April '08 Reading Thread

[Isis]

I finished K J Parker's Engineer trilogy last night.

It rocked my world. More so than anything else I've read in AGES and AGES. I might even like it better than ASOIAF... (may change my mind about that as time passes). Anyway, love it. :love:

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

[quote name='Isis' post='1310239' date='Apr 11 2008, 14.12']I finished K J Parker's Engineer trilogy last night.

It rocked my world. More so than anything else I've read in AGES and AGES. I might even like it better than ASOIAF... (may change my mind about that as time passes). Anyway, love it. :love:[/quote]
Did you ever read her [b]Fencer[/b] trilogy? I tried to read the first book right after finishing A Storm of Swords, but I had to put it down after fifty pages since the writing and characterization felt insufferably shallow and simplistic compared to Martin.

[DrBloodmoney]

Just finished up Scott Sigler's [i]Infected[/i]. Great fast fun read. Sci-fi thriller - I'm really looking forward to the sequels. Haven't heard much about this in the sf/f community yet. Preston/Child, Huston, King (definitely King fans) and Richard K. Morgan fans should look for this one.

Starting up [i]The Born Queen[/i] by Greg Keyes.

Also working through [i]Wastelands[/i] from Night Shade Books which is excellent so far (about halfway through).

[OverHill]

[quote name='freixenet' post='1310243' date='Apr 11 2008, 15.19']Did you ever read her [b]Fencer[/b] trilogy? I tried to read the first book right after finishing A Storm of Swords, but I had to put it down after fifty pages since the writing and characterization felt insufferably shallow and simplistic compared to Martin.[/quote]
Second that question. I have read two books in the Fencer trilogy, and would like to know how the Engineer trilogy compares.

[Isis]

[quote name='freixenet' post='1310243' date='Apr 11 2008, 14.19']Did you ever read her [b]Fencer[/b] trilogy? I tried to read the first book right after finishing A Storm of Swords, but I had to put it down after fifty pages since the writing and characterization felt insufferably shallow and simplistic compared to Martin.[/quote]No. The Engineer trilogy was my first experience. People have told me bad things about the other two trilogies, so I'm a tad hesitant to try them. And that works the other way too: I've tried getting people (who've already tried one of the first two trilogies) to read this one and they just aren't convinced by my ravings.

[Isis]

[quote name='OverHill' post='1310282' date='Apr 11 2008, 15.05']Second that question. I have read two books in the Fencer trilogy, and would like to know how the Engineer trilogy compares.[/quote]I'm afraid I can't compare. :( I can only say that I was highly impressed with the most recent trilogy. The themes appeal to me in a big way though, so maybe others might not enjoy it AS MUCH as I did. I have to say that I thought the writing was of a very high standard too. And I don't say that very often.

[IheartTesla]

I just began reading [i]Winterbirth[/i] by Ruckley, but I just cant get into it. To me it seemed just like another book with some faux-European medieval setting and names that are heavily influenced by Celtic/Gaelic/Scottish history.

I also finished [i]Last Argument of Kings[/i] and I plan to give my impressions in the thread about it. What a depressing book though!

[Calibandar]

Cyrano

[quote]I just began reading Winterbirth by Ruckley, but I just cant get into it. To me it seemed just like another book with some faux-European medieval setting and names that are heavily influenced by Celtic/Gaelic/Scottish history.[/quote]

Well that [b]is [/b]part of what it is, definitly. I enjoyed it however, partly because of those things, rather than inspite of them.

Dylan

I have dropped Ford's name a couple of times, I am fond of him as well but he is not an author that many have read or seem compelled to.

On topic, I just finished the astounding [b]The Enemy of God [/b]by Bernard Cornwell, which is better than book 1, [i]The Winter King[/i]. I have significant quibbles with Cornwell's portrayals of my two favorite Arthurian characters ( Merlin and Arthur) and think they have been done better elsewhere, but outside of that his characterization, plotting and pacing leaves nothing to be desired. Quite superb. This is really Derfel's tale rather than Arthur's and he does a splendid job with it and various other characters.

[Mexal]

I'm now on Part 2 of [b]Last Argument of Kings[/b]. I'm loving it so far. Such a fantastic series.

[Bellis]

Some more non-SF

[b]The Quiet American[/b] by Grahame Greene. Brilliant allegory of American and British foreign policy, quick read too, and very cinematic in style. Glad I got around to trying out some Greene, and look for me to be reading more.

[b]Atonement[/b] by Ian McEwan. Beautifully written, ponderously slow, and I really can't see how this could have made a good movie (haven't seen it and have no desire to). Don't get me wrong - it's a great read, really about the nature of storytelling and memory, but I cannot see it being easy to adapt, and maintain the same tone. I liked Briony quite a bit, and didn't really warm to the sister or the love interest (in fact I couldn't quite buy the romance), which doesn't seem to be the popular reaction from those who saw the movie.

[b]The Unbearable Lightness of Being[/b] - Kundara. More a philosophical rumination than a novel, I found this much more interesting than, say, the Nietchze I read last week. Deceptively simple, it's one of those books you want to re-read the second you finish. There's so much in here. This is a keeper.

Coming up... mostly more non-SF classics from the Victorian and modern periods.

[Muttering Bill]

[quote name='freixenet' post='1310243' date='Apr 11 2008, 08.19']Did you ever read her [b]Fencer[/b] trilogy? I tried to read the first book right after finishing A Storm of Swords, but I had to put it down after fifty pages since the writing and characterization felt insufferably shallow and simplistic compared to Martin.[/quote]
I haven't read the [i]Fencer [/i]Trilogy, but I will second that the [i]Engineer [/i]is fantastic.

The characterization is a little weak in that nobody really shows any emotion; whenever something bad happens they just curl up into some self-reflective depression and brood over it for a while before deciding that it doesn't really matter. There is the occasional display, but so rare that she might as well not have bothered. Other than that, I found the characters to be nicely varied, some likeable (Valens and Miel) others deliberately unlikeable (Vaatzes and Daurenja).

She is extremely detailed about everything: characters personalities and idiosyncrasies, engineering and metal-working, hunting and battle strategies, governmental structures... Basically, if it's in the books, it's been broken down to the most minute detail. But not in a tell-not-show way.

Because of the massive amounts of infodumping, it can be really tough to get into. But the story was, for me at least, well worth the effort. A touch anticlimactic at the end of [i]The Escapement[/i]; it made sense, it just seemed a little underdeveloped compared to the rest of the story.

I put Parker on a level with Bakker - I had the same difficulties getting into them, but when it was all done, I was satisfied for the experience.

[center]----------[/center]
Anyway, to check in with my own reading...

I read about 100 pages of TA Pratt's [i]Blood Engines [/i]before I couldn't take anymore. She just spent the whole time telling me how clever and bad-ass her character was, without actually doing anything. She tried so hard to be edgy, but it came out flat.

So I just finished Butcher's [i]Blood Rites [/i]([i]Dresden Files [/i]6). As usual it was very good.

Now starting Abercrombie's [i]Before They are Hanged[/i]. Hoping that I like it better than I did [i]The Blade Itself[/i].

[duchess of malfi]

The only books of Parker's I have read are her Scavenger Trilogy. I thought it was staggeringly boring. I made it though the first two books, but could only force myself to skim the third to see if everything turned out the way I predicted (and it did). I donated those books to my local library. I admit I would be reluctant to try other books by her, on the basis of those three. I've been hearing a lot of love for the Engineer Trilogy, though. :)

In between Red Wings playoff games I hope to get started on LeGuin's [i]Lavinia[/i] this weekend. :) I'm pretty excited to read it. :) I've also been reading the latest of Cleo Coyl's Coffeehouse Mysteries, called [i]French Pressed[/i]. I like those books because they are set in a charming historic coffeehouse in my favorite part of NYC, Greenwich Village. They are short, light reads, and I can carry them around in my purse and read them at breaks at work.

[gyrehead]

[quote]Did you ever read her Fencer trilogy? I tried to read the first book right after finishing A Storm of Swords, but I had to put it down after fifty pages since the writing and characterization felt insufferably shallow and simplistic compared to Martin.[/quote]

I'm probably sticking an unwanted oar in then. I've read all of Parker's work and in the order in which it was written. For me the Fencer series starts out slow, but I never found her more shallow and simplistic than Martin. Actually the reverse in many regards as to her characterizations. I do think she is much more subtle in style in her characters particularly because she isn't doing a different type of story than Martin is. Martin needs to have blinds and false leads and even when presenting a character through povs needs to obsfucate and deceive. Don't get me wrong. I adore this type of thing when done right and I think Martin does a fairly decent job.

I do think that Parker's story tends to have a certain flatness in the first Fencer book and that flatness seems to arise in other parts of the series for me. I think Parker and especially the Fencer trilogy is an acquired taste. Not so much in quality let alone am I implying intellect. Just that it is definitely a book I don't think is for everyone. It is a bit too dry sometimes and the goals for the final denouement are pretty much drive everything.

The Engineer Trilogy I think is a bit more refined. A bit more focused. There are less extraneous parts to deal with. Like the machines she writes about, every part fits somehow.

One thing I like about Parker is that she can surprise without me feeling she went out of her way to do so. Some authors seem to delight in a surprise and either doesn't work because they have no talent for developing credible twists or they go out of their way to trick readers with fake povs and false premises they put forth as true. I never felt Parker did that in any of her work to date and still there are some moments that I was caught off guard which I like.

Long, long story short? I'm not sure that going back in Parker's work is necessarily the best way to approach it. Similarities abound, but flaws that could be hurdles are also much more evident in the earlier works. I think her work has improved considerably in narrative and that is one of the biggest sticking points I seem to see with most readers who didn't like the first series.

[Peadar]

I've just finished a novella by the excellent Gene O'Neill, called "The Confession of St. Zach".

Next up. [url="http://www.amazon.com/Julian-Novel-Gore-Vidal/dp/037572706X/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207939626&sr=8-1"]Julian[/url], by Gore Vidal.

[TheHoundRules]

Just finished [i]The Count of Monte Cristo[/i]. Brilliant. Absolutely, brialliant.

Started [i]All Quiet on the Western Front[/i]. I am about halfway done. So far it is excellent.

[TakLoufer]

So far I have to say the writing in [i]The Belly of the Bow[/i] is much more refined than [i]The Colours in the Steel[/i]. She isn't switching between povs in mid-paragraph as much as before and the info dumps seem to flow more logically (or at least fit into the story as opposed to being boring lectures on mechanics). I've heard bad reviews on BotB, but I don't see it, at least not so far, but then I am only 170 pages in or so.

After I finish [i]The Proof House,[/i] I'm debating on whether to read Parker's next series (The Scavanger Trilogy) skip on to the Engineer Trilogy instead. I really haven't heard anything [i]good[/i] about the Scanvanger Trilogy, but then I haven't heard much about it at all.

[duchess of malfi]

[quote name='TakLoufer' post='1310675' date='Apr 11 2008, 14.22']After I finish [i]The Proof House,[/i] I'm debating on whether to read Parker's next series (The Scavanger Trilogy) skip on to the Engineer Trilogy instead. I really haven't heard anything [i]good[/i] about the Scanvanger Trilogy, but then I haven't heard much about it at all.[/quote]

I found the Scavenger Trilogy to be one of the most boring things I have ever tried to read. I couldn't do more than skim the third book, after struggling to read the first two.

However - everyone's tastes are different, and others might love what bored me. :)

[williamjm]

[quote name='swedeheadchris' post='1310168' date='Apr 11 2008, 12.01']Just reviewed [b]Roger Zelazny[/b]'s [i]Lord of Light[/i], and damn, if it isn't one of the best SF/Fantasy novels I've ever read! Combing Hindu religion with science fiction ... and an unforgivable pun ("The fit hit the Shan")...[/quote]

Lord of Light is a superb book, although I felt the start was a bit slow and needlessly confusing before it goes back in a flashback to actually explain the story. I also agree the pun is really, really bad :)

(from the review)
[quote]When I picked up my copy it must have been a special edition reprint because, apart from the above cover art looking completely different to the normal edition, the book had rounded edges and the blurb was written horizontally across the back. And it looks great.[/quote]

They've recently reprinted a lot of the Science Fiction masterworks books in this format. The new style is an interesting novelty, although I think I preferred the old editions.

[IheartTesla]

[quote name='Calibandar' post='1310374' date='Apr 11 2008, 10.29']Cyrano

Well that [b]is [/b]part of what it is, definitly. I enjoyed it however, partly because of those things, rather than inspite of them.[/quote]

Well, it's partly my frame of mind. I was tired when I picked up the book and perhaps a little irritable too - and I was more excited about [i]First Law[/i] to be honest. I might give Ruckley a more careful perusal this weekend.

[Werthead]

[b]The Fencer Trilogy[/b] is good but lacks much emotional heart. If you've read [i]American Gods[/i], imagine if every single character in a series was identical to Shadow: flat, deals with stuff without comment or complaint, doesn't react with surprise or fear or anger, but just keeps on trucking. That's pretty much every character in this trilogy. It also has some of the strangest - and most blatantly contrived - characterisation I have ever encountered.

SPOILER: The Fencer Trilogy

Baradas brutally murders his brother and fashions his bones and guts into a bow at the end of Book 2. Absolutely nothing at all in the entriety of Book 1 or Book 2 prior to this point gives even the slightest indication he is capable of such a heinous act, and neither does he do anything similar in Book 3. It's a completely out-of-character, out-of-the-blue moment of pure randomness, as is the murder of the main antagonist at the end of Book 3. It's not surprising that his own people would want to execute him, but there is no build-up to the event. It just happens because the writer thought it was a good way to finish the series.

Parker also doesn't do good worldbuilding:

SPOILER: The Fencer Trilogy

In Book 3 we learn that a gigantic empire is expanding towards the site of the Triple City from the first book and that this empire is the vastest, most badass nation-state on the planet and everyone trades with it and everyone knows about. The only problem is that it is never mentioned at all in Book 1 and I think is only very briefly mentioned in Book 2 towards the end. It's quite obvious Parker just came up with it on the fly and shoved it in there. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it's just rather contrived.

That all said, I actually quite liked the series. The siege in Book 1 was great and you'll learn a hell of a lot about sword-making, bow-making and armour-smithing, probably as much as from some textbooks. The thematic use of the three fields to give the three novels their storylines and structures is also highly intriguing and quite unusual. It's just that the characters are so lifeless that it's hard to give a damn about them. It's the same criticism as I have of Ian Irvine: the author has gone to such lengths to make all the characters 'grey' and 'edgy' that they've accidentally bled all the colour and vitality out of them. Parker's world is less original than Irvine's but her writing is much better and she doesn't suffer from his diarrohea of irrelevant detail.

In summary, [b]The Fencer Trilogy[/b] is good, but not great. And she is not on the same level as GRRM when it comes to character-building.