From page 700 onward was my favorite part of the book. This is really funny, actually, because I'm pretty sure something you said in this thread was one of the contributing factors in me picking up the book in the first place.
I actually kind of forgot about this, since I haven't been reading it. I got the audiobook for Badass a while ago, and it's really fun to listen to. I listen to a chapter each morning while I eat breakfast.
EDIT: Also still reading The Judging Eye. I'm finding it kind of hard to get psyched to read this since I find Esmenet's stuff to be really boring. I end up not picking the book up for a few days whenever the story switches back to her.
American Gods might be one of the finest works I've ever read. I shiver with delight with every page, and my mind explodes with ideas for my own stories.
If I ever meet Neil Gaiman, I'm going to have him sign my shoulder blade. And then I'll get it tattooed over. Wouldn't be the first time it had happened.
Finally finished The Count of Monte Cristo. Only took half a year to read it, but I was very off and on about it. As Rym and others have said, it is amazing. Now I just need to put it on my bookshelf, make me seem all sophisticated and shit.
You know, it's funny because now The Count of Monte Cristo is seen as all high brow, but back when Dumas wrote it, it was like the new adventure pulp of the day.
You know, it's funny because nowThe Count of Monte Cristois seen as all high brow, but back when Dumas wrote it, it was like the new adventure pulp of the day.
It is still adventure pulp and the writing isn't so great (even in the original French), but because it is deemed a "classic" and it was written prior to 1970, it is hit with an erroneous stigma by anyone that hasn't read it.
Wasn't he paid by the page? I seem to remember Rym telling me something like that.
Also: I am slightly frustrated because Rym will not read any contemporary fiction, or much fiction in general. When we were talking about the book for the book club, I realized that most of his books are either large histories of the Romans and Napoleon or had dragons on the cover. He does have a bunch of Hemingway, though. It's his own prerogative, but I feel like he is missing out.
Wasn't he paid by the page? I seem to remember Rym telling me something like that.
Also: I am slightly frustrated because Rym will not read any contemporary fiction, or much fiction in general. When we were talking about the book for the book club, I realized that most of his books are either large histories of the Romans and Napoleon or had dragons on the cover. He does have a bunch of Hemingway, though. It's his own prerogative, but I feel like he is missing out.
I see nothing wrong with this *stares as his extensive Science/Classic Sci-fi/horror book collection*
You know, it's funny because nowThe Count of Monte Cristois seen as all high brow, but back when Dumas wrote it, it was like the new adventure pulp of the day.
It is still adventure pulp and the writing isn't so great (even in the original French), but because it is deemed a "classic" and it was written prior to 1970, it is hit with an erroneous stigma by anyone that hasn't read it.
You lie! I own a 26-volume collection of Dumas works, which has survived since 1903. The writing, as Emily mentioned, is slightly inflated because publishers in Dumas' time hadn't yet figured out that paying by the word is a bad idea. But The Three Musketeers is still one of the novels I feel compelled to revisit on an annual basis. Its structure has a narrative eloquence rarely paralleled by modern works.
To be fair, those books petered out pretty quickly, and only took about a day to read regardless. ^_~ I'm done with that series.
Besides, I just read Neuropath. I'm currently reading Cosmos (again). Before that I read HHGTTG again. I haven't yet read more than half of the books I already own, including a lot of my Heinlein, Asimov, and Simmons. Any new books are added to the bottom of the existing, many-years-old queue. I refuse to read multiple books simultaneously, as it dilutes the experience, and I always find myself caring about only one of them, the other becoming a chore by comparison.
ts structure has a narrative eloquence rarely paralleled by modern works.
His verbosity lends itself to a steady, unwavering narrative pace that I see few other authors attempt. The pace of the narrative never changes, regardless of the importance of the action to the story. Very nice and procedural.
I'm no expert here, but I can pretty much promise you that you won't get anything out of these books besides maybe some perspective on the history of scifi. I don't know what books Emily has recommended to you, but you should listen to her. As someone who only recently stopped reading science fiction/fantasy novels (Thanks to Kavalier and Klay, actually), I can guarantee you that there's more worthwhile literature out there than there is genre fiction.
I'm no expert here, but I can pretty much promise you that you won't get anything out of these books besides maybe some perspective on the history of scifi. I don't know what books Emily has recommended to you, but you should listen to her. As someone who only recently stopped reading science fiction/fantasy novels (Thanks toKavalier and Klay, actually), I can guarantee you that there's more worthwhile literature out there than there is genre fiction.
WHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAATTTTTTT THHHHHHHHHEEEEE FFFFFFFUUUUUUCCCCKKKKK IS WRONG WITH YOU. How can you dismiss two great classic authors and say your not an expert. Go back to your room. Read Stranger in a Strangeland or Foundation and come back when you know something about Classic sci-fi authors.
I'm no expert here, but I can pretty much promise you that you won't get anything out of these books besides maybe some perspective on the history of scifi. I don't know what books Emily has recommended to you, but you should listen to her. As someone who only recently stopped reading science fiction/fantasy novels (Thanks toKavalier and Klay, actually), I can guarantee you that there's more worthwhile literature out there than there is genre fiction.
WHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAATTTTTTT THHHHHHHHHEEEEE FFFFFFFUUUUUUCCCCKKKKK IS WRONG WITH YOU. Go back to your room. Read Stranger in a Strangeland or Foundation and come back when you know something about Classic sci-fi authors.
Or Starship Troopers, one of the most influential military science fictions novels ever.
I've read Foundation and honestly I don't think there's anything valuable in that novel outside of the context of science fiction. That's my problem with
Starship Troopers
as well. The only reason for me to read Starship Troopers today would be for me to say "Oh hey, space marines. Other people got that from here."
But to each his own, like I said I just recently stopped reading science fiction after I realized I enjoy literature more, so it basically all comes down to personal tastes. I was just trying to convince Rym to skip those books so I could hear his opinions on a different type of literature sooner.
I've read Foundation and honestly I don't think there's anything valuable in that novel outside of the context of science fiction. That's my problem with
Starship Troopers
as well. The only reason for me to read Starship Troopers today would be for me to say "Oh hey, space marines. Other people got that from here."
You mean apart from the fact that it influenced the American military to become full volunteer instead of conscription based and the fact that it help framed the structure of today's modern day military doctrine which focuses more on highly trained individuals with exceptional equipment instead of massed infantry.
You know, it's funny because nowThe Count of Monte Cristois seen as all high brow, but back when Dumas wrote it, it was like the new adventure pulp of the day.
It is still adventure pulp and the writing isn't so great (even in the original French), but because it is deemed a "classic" and it was written prior to 1970, it is hit with an erroneous stigma by anyone that hasn't read it.
You lie! I own a 26-volume collection of Dumas works, which has survived since 1903. The writing, as Emily mentioned, is slightly inflated because publishers in Dumas' time hadn't yet figured out that paying by the word is a bad idea. But The Three Musketeers is still one of the novels I feel compelled to revisit on an annual basis. Its structure has a narrative eloquence rarely paralleled by modern works.
My comment was in regard to Monte Cristo, which is not nearly as good (IMO) as some of Dumas' other works. The reason that Dumas and many "classic" authors such as Dickens were paid by word or page was owing to the fact that their "novels" were originally serialized or published in newspapers/magazines. Sometimes they were re-edited to be packaged as novels, but even that editing would mostly just lump the works together into chapters without actually trimming the fat. Dumas' style and wit was innovative and fresh in his day, I will not deny, but to call his style eloquent seems overstating. He has a lightness in his work at times that is quite refreshing, but his meandering plots (particularly in Monte Cristo) and occasional breaks from his light style in order to force minimal development of his rather one dimensional characters does dull the shine on his work at times. I am certainly not saying the novels are trash or shouldn't be considered as classics, but they are pulpy action novels whose light characters and themes are weighted down by undirected plot.
EDIT: Rym, if you like classic works and are looking to explore more, may I recommend the majority of E. M. Forster's work. A Passage to India and Maurice are my favorites of his works, but his earlier works are highly enjoyable, too.
You mean apart from the fact that it influenced the American military to become full volunteer instead of conscription based and the fact that it help framed the structure of today's modern day military doctrine which focuses more on highly trained individuals with exceptional equipment instead of massed infantry.
Yeah admittedly I'm totally talking out of my ass here because I just want Rym to read some contemporary literature.
I'm sticking with my recommendation of Catch-22 as a book club book after Cosmos, like I said in the "Show Ideas" thread. I know that Scott, at least, has already read it, but it's definitely a good enough book.
Besides, I just read Neuropath. I'm currently reading Cosmos (again). Before that I read HHGTTG again. I haven't yet read more than half of the books I already own, including a lot of my Heinlein, Asimov, and Simmons. Any new books are added to the bottom of the existing, many-years-old queue. I refuse to read multiple books simultaneously, as it dilutes the experience, and I always find myself caring about only one of them, the other becoming a chore by comparison.
I'll grant you that Heinlein and Asimov are worthwhile reads. I read a ton of classic SciFi, but I do feel that there is something to be said for broadening your horizons. There are so many different voices and styles that I feel that you are missing. One of the things I find interesting is that while I read a fair amount of non-fiction, they tend to be more often essays about personal experiences than an analysis of the broad sweeping scope of a historical period. It's the same way I feel about Lord of the Rings. It's one of my favorite movies, but I like to watch all sorts of movies, some realistic, some not, some documentaries, some narratives.
It's kind of sad to see that some people are down on Dumas' work, cause I really enjoyed The Count of Monte Cristo. I'm not going to lie when I say that I typically only read about 3 books a year, and for the last few years those have been pretty much taken by the Wheel of Time series. I greatly enjoy good books, like R Scott Bakker's books, but I just don't read enough to really compare a lot of authors to others. For me, reading Monte Cristo was awesome purely from a dialogue perspective because I haven't read anything else like it, not even in high school or college classes. Those were very traditional, and this was like that middle ground between the classical literature and modern literature. That's really all I can say about it in my drunken state.
I read for escape, and so rarely go outside of escapist literature. That means a lot of sci-fi and fantasy novels. Notable exceptions include classics, Vonnegut, John Irving, and Gregory McDonald's Fletch mysteries.
But may I suggest a change of pace? I just got done re-reading Steve Almond's Candy Freak, a very out-of-the-ordinary foray into the non-fiction realm. This guy can write -- he's a Boston English professor -- and he's obsessed with candy. Not just your Snickers and Kit Kat Darks, but the novel is about him lamenting the loss of childhood sweets and the disappearance of the companies that make them. He tours several different candy factories and finds weird, regional varieties.
Don't read Stranger in a Strange Land or Foundation. Both authors wrote far better novels, which stand up far better today, while these two are quite dated. Try The Caves of Steel and Have Spacesuit, Will Travel.
Comments
Reading the Emperor's Children by Claire Messud.
EDIT: Also still reading The Judging Eye. I'm finding it kind of hard to get psyched to read this since I find Esmenet's stuff to be really boring. I end up not picking the book up for a few days whenever the story switches back to her.
If I ever meet Neil Gaiman, I'm going to have him sign my shoulder blade. And then I'll get it tattooed over. Wouldn't be the first time it had happened.
Also: I am slightly frustrated because Rym will not read any contemporary fiction, or much fiction in general. When we were talking about the book for the book club, I realized that most of his books are either large histories of the Romans and Napoleon or had dragons on the cover. He does have a bunch of Hemingway, though. It's his own prerogative, but I feel like he is missing out.
Besides, I just read Neuropath. I'm currently reading Cosmos (again). Before that I read HHGTTG again. I haven't yet read more than half of the books I already own, including a lot of my Heinlein, Asimov, and Simmons. Any new books are added to the bottom of the existing, many-years-old queue. I refuse to read multiple books simultaneously, as it dilutes the experience, and I always find myself caring about only one of them, the other becoming a chore by comparison.
But to each his own, like I said I just recently stopped reading science fiction after I realized I enjoy literature more, so it basically all comes down to personal tastes. I was just trying to convince Rym to skip those books so I could hear his opinions on a different type of literature sooner.
I am certainly not saying the novels are trash or shouldn't be considered as classics, but they are pulpy action novels whose light characters and themes are weighted down by undirected plot.
EDIT: Rym, if you like classic works and are looking to explore more, may I recommend the majority of E. M. Forster's work. A Passage to India and Maurice are my favorites of his works, but his earlier works are highly enjoyable, too.
But may I suggest a change of pace? I just got done re-reading Steve Almond's Candy Freak, a very out-of-the-ordinary foray into the non-fiction realm. This guy can write -- he's a Boston English professor -- and he's obsessed with candy. Not just your Snickers and Kit Kat Darks, but the novel is about him lamenting the loss of childhood sweets and the disappearance of the companies that make them. He tours several different candy factories and finds weird, regional varieties.