while ultimately coming away with something, a piece of wisdom to utilize in life. That is what makes him the master and no one can touch his ass.

That all said, I think The Silmarillion is just as wonderful a thing as The Lord of the Rings, but the two things go about telling their stories very differently, and I don't think those who fell in love with The Lord of the Rings will necessarily enjoy The Silmarillion. The Silmarillion is packed with characters that are mostly two-dimensional and appear and disappear within three pages, their part all played out. Most characters do not develop and we do not watch as they learn lessons, grow old and die, usually Tokien settles with, "Then Elendil departed from Nümenor, fought many wars against Sauron and was thrown down dead." (<- not a real quote) so we never get the chance to grow attached to them.

Make sure you come to this book with the proper expectations and be prepared for a longer read than The Lord of the Rings, for it's scale and depth is several times the size, but don't expect to love the characters very much (except perhaps Morgoth, HE IS AWESOME! (and has remarkably good characterization compared to the rest)).

So to sum up the character issue, The Silmarillion doesn't dwell on any particular ones, it has bigger fish to fry, and I like to picture each character being a simple scale on this metaphoric fish. In The Lord of the Rings, each character gets to be his own fish and gets their own fry time. So don't expect that.

Now to finish The Chronicles of Prydain.

I agree with you about the the Silmarillion. I read that book in one sitting, which is rare for me. It's only inferior to Lord of the Rings in terms of character developement. It's even better in some regards. A beautiful work.

And Chronicles of Prydain is my favorite YA series. Better than Harry Potter or Narnia or His Dark Materials, in my opinion. The last book is pretty good, but The Black Cauldron is probably my favorite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently reading Black Hills by Dan Simmons. It is historical dark fantasy, about a Lokota boy with the inborn gifts to have been a great shaman for his people - if he did not live at the point of time of the wars between the Sioux and the whites over the Black Hills and Dakotas. Skips around in time a lot rather than being a smooth narrative. Some really odd aspects to the story

the kid is infected with Custer's ghost, who so far does nothing other than go on endlessly about sex with Custer's wife :smileysex:

. I will admit I am not comfortable with some other non-PC aspects of the story

a character named Long Turd?? Really????? I do not know it is an historically accurate name or not, but either way... :shocked: Not to mention use of the n-word, which is probably historically accurate, but still makes me uncomfortable to see in use. :leaving:

. Given that a lot of people are not thrilled with this author's previous statements about Muslims which they see as racist (see previous threads on this board), you would think he might be a little more sensitive to such things??? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently reading Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnostisism by Kurt Rudolph. A bit scholarly and dry, but comprehensive. The subject matter is sufficiently intriguing to make it an easy read.

Next will be Alastair Reynolds' Terminal World, I think.

- aschwiig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm reposting this because I tried to edit my previous post and it became so messed up even I couldn't understand what was happening. I now understand how Isis' posts always look the way they do. I guess the Literature Forum has something against people coming back and editing their posts? :ohwell:

I finished Le Morte D'Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory. The whole time I was reading it I had to keep reminding myself the era this book was written (15th century) and what a massive undertaking it was (over 1100 pages) and I had to stop myself from trying to judge it with today's criteria. It was an interesting read for the most part. We've all read so many books based on the Arthurian cycle, it was really cool to read a compilation of all the original stories and see how they have been changed from their original by modern authors.

I can't deny it became repetitive and tiresome at some point though. The same things kept on happening, it was hard to stay interested for the whole book. There were cool details -or gruesome details- here and there to change the stories a bit but there were times that you could have sworn you read the exact same paragraph a couple of hundred pages ago, with different protagonists.

I promised you all a couple of important observations and here they are:

1) Knights have notoriously bad memories and bad eyesight too. It must have been all that being banged around and falling off horses, there is no other explanation on why they keep forgetting each other's names or failing to identify the same person again and again. And again.

2) Fair maids of exceptional beauty were all over the place, and most of them were eager to spread their legs for a knight. They were also extremely fertile, because after only one night's romp most of them would conceive.

3) Which brings me to observation number 3. With all those offspring running around (and growing up fast as weeds, it seems like), it was small wonder knights couldn't even recognize their own relatives and often ended up fighting them/killing them/on their knees crying.

4) Women got their heads chopped off A LOT. I just didn't expect that amount of decapitating, it was kind of awesome. Also, there are more uses for a virgin's blood that one could possibly imagine and it's famous for its therapeutic properties, but it was really hard to come by. (probably because of Observation #2)

(Meh, I had more but I forgot them, I should have written them down. I felt like I had two people in my head while reading this book, one was trying to pay attention and the other was making humorous comments the whole time. :P)*

I also read Haruki Murakami's After the Quake, a collection of 6 short stories. A beautiful little book, it was just what I needed.

I'm hoping to start Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children later today.

*Not to mention some weird dreams I had. In the most memorable one King Arthur was galloping towards me singing loudly "Baby join me in Death

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finished Voice of the Fire by Alan Moore which was absolutely superb. Not a comic fan at all but read some reviews of this books greatness, and they weren't lying. Not one for those who don't like being confused at times and not getting all the answers, though. Just get through that first chapter, though, and I think most will enjoy it.

Now about 100 pages through Bloodheir by Brian Ruckley and The Dragon Haven by Robin Hobb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm reposting this because I tried to edit my previous post and it became so messed up even I couldn't understand what was happening. I now understand how Isis' posts always look the way they do. I guess the Literature Forum has something against people coming back and editing their posts? :ohwell:

I finished Le Morte D'Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory. The whole time I was reading it I had to keep reminding myself the era this book was written (15th century) and what a massive undertaking it was (over 1100 pages) and I had to stop myself from trying to judge it with today's criteria. It was an interesting read for the most part. We've all read so many books based on the Arthurian cycle, it was really cool to read a compilation of all the original stories and see how they have been changed from their original by modern authors.

I can't deny it became repetitive and tiresome at some point though. The same things kept on happening, it was hard to stay interested for the whole book. There were cool details -or gruesome details- here and there to change the stories a bit but there were times that you could have sworn you read the exact same paragraph a couple of hundred pages ago, with different protagonists.

I promised you all a couple of important observations and here they are:

1) Knights have notoriously bad memories and bad eyesight too. It must have been all that being banged around and falling off horses, there is no other explanation on why they keep forgetting each other's names or failing to identify the same person again and again. And again.

2) Fair maids of exceptional beauty were all over the place, and most of them were eager to spread their legs for a knight. They were also extremely fertile, because after only one night's romp most of them would conceive.

3) Which brings me to observation number 3. With all those offspring running around (and growing up fast as weeds, it seems like), it was small wonder knights couldn't even recognize their own relatives and often ended up fighting them/killing them/on their knees crying.

4) Women got their heads chopped off A LOT. I just didn't expect that amount of decapitating, it was kind of awesome. Also, there are more uses for a virgin's blood that one could possibly imagine and it's famous for its therapeutic properties, but it was really hard to come by. (probably because of Observation #2)

(Meh, I had more but I forgot them, I should have written them down. I felt like I had two people in my head while reading this book, one was trying to pay attention and the other was making humorous comments the whole time. :P)*

I also read Haruki Murakami's After the Quake, a collection of 6 short stories. A beautiful little book, it was just what I needed.

I'm hoping to start Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children later today.

*Not to mention some weird dreams I had. In the most memorable one King Arthur was galloping towards me singing loudly "Baby join me in Death

Have you tried John Steinbeck's modernization of Malory's tales? You might find the subtle alterations he did (besides in the updating of the language) to be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely on a whim I read HP Lovecrafts 'At the Mountains of Madness', mostly in one sitting and now my head hurts. Very dense for my taste but the man was a strange bird with a fevered imagination. And I'll never look at penguins in quite the same way.

Got a hankering for something a little lighter so Jessie Bullingtons The Brothers Grossbart fits the bill. Early days yet but good fun so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm reposting this because I tried to edit my previous post and it became so messed up even I couldn't understand what was happening. I now understand how Isis' posts always look the way they do. I guess the Literature Forum has something against people coming back and editing their posts? :ohwell:
I don't think it has anything to do with editing actually. It just happens on this computer - when I post from work it seems fine. I haven't expended much energy trying to resolve it though I must admit. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you tried John Steinbeck's modernization of Malory's tales? You might find the subtle alterations he did (besides in the updating of the language) to be interesting.

As much as I enjoy Steinbeck (to my husband's dismay) I'm not sure I would appreciate it at this point. Maybe a few months or a year down the road, but not now. I had enough of Arthur and his merry knights, it was fun in some ways but I'm not up for a repeat performance yet. Thanks for the suggestion though.

I don't think it has anything to do with editing actually. It just happens on this computer - when I post from work it seems fine. I haven't expended much energy trying to resolve it though I must admit. :)

I hope my laptop isn't going all weird on me, that's the first time I had it happen. It would drive me crazy, I don't know how it doesn't bother you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finished The Chrysalids by John Wyndham, this twisted dystopian theme on Christian fundamentalism didn't impress me nearly as much as the previous book I read by this author, Day of the Triffids. Interesting but abit dull, unengaging, and sadly cliched by today's standards. 6/10

Started Parlour Games by Robert Marasco (who wrote a fantastic horror novel I highly recommend titled Burnt Offerings). This the only other novel he ever wrote along with two plays, Childs Play and Our Sally.

Still reading Stephen King's Nightmares and Dreamscapes, I am about half done having read 12 of the 23 tales. Only one story I disliked so far, "You know they have a hell of a band". Which qualifies imo as unoriginal and has been done many times before in one form or another. However, this book imo may contain THEE very best of Stephen King's short story work based upon the mixed reactions I have read towards Hearts In Atlantis, Everythings Eventual, and Just After Sunset. I am certainly enjoying it far more than Skeleton Crew and there is a evident maturation in King's writing of this collection above Night Shift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finished up King Maker last week. This is a clever, powerful, and flawed novel that I still have to recommend. Arthurian legend retold in the ghetto of a generic American city (Indianapolis). (full review)

I'm now reading The Adamantine Palance by Stephen Deas. It's good enough, but so far doesn't really stand out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finished Iain M Banks' Against a Dark Background. It was OK, but I'd say it is one of the weakest of his Science Fiction stories. There did seem to be a lot of time spent on world-building and descriptions but Golter and its surroundings didn't seem either distinctive or interesting, especially when compared to some of the world-building in his Culture books. The plot wasn't particularly compelling either, and it didn't help that I correctly anticipated the main plot twist at the end about 100 pages into the book. The main character, Sharrow, wasn't very likeable (especially as the flashbacks showed that she was responsible for a lot of the trials she had to go through) but was interesting and had some good character development, but the supporting cast felt a bit underdeveloped (although I did like the android character). The Lazy Gun also failed to justify all the build-up it got.

Next up is Adrian Tchaikovsky's Salute The Dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Chronicles of Prydain is my favorite YA series. Better than Harry Potter or Narnia or His Dark Materials, in my opinion. The last book is pretty good, but The Black Cauldron is probably my favorite.

Yes, it's a wonderful series. I just finished the last book which I enjoyed as much as the third one. I wish this series was more in the mainstream than some of the others like Narnia or HP, not that I hate or dislike those books, but I feel like The Chronicles of Prydain has more to teach. Lloyd Alexander seemed very faithful to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...