I'm going to try out Reaper Man. I've tried other Discworld novels in the past, and I've never managed to make it past the third or fourth chapter of any of them.
I'm going to try out Reaper Man. I've tried other Discworld novels in the past, and I've never managed to make it past the third or fourth chapter of any of them.
Really? Why not?
I suppose our tastes probably differ; I've read all of them.
I've been reading 10 billion day & 100 billion nights by Ryu Mitsuse during lunches, it's interesting. It's "short" stories which look like they may be essentially chapters of a larger story. They're also well written, in a style that seems to leave a lot unsaid and for pondering. I get the feeling it would be up Scryms collective alleys in that.
I'm about to finish The Hunger Games, 300 pages in one night. It looked short and it's a borrowed book so I wanted to burn through it quickly. For the first couple chapters the really... low complexity verbage was off-putting. At this point it's not bugging me anymore. Maybe that's just a symptom of having read the prince of nothing and aspect emperor books or maybe those lengthy philosophical or economic papers I've been going through.
I like the story alright, but it's pulling some major punches and just does not compare to some other stories with some similar elements.
I'm going to try out Reaper Man. I've tried other Discworld novels in the past, and I've never managed to make it past the third or fourth chapter of any of them.
Really? Why not?
I suppose our tastes probably differ; I've read all of them.
There was nothing within those chapters that I found interesting or particularly entertaining, and I never a fan of prepared puns and wordplay. Puns and wordplay are really fun in spontaneous conversation, or when delivered by a comedian, but spoken by characters in a novel winds me up the wrong way.
I know there must be so much good stuff in the Discworld novels, or else they wouldn't be so popular. It just never grabbed me. I've read some non-diskworld Pratchet novels and enjoyed them though, so I know it isn't a problem with the author.
I think the Hunger Games takes punch pulling to a level unseen in any other story. That said, I read it and really enjoyed it.
Finished it this morning. I did enjoy it, and there were a couple really good spots in the book (mostly sad stuff). But yes... punches were pulled. Every single one of them.
Do we want to get into spoilers or not? I have some thoughts on it... but I'm having trouble tip-toeing around them without blatantly saying "Like X but Y".
The violence isn't particularly soft, but the main characters are allowed to avoid inflicting said violence, to make sure the readers can identify with them. It's as though the message of the book is "Even in a terrible situation, if you keep doing the right thing, you'll win out in the end!"
I've not read Battle Royale, only watched the movie, but Hunger Games focuses waaaaay more on the reality TV aspects, and the competitors use all the same tactics we see in modern reality TV show contests, rather than just on paper-rock-scissors (where paper=gun, rock=rock, and scissors=scissors).
The violence isn't particularly soft, but the main characters are allowed to avoid inflicting said violence, to make sure the readers can identify with them.
I wonder, should the reader identify with the protaganist? It seems like one of the possible interpretations of her can be summarized in one of Peata's lines about her being an extremly well liked and desirable person that everyone wants to help, and she doesn't have any awareness of this at-all. I couldn't figure out if this was supposed to be the morale or something... "People like you! Don't be a dick and they will all take care of you!"
Also I've never read or watched twilight, but apparently people think there were a lot of parallels. I wouldn't know, just remitting.
Edit: And a lot of people think that some of the really shoddy parts of the book were great... things like "Love always wins in the end..." Really? That's what people are walking away with? I just shouldn't read "young adult" novels, I think, because my confusion seems to stem from thinking there was more to it than that.
Just started A Dance with Dragons. It's pretty alright so far. I can't really say more without spoiling everything that came before.
Also reading Lost to the West, Lars Brownworth's (the Five Byzantine Rulers guy) book about the Byzantine Empire. It has the same good writing as the podcast, and really expands upon it. I highly recommend it.
Wait, so it's basically a softened up Battle Royale? That's what all this fuss is about?
No, They're pretty different. There are a few similarities(Unless you simplify it to the point of absurdity), but they're mostly matters of the world, rather than anything to do with the character or events we're reading about, for example, in both cases, the BR/Games are used for the purpose of controlling the populace by a tyrannical government.
No, They're pretty different. There are a few similarities(Unless you simplify it to the point of absurdity), but they're mostly philosophical, for example, in both cases, the BR/Games are used for the purpose of controlling the populace by a tyrannical government.
They are different in terms of writing style, intent, method, allegory, the authors skills, and various other things. But they are both very similar in terms of the primary literary devices they use, the plot, and setting.
Having not read the english version and not the original Japanese, I'm inclined to think Takagi's book is technically more interesting but clearly not quite as financially viable. The Hunger Games is very clearly intended at the young adult genre, which I (at least intuitively) feel informed a huge amount of the story and writing.
Does that match with your assessment? Or not? I'm somewhat craving to find my intuitions wrong in some way... but all the background opinions I'm finding are largely proving my intuitions right.
Wait, so it's basically a softened up Battle Royale? That's what all this fuss is about?
No, They're pretty different. There are a few similarities(Unless you simplify it to the point of absurdity), but they're mostly matters of the world, rather than anything to do with the character or events we're reading about, for example, in both cases, the BR/Games are used for the purpose of controlling the populace by a tyrannical government.
Yeah, I completely disagree with Luke's characterization. Katniss does end up killing people. Lots of people, especially by the end of the trilogy. The books also explore the idea that freedom is often an illusion used by people to control you for their own purposes. It's pretty dark for YA, and it's not exactly what I'd call a happy ending. I mean, if you count "well, we're alive but forever emotionally scarred and psychologically fucked up to the point that simply existing in isolation from the rest of society is a laudable feat" as a happy ending then you have some serious issues.
Also, it's YA. WTF do you people want? It's not going to have serious hardcore gore and sex and black hole vaginas.
To take up Luke's point, and only referring to the first novel, Katniss never had to kill anyone that wasn't clearly on the "enemy" side of the line. Rue, other guy from Rue's district, and "Foxface" are all removed without Katniss intervention. She directly killed the one (nameless?) boy who had just killed a completely innocent twelve year old girl. Everything else was luck and happenstance. It was as if the author wrote her way out of any real moral questions.
That's what I mean was missing as a "YA" novel. The author presented interesting questions... then resolved them via Deus Ex Machina to keep it "age appropriate"... at least thats the way it seems to me right now. It has nothing to do with gore and sex, it has to do with presenting a potentially very interesting story... and then backing off and skirting around conflicts by resolving them in ways that avoids the question.
Peata had a more serious story. He killed one girl (finished her off) in cold blood early in the story. But that's not dwelled on (at least in the first book).
No, They're pretty different. There are a few similarities(Unless you simplify it to the point of absurdity), but they're mostly philosophical, for example, in both cases, the BR/Games are used for the purpose of controlling the populace by a tyrannical government.
They are different in terms of writing style, intent, method, allegory, the authors skills, and various other things. But they are both very similar in terms of the primary literary devices they use, the plot, and setting.
Having not read the english version and not the original Japanese, I'm inclined to think Takagi's book is technically more interesting but clearly not quite as financially viable. The Hunger Games is very clearly intended at the young adult genre, which I (at least intuitively) feel informed a huge amount of the story and writing.
Does that match with your assessment? Or not? I'm somewhat craving to find my intuitions wrong in some way... but all the background opinions I'm finding are largely proving my intuitions right.
Yes and no. I'd agree about the method, Literary devices and allegory, but I can't speak for the author's intent nor the author's skills, the latter because I can't read Japanese well enough(or at all, really) to read the original BR as written. I've read translations, but it's hard to say if something was lost in the process. Not to say there is anything wrong with doing so, I'm just saying I'm not willing to.
I disagree about the plot and setting. The plot in BR is just about untrained and unprepared kids trying to survive the program and escape to the US, whereas in HG, It's about an improbably competent heroine surviving the games and subverting the government. The games are only a primary focus in the first book, the later two are more focused on the rebellion.
The settings are different - BR, it's a near-future alternate timeline Japan, and the world is meant to be mostly intact. HG, it's a far future post-apocalyptic wasteland, destroyed by bombs and chemical weapons, with genetically engineered, weaponized animals loose in the world. The Program was started to scare the shit out of angry youths and for military research, with most of it not being broadcast to the world, the Games were created to Pacify and Punish the Districts after a war they lost, to remind them that the capitol is firmly on top - a Whipping post for the entire world we're introduced to, that is mandatory viewing. The levels of technology are different - almost all of the tech in BR, we could make right now. HG, we couldn't.
You're right, Hunger games is intended for young adults, and BR is more broadly aimed. Can't speak about
I definitely wouldn't say the Hunger Games Ripped of BR, or is a softened version of - Simply because they're different books with the same theme, but aside from that BR doesn't own the idea, it was preceded by similar concepts and ideas all the way back to the Bread and Circuses of Roman times.
Is Katniss competent? She could feed herself and shoot people, but it felt like her victory hinged on outside intervention. Rue, Previous Winner Guy, Peata in some form, District 11 Guy. Remove them and she died six times. Remove the luck factor and we still have "Foxface", Cato, and technically unnamed district 3 guy. It's all an interesting mess (which is a good point, in my opinion), but I'm just addressing the idea that her skills were really game winning. I'm not sure (which is a good thing about the book, in my opinion).
It seemed like I was supposed to walk away thinking she was (from the beginning) a bit of a borderline psychopath... but everyone still likes her for some reason.
Well, she's got what I'd call Deus Ex Competencey - If it's a situation that's important, she's suddenly hyper-competent until it's over. She comes across berries, she knows they're poisonous, because her dad taught her, and yet she doesn't spot tracker jackers till it's too late. She HAS to make a shot with a bow? She'll never miss. She can track and hunt the other players perfectly when the plot dictates she should, but is grossly incompetent the rest of the time. Her woodscraft is better than anyone else's, even though her woodscraft is pretty god-awful if you know the outdoors - the one case where it's less Deus ex competency than just everyone else having a pocket full of idiot pills. Someone who appears to be clueless and self involved when it comes to other people somehow figures out perfectly the system that her mentor is using to send her messages, with no prior instruction.
As for why people like her? Well, we're kinda told to like her. Everyone around her thinks she's fantastic, for the most part. The bad guys are SUPER EXTRA EVIL to make them worse than her, so that we're discouraged from liking them. The only Mildly ambiguous thing that happens is really at the very end, where one of the main secondary characters dies, and it's not explicitly said who is responsible beyond the person who gives the order to do it, and swiftly receives their comeuppance. And and arrow in the throat, but that's hardly a spoiler, you kinda expect it.
I'd really have to re-read both to get too detailed about it, I read them a while ago, and I read BR years ago.
The biggest put off for me was seeing an interview with the author. She came across as kind of a douche. That could just be me but I really felt that she though that she had written this ground breaking work.
It's been a long time since I've read for pleasure, or done much else for pleasure of that matter; That's the nature of depression. I can physically read fine, my problem lies in my mood changing rapidly causing a book to stop a book and never pick it up again.
Growing up, my mother and sister were big readers and didn't seem to come into a lot of sci-fi so I never really viewed books as my thing and wasn't really exposed to much else.
I bought a Sony PRS-505 with a dead battery recently and it is now happily charging away on my desk with it's new battery. While it will probably see most use from manga, comics, and technical books, I would like to give fiction another go.
In my youth, I got a decent way through Dune and a few Pern books so I've stuck those on but can people point me to anything else you think I should try?
As for themes I like: Otoyomegatari has got me on a real kick for Victorian/Imperialist era stuff. I like hard sci-fi, things like Planetes as well as good old fashioned lasers and psycics stuff. Never really been that taken with fantasy. Recently saw one of the Bourne films so I'm thinking about giving spy stories a go.
@ Omnutia For all the books I have read lately, one of the most entertaining was actually The Lies of Locke Lamora. I could recommend a ton more, but that's my one for ya.
They're about equally good, with the same strengths and the same flaws. Decent reads, but not nearly as compelling as the Prince of Nothing series. They're both contrived and somewhat anti-climactic stories that really only serve to illustrate some philosophical points about knowledge and human consciousness.
Of course, philosophy is inherently anti-climactic in the real world, as compared to fantasy, where the contrived situations can be set up such that proper conclusions can be reached, so perhaps this is entirely intentional. One could say that his realistic stories are there to illustrate the futility of such discussions in the real world. ;^)
Comments
I suppose our tastes probably differ; I've read all of them.
I like the story alright, but it's pulling some major punches and just does not compare to some other stories with some similar elements.
I know there must be so much good stuff in the Discworld novels, or else they wouldn't be so popular. It just never grabbed me. I've read some non-diskworld Pratchet novels and enjoyed them though, so I know it isn't a problem with the author.
Execution: the kid who accidentally doesn't get killed and who never needs to kill others wins! Sigh.
That's what all this fuss is about?
I've not read Battle Royale, only watched the movie, but Hunger Games focuses waaaaay more on the reality TV aspects, and the competitors use all the same tactics we see in modern reality TV show contests, rather than just on paper-rock-scissors (where paper=gun, rock=rock, and scissors=scissors).
Also I've never read or watched twilight, but apparently people think there were a lot of parallels. I wouldn't know, just remitting.
Edit: And a lot of people think that some of the really shoddy parts of the book were great... things like "Love always wins in the end..." Really? That's what people are walking away with? I just shouldn't read "young adult" novels, I think, because my confusion seems to stem from thinking there was more to it than that.
Also reading Lost to the West, Lars Brownworth's (the Five Byzantine Rulers guy) book about the Byzantine Empire. It has the same good writing as the podcast, and really expands upon it. I highly recommend it.
Having not read the english version and not the original Japanese, I'm inclined to think Takagi's book is technically more interesting but clearly not quite as financially viable. The Hunger Games is very clearly intended at the young adult genre, which I (at least intuitively) feel informed a huge amount of the story and writing.
Does that match with your assessment? Or not? I'm somewhat craving to find my intuitions wrong in some way... but all the background opinions I'm finding are largely proving my intuitions right.
Also, it's YA. WTF do you people want? It's not going to have serious hardcore gore and sex and black hole vaginas.
That's what I mean was missing as a "YA" novel. The author presented interesting questions... then resolved them via Deus Ex Machina to keep it "age appropriate"... at least thats the way it seems to me right now. It has nothing to do with gore and sex, it has to do with presenting a potentially very interesting story... and then backing off and skirting around conflicts by resolving them in ways that avoids the question.
Peata had a more serious story. He killed one girl (finished her off) in cold blood early in the story. But that's not dwelled on (at least in the first book).
I disagree about the plot and setting. The plot in BR is just about untrained and unprepared kids trying to survive the program and escape to the US, whereas in HG, It's about an improbably competent heroine surviving the games and subverting the government. The games are only a primary focus in the first book, the later two are more focused on the rebellion.
The settings are different - BR, it's a near-future alternate timeline Japan, and the world is meant to be mostly intact. HG, it's a far future post-apocalyptic wasteland, destroyed by bombs and chemical weapons, with genetically engineered, weaponized animals loose in the world. The Program was started to scare the shit out of angry youths and for military research, with most of it not being broadcast to the world, the Games were created to Pacify and Punish the Districts after a war they lost, to remind them that the capitol is firmly on top - a Whipping post for the entire world we're introduced to, that is mandatory viewing. The levels of technology are different - almost all of the tech in BR, we could make right now. HG, we couldn't.
You're right, Hunger games is intended for young adults, and BR is more broadly aimed. Can't speak about
I definitely wouldn't say the Hunger Games Ripped of BR, or is a softened version of - Simply because they're different books with the same theme, but aside from that BR doesn't own the idea, it was preceded by similar concepts and ideas all the way back to the Bread and Circuses of Roman times.
It seemed like I was supposed to walk away thinking she was (from the beginning) a bit of a borderline psychopath... but everyone still likes her for some reason.
As for why people like her? Well, we're kinda told to like her. Everyone around her thinks she's fantastic, for the most part. The bad guys are SUPER EXTRA EVIL to make them worse than her, so that we're discouraged from liking them. The only Mildly ambiguous thing that happens is really at the very end, where one of the main secondary characters dies, and it's not explicitly said who is responsible beyond the person who gives the order to do it, and swiftly receives their comeuppance. And and arrow in the throat, but that's hardly a spoiler, you kinda expect it.
I'd really have to re-read both to get too detailed about it, I read them a while ago, and I read BR years ago.
Growing up, my mother and sister were big readers and didn't seem to come into a lot of sci-fi so I never really viewed books as my thing and wasn't really exposed to much else.
I bought a Sony PRS-505 with a dead battery recently and it is now happily charging away on my desk with it's new battery.
While it will probably see most use from manga, comics, and technical books, I would like to give fiction another go.
In my youth, I got a decent way through Dune and a few Pern books so I've stuck those on but can people point me to anything else you think I should try?
As for themes I like: Otoyomegatari has got me on a real kick for Victorian/Imperialist era stuff. I like hard sci-fi, things like Planetes as well as good old fashioned lasers and psycics stuff. Never really been that taken with fantasy. Recently saw one of the Bourne films so I'm thinking about giving spy stories a go.
They're about equally good, with the same strengths and the same flaws. Decent reads, but not nearly as compelling as the Prince of Nothing series. They're both contrived and somewhat anti-climactic stories that really only serve to illustrate some philosophical points about knowledge and human consciousness.
Of course, philosophy is inherently anti-climactic in the real world, as compared to fantasy, where the contrived situations can be set up such that proper conclusions can be reached, so perhaps this is entirely intentional. One could say that his realistic stories are there to illustrate the futility of such discussions in the real world. ;^)