Good fantasy page-turners

[Errant Bard]

The idea that anyone would consider Weeks in even the same league as Erikson makes my brain bleed.

You mean Weeks is in better league or in a worse one? (I've not read Weeks, but I don't have a great esteem for Erikson so it's hard to guess)

[polishgenius]

Weeks is to Erikson what Eddings is to Tolkien (in the interests of fairness, Belgariad Eddings which I think is pretty decent).

*Full disclosure: I've only read Weeks' first book. It was enjoyable, but I never felt the particular urge to read more.

[Errant Bard]

In truth, at least in Outlander (1991), it's the man who is rescued by Our Heroine - Protagonist - First Person Narrator.

In one singular occurrence, yes, the roles are reversed, Jamie become the damsel in distress, reacts like one, is mishandled like one (so, by a man)

I was more about the rest of the book. I forgot much but there still must be a review I did back then in this very forum... I can remember that one thing that stuck out was how the guy beats her and she finally think about how it's right, more or less.

Then there is the reenacted rape, goddam, I could not not see the guy as the damsel in distress and it made me imagine the scene with the gender reversed: so to heal your girlfriend from rape trauma induced catatonia, you... rape her again yourself, but it's cool because you love her? Disgusting.

Yeah, when it's not about comforting the standard gender dynamics, it's reveling in the fantasy of the perfect man suffering the worse a woman can fear to suffer (but he has to stay stoic, cannot stray from the essential masculine values, heh?)

[David Selig]

Regarding virgin or whore... what about all of the nobles? They don't fall into that. The same thing could be said of ASOIAF, because in these worlds (and in our history) the most common occupation for women is prostitution. It doesn't bother me.

Wait, what? What history books have you been reading?

[Darth Richard II]

Weeks is to Erikson what Eddings is to Tolkien (in the interests of fairness, Belgariad Eddings which I think is pretty decent).

*Full disclosure: I've only read Weeks' first book. It was enjoyable, but I never felt the particular urge to read more.

This. Though I will admit I enjoy both Weeks and Eddings, although I think Eddings probably had better prose. :p

[Zorral]

Wait, what? What history books have you been reading?

Wank books - not works of history, that's for sure.

[Zorral]

In one singular occurrence, yes, the roles are reversed, Jamie become the damsel in distress, reacts like one, is mishandled like one (so, by a man)

I was more about the rest of the book. I forgot much but there still must be a review I did back then in this very forum... I can remember that one thing that stuck out was how the guy beats her and she finally think about how it's right, more or less.

Then there is the reenacted rape, goddam, I could not not see the guy as the damsel in distress and it made me imagine the scene with the gender reversed: so to heal your girlfriend from rape trauma induced catatonia, you... rape her again yourself, but it's cool because you love her? Disgusting.

Yeah, when it's not about comforting the standard gender dynamics, it's reveling in the fantasy of the perfect man suffering the worse a woman can fear to suffer (but he has to stay stoic, cannot stray from the essential masculine values, heh?)

He doesn't beat her -- he punishes her for not obeying and getting him into a situation that is supremely dangerous not only for him but the entire group -- involving her and the group needing to rescue him -- and that's before the big final rescue. What it is, is exactly like a loving and firm parent explaining to a child why that child is being punished. Whether one can stand this or not, it is the dynamic of their relationship, or at least one of the building blocks. They fight each other and fight each other hard sometimes, hurt each other and hurt each other badly at other times, but they never fight or hurt each other as badly as they do others for the sake of rescuing each other. Romance! Not my favorite thing(s), but they operated well within the dynamic and period the author set up.

As well, Jamie tells Claire about the first whippings that Randall inflicts upon him, which also damned near killed him -- and fortunately somehow, his father rescued him.

Jamie and Claire both rescue and need rescuing by each other turn about.

[Darth Richard II]

Outlander = rape porn.

But, uh a woman wrote it so it's feminist now, I guess.

[Darth Richard II]

Apologies for the double post, my connection is BORKED today.

I could, and have, write pages and pages about everything wrong with Outlander and how I think its actually a very dangerous and harmful book, but others have. Errant Bard hits it really well on the head.

As for Weeks vs Erikson, I will freely admit, to paraphrase Scream 2, "I have a hardone for Malazan". And I find Weeks NAT to be, eh, it was decent, but to me the prose doesn't hold a candle to Erikson on a bad day.

I have yet to read Weeks new series, I have heard it is a noticeable improvement though.

Regards to Sanderson, uh, there was supposed to be witty dialogue on Wrath of Kings? Serious question.

Urban Fantasy Update!

I have the first Hanover, Midnight Riot, the first Iron Druid Chronicle whatever(shattered? hounded?), and does Thieftaker by Jackson count? So we'll see how they all go. Still can't bring myself to by Magic Bites....those covers!

[SilentRoamer]

The idea that anyone would consider Weeks in even the same league as Erikson makes my brain bleed.

Bleeding brains abound.

I found GotM really difficult to get into for some reason and while I did enjoy it I was not left wanting more. It wasnt the prose or the story I just felt like a load of things were tossed into a huge pot and lots of beings/species had an age ranging upto 100,000s of years and it just didn't get click for me. I didn't get a sense of any varied cultures, although Rake is awesome.

Nights Angel for me was a page turner and I bought the second and third books book straight away and read through them and enjoyed the series. Yeah its totally Teh Power Levelz Upgrades NinjaAssassin but it was original, fast paced and fun and held my attention. If you don't go to a Michael Bay movie to think you come out happy.

I think we have discussed that writing quality and subective personal enjoyment of a novel are not synonymous. What else am I judging the author on other than my own enjoyment of the books. Therefore the idea can be entirely palatable, subjectively speaking, of course.

Dont hate on me DR.

[Darth Richard II]

Well, I hate Michael Bay more than any other living person, so...

You know, in a way, the third Night Angel book was very Malazan like, what with

Giant statues coming to life and angels shooting lasers to fight a giant death goddess that wants, um, i forget, magic colored spheres or something, its been a while

[Lyanna Stark]

Wait, what? What history books have you been reading?

I have no idea, but probably not academic works? You'd had to think that a basic understanding of how economy works if nothing else would dissuade people from this dumb idea that half the women anywhere were prostitutes. But it was a Time of War, so stuff like agriculture, crafting etc. didn't exist. Instead the men bought sex and the women sold sex and nobody tilled the fields.

Lyanna - I wish there was a way to show you the screen shot of what Amazon is recommending to me right now. Seriously, it's way worse than I would have ever imagined, and I've even bought some normal stuff on there recently like some of the Accursed Kings books.

I will simply write the titles of what's down there. I dare not click on each one lest this new curse become more inescapable. But I hope you will look these up yourself so you appreciate what you've done.

Behold:

Touch of Frost by S.E. Smith

aHunter4Saken by Cynthia Clement

Wray by M.K. Eidem

Alien Mine by Marie Dry

Hahaha, Amazon is reccing me the same, more or less. The "Wray" one makes me laugh. It's amazing how Amazon bases so much more of its reccing based on browsing history than actual purchases btw.

[Errant Bard]

Zorral, when a work is supposed to be a great feminist one you cannot dismiss it with a "It's romance, what can you do" argument.

I brought up that one example because it represented what I felt permeated the book, that is:

• Rules come from men
• It is not only desirable but necessary for those rule to be obeyed
• Rules need to be enforced with violence
• Women have to submit to those rules
• A grown woman is to be treated the same as a child

And on top of that:

• It argues that people cannot truly understand if you don't use violence on them
• The heroine is revolted not because beating your wife is wrong but because she thought that her husband would make an exception for her
• The beating occurs because, also, everyone else (like, the hero's father) would have done the same

... So, not only is that book chanting that patriarchy should be submitted to, but it's also reactionary.

And yes, punishing your wife (can also be formulated "disciplining your wife") by beating her, even with a heavy heart*, is still beating her; why exactly do you think men think they beat their wife for, generally?

*Why would you do that anyway, it's going to get blood everywhere, and it'll probably make some icky squishy sound each time it hits the woman.

[Darth Richard II]

You forgot all the rampant homophobia.

[Lyanna Stark]

Zorral, when a work is supposed to be a great feminist one you cannot dismiss it with a "It's romance, what can you do" argument.

This is so weird. From the very beginning, I've heard the opposite about "Outlander" and I mean since the turn of the century or thereabouts. Apparently we are not alone in thinking that either, Errant Bard. I dunno, it confuses me when people describe it as a feminist work. It sounds more like what in "Beyond Heaving Bosoms" described as "old skool romance", i.e. the time when the heroes of romance novels were also often rapists, but they "got better".

Seems people often confuse an "active" heroine with a feminist one. If she complains and Does Stuff, even if it's dumbass shit, then she must be a Feminist heroine, while characters like Cat and Sansa, stuck navigating complex patriarchal rule sets and coming to realisations on how it limits them (Cat in that her daughters are "expendable" and Sansa when she realises she's a piece of meat on the marriage market and nobody loves her for herself), are disregarded. That sort of social consciousness, or inner journeys, seem to be seen as less overtly feminist than Girls Being Spunky and Mouthing Off. Even if the change of mindset and striving for agency are more important than being Spunky and Mouthing Off.

Anyways, there is so much better feminist romance, like "Shards of Honor" (SciFi tho, not Fantasy) and it's a page turner, despite being in the wrong genre.

You forgot all the rampant homophobia.

Only evil men are gay. Did you not get the memo?

[Errant Bard]

This is so weird. From the very beginning, I've heard the opposite about "Outlander" and I mean since the turn of the century or thereabouts. Apparently we are not alone in thinking that either, Errant Bard. I dunno, it confuses me when people describe it as a feminist work.

Ah, it's nice to see that it is not all in my mind. To be fair nobody described the book as feminist in this thread, I think, even though it indeed has that kind of cred in the outside world.

Seems people often confuse an "active" heroine with a feminist one. If she complains and Does Stuff, even if it's dumbass shit, then she must be a Feminist heroine

There is definitely this trend, more in the younger readership though, I think, to confuse a female character who is "one of the guys" with "a strong character". Taking on one of the traditional masculine attribute seems enough to be deemed strong... by extension, the women seem to only be recognized as worth anything if they can fight on par with a man, go forbid that there is mire than martial arts skills to life. This leads to irritating discussions when you get (to stay close to home) characters like Brienne, whose skill at arms is the least of the traits that make her a good character, or when you have characters like Arya being cheered down the murdering path and all her personality problems sweeped under the rug because, heh, outside violence there is no worth for a character. (Note: I am cheering too because I like the character study of a kid growing up to be a murdering villain, but thats not relevant)

Not sure about what feminism is, but I am fairly certain that a woman submitting to and working with the patriarchal mores is less of a feminist than one who defies them or tries to change them, even if it's right in her head. (Hence, for example, why I think Cersei's character was assassinated with AFFC: she went from a woman bitter about the limitations imposed by a sexist society on women but trying to break through to a crazy caricature who basically internalized that women are inferior but just thinks herself a man. Also screw personal reasons/personality: it was all because of a dumb prophecy, everyone knows women are not allowed to be normal villainous antagonists)

[Toblakai]

Zorral, when a work is supposed to be a great feminist one you cannot dismiss it with a "It's romance, what can you do" argument.

I brought up that one example because it represented what I felt permeated the book, that is:

• Rules come from men
• It is not only desirable but necessary for those rule to be obeyed
• Rules need to be enforced with violence
• Women have to submit to those rules
• A grown woman is to be treated the same as a child

And on top of that:

• It argues that people cannot truly understand if you don't use violence on them
• The heroine is revolted not because beating your wife is wrong but because she thought that her husband would make an exception for her
• The beating occurs because, also, everyone else (like, the hero's father) would have done the same

... So, not only is that book chanting that patriarchy should be submitted to, but it's also reactionary.

And yes, punishing your wife (can also be formulated "disciplining your wife") by beating her, even with a heavy heart*, is still beating her; why exactly do you think men think they beat their wife for, generally?

*Why would you do that anyway, it's going to get blood everywhere, and it'll probably make some icky squishy sound each time it hits the woman.

Last week, one of my wife's friends was planning to read Outlander because she heard it was "Game of Thrones for feminists". I tried to dissuade her of that notion (and from reading it at all) by mentioning some of these issues. But once she gets an idea in her head, it never leaves. So now that she is going into it thinking it will be a feminist novel, she will come out of it believing it. Sad. I am not really sure how my wife puts up with her.

[Zorral]

Zorral, when a work is supposed to be a great feminist one you cannot dismiss it with a "It's romance, what can you do" argument.

I brought up that one example because it represented what I felt permeated the book, that is:

• Rules come from men
• It is not only desirable but necessary for those rule to be obeyed
• Rules need to be enforced with violence
• Women have to submit to those rules
• A grown woman is to be treated the same as a child

And on top of that:

• It argues that people cannot truly understand if you don't use violence on them
• The heroine is revolted not because beating your wife is wrong but because she thought that her husband would make an exception for her
• The beating occurs because, also, everyone else (like, the hero's father) would have done the same

... So, not only is that book chanting that patriarchy should be submitted to, but it's also reactionary.

And yes, punishing your wife (can also be formulated "disciplining your wife") by beating her, even with a heavy heart*, is still beating her; why exactly do you think men think they beat their wife for, generally?

*Why would you do that anyway, it's going to get blood everywhere, and it'll probably make some icky squishy sound each time it hits the woman.

Um -- I never anywhere described Outlander as a feminist novel. I would describe it as historical romance fantasy, if I described it as anything. Nor do I know anyone who describes it as feminist. What, as mentioned earlier -- elsewhere! -- I don't recall now as this dicussion is going on in more than one place -- most of all I describe it as a contemporary exemplar of its time as the torture-comfort meme that so excited many female writers in the 90's pre 9/11 decade. And almost always, there's a significant homosexual component to these stories too -- see Anne Bishop's series, about which much fun is made, and no one claims as feminist (I've never read them though the publisher sent them all to me. I tried reading the first one and recoiled -- though I did not recoil from Outlander. That's probably because it is rooted in the 1740's. I have not liked the subsequent volumes and stopped reading with the War of Independence books. )

As I've mentioned elsewhere, even I missed the idea in 1991, despite having so many gay friends, that this novel is rampantly homophobic. Gabaldon says it's not: the Big Bad is a sadist, who happens to employ violent torture plus rape as part of his repetoire. And prison being prison, even today. Some of it is rooted in the antipathy of the time between the occupying English and the occupied Highlanders, and seems quite plausible in light of accounts of how the English - Brits in the military behaved. And there sure were many very prominent gay sadists in the military and the government at the time -- look at the arrest accounts in London and who got off and who did not, for such behaviors, even if they were arrested for abusing their inferiors, whether they were homosexual or so-called straight. This is the era of the Hellfire clubs, among others.

However, I do realize that these days there would be a great objection to such a character as Randall. But -- back when the book was published our gay friends under 40 loved Outlander, recommended it to each other and passed it around among each just as my straight female friends did. Just as all of us did with the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey-Maturin series.

Edited to Add: :agree: with Lyanna, about people who have come of age since 9/11 and those who wish to be identified with them though coming of age much earlier, that there is a big confusion about feminist being considered the same thing as an active female character. They are not, and they shouldn't be, particularly when set in eras not our own. This does not mean at all that there cannot be strong, active female protagonists of agency (though, in fact that is more woman-comprehending by far in our terms than a woman hacking people to death with great big swords). Claire is a woman of agency, she is active, she and Jamie share and punish turn-and-turn about, and they create a deeply felt, successful relationship -- within the context of that time -- just as Claire does with her husband Frank, in the context of their shared future.

And in no way is this a feminist GOT -- thank goddessa! These books have nothing in common.

[Darth Richard II]

Anne Bishop and Outlander are very often lauded as great works of feminist fiction, unfortunately. Fortunately it has never come up on this forum, I assume because people here aren't idiots.

This is why it baffled me so much that the author of Outlander, whose name escapes me, was on an Epic Fantasy Panel at comic con. There's no fantasy in there, unless you count the rape fantasy, or unless some of those later books start having orcs or dragons or something. And it sure as hell isn't epic.

And oh my God its nice to see people on here that share my thoughts about Outlander. It has some very ardent fans on here, that, thankfully, have not mentioned in here. It baffles me. It's like when I run across fellow fantasy fans outside here and they tell me how awesome Goodkind is.

[Cold Crashing Waves]

I've seen a lot of "Outlander is the feminist answer to GoT" type articles around lately. I haven't read Outlander, but ASOIAF is the most feminist/honest fantasy I've ever read.