In other threads, people stated that they don't like to watch tv, they read instead. So instead of pushing those threads off topic, I figured I start a thread asking what people have been reading.
Here are the things which I read recently (last year or two):
Ovid's "The Metamorphoses" - I'm currently reading it (on Book 14 of 15) and its a very good read if you like Greek/Roman mythology. Its basically a short story after another linked in some way which spans the majority of Greek/Roman mythology.
Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano" and "The Sirens of Titan" - I figured that I'd try to read Vonnegut in order and his first two novels were quite good. I'm a huge fan of Vonnegut's style; he's intelligent but not serious at the same time. "Player Piano" is about a totally automated distopian world. "The Sirens of Titan" is a prophetic trip to Mars, Mercury, back Earth, then Titan where a man's (and humanity's) value is questioned. I picked up "Mother Night" and "Cat's Craddle" so I can continue with Vonnegut's works.
Lou Guanzhong's "Three Kingdoms" is an epic of Chinese literature. Its typically referred to as the Chinese Illiad and describes the time where China's corrupt government is weakening and its torn apart by civil war. It was very excellent and great to see a very non-Western view of a classic story. I was mainly inspired to read this because of the movie "Red Cliff" and I'm a huge fan of this work.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment" is a very psychological novel. It takes place in St. Petersburg (I think) and is about one man's crime and the aftermath, mainly how he handles it. You really are put into the head of the main character and it is very engrossing.
Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman's "The Second Generation" is part of the Dragonlance line of books. I was a big fan of the series when I was younger, but I don't think I was overly impressed by this novel. I'm not sure if its because it introduces new characters and pretty much a new world or if I just want more from my books these days. But I'll always think positively of the Chronicles and Legends trilogies (especially Legends).
Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" was a massive read. I remember that it took me a while to complete this mainly because I didn't dedicate good time to reading. It was a very good book and I am a fan of the philosophy presented in it. Apparently, it's become very popular recently given the economic problems and government bail outs/controls. Apparently they want to make a movie out of it, but I can't imagine they'd do it any justice. But Hollywood loves raping other media.
Which brings me to comic books:
Kurt Busiek's "Marvels" - I was about 15 years late to the party, but its obviously quite good.
Robert Venditti's "The Surrogates" - I primarily read this because I was left disappointed by the movie, which I thought had a really good concept. It was alright. Again, I think it could have been expanded upon more, but I guess its a limited series comic and not a novel.
Ed Brubaker's "Captain America" issues 1-42 - I really liked Bucky and the Winter Soldier (along with the villians), but I don't know if I'm a huge fan of how he writes Cap. Mark Waid's run of Captain America was probably my favorite, but none the less, these issues were good.
Mark Millar's "Civil War" and "Wanted". I was a huge fan of the Marvel Civil War. I love Cap and I really enjoyed the story (although I don't like the ending). I read Millar's "Ultimates" a while ago and enjoyed that so I figured I'd try "Wanted" since I enjoyed the movie. "Wanted" was okay (I wasn't a huge fan). It was interesting, but it almost felt like it was trying to be too edgy.
So what have you guy's read? Or do you want to discuss any of what I've read or want to give suggestions for future books (since I'm almost done "the Metamorphoses")? Right now I'm leaning between "The Road" (Cormac McCarthy) or Les Miserables (Victor Hugo), but I'm sure I'll change my mind.
well, my most current "reading" are the quest logs in Borderlands and all the text in Fallout 3, but i'm honestly not much of a book reader, outside of RPG sourcebooks... i have a very hard time getting into the groove of a lot of writers, especially fantasy & scifi.
Presently, I'm not reading anything.
But I was reading the The Hollows series by Kim Harrison. Definitely recommend you read them start to finish. It's an Urban Fantasy about a witch, who may or may not be demon blooded. (I need to pick up the next few books to figure it out but hints have been dropped).
The Horus Heresy series. It's a Science Fantasy, set in the Grim Dark universe of Warhammer 40k.
Jim Butchers' Dresden files (which is presently my favorite book series). It's an Urban Fantasy centered around a wizard. Good plots, each book can almost be treated seperately from the other's in the series and yet the series works incredibly well together.
Recently I reread, the Mindstar Rising triology by Peter Hamilton. (Think psychic private detective and some other scifi stuff and there you go. it's also semi post apocalyptic)
I am reading something! I'm reading Eclipse Phase, right now.
D&D, football, (end of racing season at least), and other game systems are taking up alot of my normal reading and drawing time.
Currently I'm reading Peter Hamilton's Neutronium Alchemist. I'm afraid that I'm too much of a bookworm(and lazy) to reference everything I've read the last two years. The writers include P.G. Wodehous(Jeeves collections), Terry Pratchett(Making money), Isaac Asimov(Prelude to Foundation/Foundation), Alastair Reynolds(the Prefect), Michael Moorcock(The Runestaff quartet), Steven Pressfield(Tides of War), Tim Severin(Corsair, Pirate), Neil Gaiman(Nevermore), Roger Zelazny(Lord of Light/The Chronicles of Amber), Victoria Hislop(The island) and James Bush((Cities in Flight).
P.S. Ed Brubaker is an excellent writer. I never cared for Captain America stories before. Don't miss the 'Marvels Project".
Listing everything I've read in the past year or two would be a difficult and time-consuming task.
Last three things I read were:
The Yiddish Policemen's Union – Michael Chabon
God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything – Christopher Hitchens
Silent Bob Speaks – Kevin Smith
Current reading:
The God Delusion – Richard Dawkins
Recently read issue 16 of The Hulk, its awful, the entire Red Hulk story line is awful.
I am looking forward to my National Geographics comming soon, just got a subscription.
Currently I'm reading Peter Hamilton's Neutronium Alchemist. I'm afraid that I'm too much of a bookworm(and lazy) to reference everything I've read the last two years. The writers include P.G. Wodehous(Jeeves collections), Terry Pratchett(Making money), Isaac Asimov(Prelude to Foundation/Foundation), Alastair Reynolds(the Prefect), Michael Moorcock(The Runestaff quartet), Steven Pressfield(Tides of War), Tim Severin(Corsair, Pirate), Neil Gaiman(Nevermore), Roger Zelazny(Lord of Light/The Chronicles of Amber), Victoria Hislop(The island) and James Bush((Cities in Flight).
P.S. Ed Brubaker is an excellent writer. I never cared for Captain America stories before. Don't miss the 'Marvels Project".
How is the Foundation series? Its typically referred to as one of the best Science Fiction series ever. Also, would you recommend reading it in the order it was written or the chronology of the story?
I have Nevermore (I think) sitting in my library (along with Stardust), but my wife only thought it was okay. I'm not sure what she thought of Stardust. I'll probably read it eventually since I liked a couple of comics that Neil Gaiman wrote (I haven't read his books yet).
For Captain America, I think his stories are interesting and I really like Bucky/Winter Soldier. I like the Falcon and some of the villains. I just think his Captain America is just a little too fly by the seat and a bit "bro-ish" for me. He's not bad, but I just prefered other writers (Mark Waid is one of my favorite comic writers). But they're definately good stories and is that "Marvels Project" the sequel to Marvels which I've been hearing about? I wonder what that'll be like.
Currently I'm reading Peter Hamilton's Neutronium Alchemist. I'm afraid that I'm too much of a bookworm(and lazy) to reference everything I've read the last two years. The writers include P.G. Wodehous(Jeeves collections), Terry Pratchett(Making money), Isaac Asimov(Prelude to Foundation/Foundation), Alastair Reynolds(the Prefect), Michael Moorcock(The Runestaff quartet), Steven Pressfield(Tides of War), Tim Severin(Corsair, Pirate), Neil Gaiman(Nevermore), Roger Zelazny(Lord of Light/The Chronicles of Amber), Victoria Hislop(The island) and James Bush((Cities in Flight).
P.S. Ed Brubaker is an excellent writer. I never cared for Captain America stories before. Don't miss the 'Marvels Project".How is the Foundation series? Its typically referred to as one of the best Science Fiction series ever. Also, would you recommend reading it in the order it was written or the chronology of the story?
I have Nevermore (I think) sitting in my library (along with Stardust), but my wife only thought it was okay. I'm not sure what she thought of Stardust. I'll probably read it eventually since I liked a couple of comics that Neil Gaiman wrote (I haven't read his books yet).
For Captain America, I think his stories are interesting and I really like Bucky/Winter Soldier. I like the Falcon and some of the villains. I just think his Captain America is just a little too fly by the seat and a bit "bro-ish" for me. He's not bad, but I just prefered other writers (Mark Waid is one of my favorite comic writers). But they're definately good stories and is that "Marvels Project" the sequel to Marvels which I've been hearing about? I wonder what that'll be like.
I'd definitely recommend what I've read so far. I can't answer on the order question though-I 've olny reat the first 2 so far. Prelude doesn't seem to have spoiled something.
Not really, no. It deals exclucively with the race for the superhuman between the US and Germany and the rise(so far) of the golden age heroes. It will end on the day of the Pearl Harbor attack.
The sequel is Marvels: the Eye of the camera. I've heard good things but I haven't read it.
I'd definitely recommend what I've read so far. I can't answer on the order question though-I 've olny reat the first 2 so far. Prelude doesn't seem to have spoiled something.
Not really, no. It deals exclucively with the race for the superhuman between the US and Germany and the rise(so far) of the golden age heroes. It will end on the day of the Pearl Harbor attack.
The sequel is Marvels: the Eye of the camera. I've heard good things but I haven't read it.
I'll definately add the Foundation series to my list of books to pick up. From the little I know of it, it seems pretty interesting with the psychohistory or something like that. I also think my brother read some of the series, so I'll probably see what he thinks about the order to read.
And I was thinking of "Neverwhere".
I just recently finished the latest Kim Harrison novel. Right now I'm smack in the middle of the Warhammer 40K second Space Wolves Omnibus. Thrilling adventure to be sure!
Following this I have... lets see... too damn many books really. I've picked up the first of the Runelords series. Then there's the rest of the Black Company novels to finish (omnibuses as well, horray!). I also picked up another of Glenn Cook's books (omnibuses) about the Dread Empire, so I look forward to reading that.
Ummmm...... aside from playing Dragon Age: Origins, which I think is very similar to reading a story you help write my wife has four or five authors that she wants me to read as well.
The Crystal Shard
Gil's All Fright Diner
In the company of Ogres, both by A. Lee Martinez
They're funny as hell and damn good, I just wish the author would write more stories using the characters from those two.
I'm currently reading Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel's Legacy. I loved the way she changed the real world's history and continued from there. This is a mature themed book.
Re-reading my Mystara source books and Asprin's Thieves' World series
I've recently finished:
- Brust's Dragaera series
- Eddings' The Elenium and The Tamuli series
- McKiernan's Mithgar Series
- Roberson's Chronicles of the Cheysuli
- Howard's Kull
I'm currently going through the Discworld series... up to book 8 now. They're all awesome.
I'd definitely recommend what I've read so far. I can't answer on the order question though-I 've olny reat the first 2 so far. Prelude doesn't seem to have spoiled something.
Not really, no. It deals exclucively with the race for the superhuman between the US and Germany and the rise(so far) of the golden age heroes. It will end on the day of the Pearl Harbor attack.
The sequel is Marvels: the Eye of the camera. I've heard good things but I haven't read it.And I was thinking of "Neverwhere".
Right, Neverwhere. Once again absentminded *sigh*
World War Z
A mixed list of reading and re-reading:
- People of the Book by Brooks
- A Clockwork Orange by Burgess (the real version, with the twenty-first chapter)
- Taiko by Yoshikawa
- The Sea Devil's Eye by Odom
- Jazz by Morrison
I couldn't possibly list every book I've read in the past one or two years. Too damned many. So I guess I'll try to give some examples that have not been mentioned. I'll start with what I'm reading currently: Light in August by Faulkner. I've read three or four of his books recently and I'm finding them to be quite good. The stream of consciousness stuff can get old, but it's not a huge theme aside from a majority of The Sound and the Fury (which is still fantastic). So far, Light in August is my favorite from Faulkner.
I also recently read Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Really, really good. I'd seen it mentioned here a ton of times and now I know why.
Chuck Palahniuk's new one, Pygmy, was incredibly amusing. Funny, exciting - Palahniuk.
In the past year, I also managed to read the majority of Cormac McCarthy's work. While all were good, No Country for Old Men and The Road were simply amazing. The Road is what I consider the best book I've ever read. I don't usually pick favorites and I've read so much that I considered finding one an impossibility (I don't think real comparisons between say, Tolstoy, Nabokov, Burgess, Richard Adams, Ellis, Heller, Dostoyevsky, Takami, Vonnegut, Hemingway, Thompson, etc, etc, etc can be made in such a way as to choose an overal 'best' book.) but The Road was really that good. I'm very excited about the film because of the way No Country was converted. It was done well enough and that's a huge rarity these days (look at Fight Club compared to Choke - both fantastic reads but one film was terrible). If they do as well with The Road, we'll be in for one hell of a treat.
Just finished Ghost King by Salvatore a few weeks ago, a bit dissapointed in the ending, but at least Drizzt wasn't emo the whole book (even though he had good reason)
Going to read The Social Contract and Discourses again, good for every person who loves to question central authority
"World War Z" is a good book. I heard that they were planning on making a movie out of it. Originally J. Michael Straczynski (Babylon 5) was going to write the script, but apparently its being rewritten by Matthew Michael Carnahan, who I'm unfamiliar with. Max Brooks apparently has no control with the movie so I would have had more confidence with Straczynski but now, I'll just assume it'll suck until something shows otherwise.
It seems people liked "The Road" although based solely on one commercial for the movie, I am less inclined to read it. I suppose I wanted something more badass and the commercial did not make it appear that way.
It's not Road Warrior, it's The Road. :P Totally different concepts and style. If you like bleak, you'll like The Road. If you want Michael Bay's work translated to book form, you'll be disappointed.
Not much reading time these days, but the last book I finished off was Mark Levin's "Liberty & Tyranny".
World War Z +1
Foundation Trilliogy +1
Atlas Shruged +1
All good books.
Most recently been reading all the Dune books ol' franks son has written. Not great works, but certaintly entertaining. Thinking about re-reading the originals, its been a long time.
I'm currently going through the Discworld series... up to book 8 now. They're all awesome.
They really, really are. It is amazing that he was written 30+ of them and they actually get better over time.
Add Choose your own adventure Red Moss Keep to my reading list. I've read far worse novels.
It's my yearly tradition too read The Hobbit, The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings this time of the year. So I'm busy with that, keeps me company as the weather gets colder and colder.
It's my yearly tradition too read The Hobbit, The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings this time of the year. So I'm busy with that, keeps me company as the weather gets colder and colder.
My wife keeps telling me that I should read the Silmarillion since she really liked it and I enjoyed Lord of the Rings. Although now, she wants me to wait for her to re-read it (again) so that it'll be fresh in her mind for when we'd talk about it.
creepy, that
Most recently been reading all the Dune books ol' franks son has written. Not great works, but certaintly entertaining. Thinking about re-reading the originals, its been a long time.
I still hesitate to read the "Hunters of Dune"...
as for me, I can't even recall all the titles from thiis year. Though currently I just finished up The Golden Builders, and am about 1/2 way through The Arcana of Freemasonry. I have one other I want to finish, then I'll probably take a detour because I've been itching to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
I'm currently rereading the "Wheel of Time" series and I'm up to book 8. After that, I'll likely reread the discworld novels.
The Necronomicon.
Cthulhu f'taghn!
The Necronomicon.
Cthulhu f'taghn!
Sad thing is that I actually have a copy of one version of the Necronomicon... Ia! Yog-Sothoth! Ia!
PlayElderGod.
This month's Playmate: ...Yog-Sothoth*shudder*
PlayElderGod.
This month's Playmate: ...Yog-Sothoth*shudder*
Pigs can't read, can they?
He's an obscure genetic experiment. (I think.)
My father can't read his ebook reader, so he gave it to me the day I left for Japan. The maker of this particular one has thousands of public domain works for free download on their website, and I've been working my way through their Jane Austen collection.
So far it's just Pride and Prejudice and Emma that I've read. Currently on Sense and Sensibility.
Interesting stuff. Should be required reading for anybody who wants to run a more political/social D&D campaign.
Reading it while talking to my wife about my compaints on what I've seen of the Warhammer Fantasy RPG rules, one of the things that most annoyed me is that the Dance skill only adds to your value as a street entertainer. Shows a complete ignorance of the skill in courtly life. Especially as you got in towards the Renaissance, dance was critical for any noble and daily practise was considered essential.
Anyway, that's what I've been reading. Oh, and the Sherlock Holmes stuff. I was watching Bones the other night and mentioned to my wife that Bones is really like a female Sherlock Holmes, complete with a great deal of martial skill (Holmes was an expert pugilist and studied Bartitsu, a martial art based on Japanese and English techniques, I believe focused around using a cane or stick).
Well, I'm most of the way through Patrick O'Brien's 'Aubrey & Maturin' novels, I'll be starting 'The Commodore,' next.
Today I was reading a 70s Howard/Lovecraft pastiche a friend gave me, called 'Bloodstone' aparently the guy Wagner wrote 5 novels staring a barbarian-sorcerer called Kane, in the mid 70s. It's not terrible, and kinda amusing - it's the sort of stuff that influenced D&D, really.
I also picked up the latest Humanx Commonwealth novel by Alan Dean Foster. More and more, I find myself wondering why I liked his stuff so much when I was a teenager. ;)
I recently read the first book in a new series, 'A Darkness Forged in Fire,' by Chris Evans. It's a decent genre-bender, with elves, nature-magic, and 18th/19th century military hardware - muskets, cannons firing canister, infantry forming squares to repel calvalry, all that good stuff - set in an occupied territory that calls to mind Vietnam.
Just finished Gathering Storm book 12 in the wheel of time series, Loved it very good read I love the series despite how tedious the level of detail can get sometimes.
Also currently in the middle of the Horrace Heressey series good stuff if a bit dark.
Ring of Fire series by Eric Flint and coauthored with different authors very good alternate history/sci fi series.
The House of Night series by P.C. and Kristen Cast is pretty good short and written for a teen audience but still interesting all the same, much better than twilight.
Nammahas Kiss by Jaquelyn Carey I recomend her writing to anyone
I finished "The Metamorphoses" yesterday and started "The Road" (since I heard many recommendations and figured it'd be worth the time) today at lunch. I read about 25 pages and so far its alright. I don't think I'm a fan of McCarthy's writing style (the lack of punctuation and chapters), but the book is okay so far. I'll read more and see how it goes.
The House of Night series by P.C. and Kristen Cast is pretty good short and written for a teen audience but still interesting all the same, much better than twilight.
I doubt it takes much to be better than "Twilight" and its sequels.
I finished "The Metamorphoses" yesterday and started "The Road" (since I heard many recommendations and figured it'd be worth the time) today at lunch. I read about 25 pages and so far its alright. I don't think I'm a fan of McCarthy's writing style (the lack of punctuation and chapters), but the book is okay so far. I'll read more and see how it goes.
Ah, but the lack of chapters is part of the story. It helps convey the hopelessness of the situation by not giving a pause in the narrative. The man and boy are constantly in motion as that's all they can do. There's no rest. No time to relax. It's simply move or die. Were the book divided into chapters, I feel it'd lose a lot of its 'feel'. That said, I can totally see how that style would put some readers off. It, like everything else, isn't for everyone. ;)
I would like to recommend another McCarthy novel - if I may be so bold. This one does have divisions in the story, so there's a plus right there. :D It's a Western of sorts that's incredibly brutal and quite dark. A fantastic read and in my top 5 or 10 easily. If you're interested, it's called Blood Meridian. Apparently a movie is in the works for this one, too. I can't wait - though it may end up being a li'l American Psycho-y in that some of the action is simply unsuitable for film in America. Lame, but true.
Add Choose your own adventure Red Moss Keep to my reading list. I've read far worse novels.
My goodness. I didn't see that coming at all.
Ah, but the lack of chapters is part of the story. It helps convey the hopelessness of the situation by not giving a pause in the narrative. The man and boy are constantly in motion as that's all they can do. There's no rest. No time to relax. It's simply move or die. Were the book divided into chapters, I feel it'd lose a lot of its 'feel'. That said, I can totally see how that style would put some readers off. It, like everything else, isn't for everyone. ;)I would like to recommend another McCarthy novel - if I may be so bold. This one does have divisions in the story, so there's a plus right there. :D It's a Western of sorts that's incredibly brutal and quite dark. A fantastic read and in my top 5 or 10 easily. If you're interested, it's called Blood Meridian. Apparently a movie is in the works for this one, too. I can't wait - though it may end up being a li'l American Psycho-y in that some of the action is simply unsuitable for film in America. Lame, but true.
The lack of chapters is more just a pet peeve than anything else. The lack of punctuation is what I'm actually not down with, but its not so bad that its unreadable. I just find it annoying (I'm very "lawful" sometimes). But the book isn't bad by any means; I'll finish it and see how I feel about it. If I like it, I'll try to read some of his other works.
My goodness. I didn't see that coming at all.
You deserve it though. 
My goodness. I didn't see that coming at all.
It is pretty good. And we do appreciate the work you're putting into it. Nice stuff. :D
The lack of chapters is more just a pet peeve than anything else. The lack of punctuation is what I'm actually not down with, but its not so bad that its unreadable. I just find it annoying (I'm very "lawful" sometimes). But the book isn't bad by any means; I'll finish it and see how I feel about it. If I like it, I'll try to read some of his other works.
I see. McCarthy doesnt (:P) do a whole lot of punctuation in his contractions. He's like Faulkner that way. Took some getting used to for me, too.
I've read pretty much everything he's put out there - at least as far as novels go. I've enjoyed every one. Of course that's just my personal taste. Still, I never question myself when recommending his work. Ya just gotta hope the person you recommend it to has somewhat similar taste. :D
Still, I never question myself when recommending his work. Ya just gotta hope the person you recommend it to has somewhat similar taste. :D
That is actually really good advice. Instead of trying to guess what might be enjoyed by the person you're talking to, just give them an honest recommendation of what you like and let them make up their own mind about it.
Well done, sir.
I see. McCarthy doesnt (:P) do a whole lot of punctuation in his contractions. He's like Faulkner that way. Took some getting used to for me, too.I've read pretty much everything he's put out there - at least as far as novels go. I've enjoyed every one. Of course that's just my personal taste. Still, I never question myself when recommending his work. Ya just gotta hope the person you recommend it to has somewhat similar taste. :D
Hey, I don't want to sound like I'm bashing McCarthy; I think "The Road" is pretty decent so far. But his lack of comformity to the typical rules of English goes beyond not punctuating contractions. He seems to:
-not like to use commas, especially when clauses are involved
-write fragments as if they're sentences
-not use quotation marks when direct quoting
-not always separate different speakers in different paragraphs
-combine sentences without the use of a semi-colon or linking words
None of this (so far) makes the book hard to read and I could see how some might add to the style of the novel. Although, as someone who typically tries to use proper punctuation and grammar, I think its a little annoying. To me, its like how modern art is different and weird (pretentious) just for the sake of being different and weird. I know someone could probably analyze it and tell me why he does what he does (it won the Pulitzer), but that's my opinion.
And with that all said, I don't dislike the book; I just wanted to expand on what I meant when I referred to his writing style earlier.
To me, its like how modern art is different and weird (pretentious) just for the sake of being different and weird.
Except that's not Modern Art. "Weird for weird's sake" really refers to Postmodernism. Then again, McCarthy's book is also postmodern so while your terminology is incorrect your comparison is apt.
For a little more Romance and some good laughs the Dark Hunter series is good too.
You almost need a degree in Mythology, Philosophy and Physics to really understand it but Orphans of Chaos, Fugitives of Chaos and Titans of Chaos are awsome as well.
I understand. As I said, it took some getting used to for me, too. I guess I just don't mind it as much. At any rate, I appreciate your expanding on your complaint and hope that you'll enjoy the book in spite of it. :D If not, I think we'll both be ok.
I'm definately liking it. So far, I'm about 75 pages in and its really captivating. I don't think its as depressing as everyone's been saying though. Oddly enough, I kind of think its pretty uplifting at times. I may be crazy, but the father/son relationship has some really nice moments in it (like the waterfall part). I guess its almost like one of those "uplifting stories of survival and the human spirit" but set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
I would definately say I'm a fan so far.
Except that's not Modern Art. "Weird for weird's sake" really refers to Postmodernism. Then again, McCarthy's book is also postmodern so while your terminology is incorrect your comparison is apt.
I'm definately not too knowledgable with art/literature movements or styles, but thank you for the correction on my terms.
You almost need a degree in Mythology, Philosophy and Physics to really understand it but Orphans of Chaos, Fugitives of Chaos and Titans of Chaos are awsome as well.
I am very interested in mythology, philosophy, and physics so those books sound interesting. I'll have to add "Orphans of Chaos" to my list of books to try in the future.
I'm definately liking it. So far, I'm about 75 pages in and its really captivating. I don't think its as depressing as everyone's been saying though. Oddly enough, I kind of think its pretty uplifting at times. I may be crazy, but the father/son relationship has some really nice moments in it (like the waterfall part). I guess its almost like one of those "uplifting stories of survival and the human spirit" but set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
I would definately say I'm a fan so far.
Cool. :D I did see it as uplifting at times, too. It's that fun contrast between the desolation and the hope. The devotion of the man can't be anything but uplifting - even in its somewhat cold yet totally practical approach to certain possibilities. Personally, I didn't find it depressing exactly. Bleak, yes, depressing - sometimes. Overall, it was an amazing feeling to read and finish that book - which is why I like it so much. I read at work and had to be careful. At times, it choked me up a bit. At others, I was actually smiling like an idiot at my lunch table. :P I've read a ton of stuff and can honestly say it's not something you run into all that often. At least I don't. Anyhoo, glad you're liking it.
I'm currently reading Faulkner's Light in August (can't remember if I mentioned that and don't feel like looking). What started as sort of a 'meh' affair has evolved into a really interesting story that's a compelling read. If I had started my Faulkner reading with this book, I doubt I'd ever have wondered whether or not I'd become a fan. Then again, as good as the other books were (As I Lay Dying was one), they'd almost feel like a let down after this. Truly a great book. When I got my copy, I didn't notice that there was a sticker on it until I got it to work. The sticker? An Oprah Book Club deal. Yeah, it made her list. After nearly completing it, I have to say the lady has some sort of taste. ;)
I'm currently reading Faulkner's Light in August (can't remember if I mentioned that and don't feel like looking). What started as sort of a 'meh' affair has evolved into a really interesting story that's a compelling read. If I had started my Faulkner reading with this book, I doubt I'd ever have wondered whether or not I'd become a fan. Then again, as good as the other books were (As I Lay Dying was one), they'd almost feel like a let down after this. Truly a great book. When I got my copy, I didn't notice that there was a sticker on it until I got it to work. The sticker? An Oprah Book Club deal. Yeah, it made her list. After nearly completing it, I have to say that someone on the committee of suits, PR people and spin-doctors who make the decisions as to what books to have Oprah recommend to make her look good has some sort of taste.
Fixed.
I don't put any stock in her reading recommendations myself and this is the first and only I've read from those that I'm aware of. Cuz it's the only one that had that silly sticker on it. Maybe I'll look into it if I get bored enough to see just how many books I've read that have made that list. Or not.
Concerning the Metamorphoses, I applaud your taste - it's easily one of my favourite works, ever. Got any favourites? Anyhow, if you liked them, I suggest your try Virgil's Aeneid next - it's the other major verse work in Roman literature, and some people think it the greatest. I personally didn't like it, but a lot of people did, and it certainly is important. If you're more into the philosophical side, Seneca's Epistulae Morales and Cicero's De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum are quite insightful, and a joy to read. Finally, the Reflections of Marcus Aurelius are great because they're a bit like the bible: fairly small, and split into manageable chunks, so you can just carry them around with you and read some whenever the mood strikes you.
Other than Latin literature, if you're interested in history, there's a Briton called Niall Fergusson I hold in high esteem, mainly for War of the World and The Ascent of Money, two truly excellent and enlightening books.
And since this (admittedly short) list would hardly be complete without the "classics" they told you to read at school where you only later realize "they" were right, Nineteen Eighty-Four and Heart of Darkness are tied for the place of my favourite English work of literature. And then, there's Paul Auster, if that's your cup of tea. A bit stream-of-consciousness (though not James Joyce-levels, either), a lot of identity seeking and the like... most of my friends didn't like it, but I liked Moon Palace a lot.
I was a big fan of "The Metamorphoses". I've actually had in my collection for a while and just never got around to reading it until now. I was also thinking of grabbing "The Aeneid" last time I went to Borders, but I forgot. I'll definately pick it up someday, but I'm not sure when I'll get to it. "The Metamorphoses" definately increased my interest to read some of the stories which were presented in it which included "The Aeneid" and "Medea", along with others.
"1984" (even though I know its officially supposed to be spelled out) is one of my favorite books.
But I don't think I liked "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?" as much as I thought I would. I typically like Neil Gaiman (and I really like Andy Kubert). I thought it was okay, but I expected more since it was supposed to close the Batman and Detective lines.
@Cherubaddon: I have to commend your taste. All are excellent choices, in my opinion. To the "classics" list, however, I would add "Canterbury Tales", Dante's trilogy, "Don Quixote", and the more recent "Fahrenheit 451".
I really did not like "Fahrenheit 451", although I read it when I was in middle school. I remembered that it seemed very preachy (and it didn't have proper chapters). I also don't think I liked the main character. But as I said I read it in middle school which could means that I just didn't appreciate it. My wife read it recently and thought it was good so maybe I should re-read it someday.
So far it's a good read and better than the last book by her I read, A Fist Full of Charms. It's not the best written in the world, but she certainly knows how to tell a good story. And that's what counts imo.
The Outlaw Demon Wails by Kim Harrison.
So far it's a good read and better than the last book by her I read, A Fist Full of Charms. It's not the best written in the world, but she certainly knows how to tell a good story. And that's what counts imo.
Yeah Outlaw Demon Wails was awsome. Hope she writes another one.
Trudi Cavanah is another good writer. I highly recomend the age of five series to anyone.
The Truth series by Dawn Cook is also good. Very easy reading, but it does have an interesting premise.
As to Faulkner I haven't read anything by him I liked. Then again same goes for most of the classics. With the exceptions of Hemmingway, the Inferno and Cantabury tales. Most of the classics just bore me.
The Outlaw Demon Wails by Kim Harrison.
So far it's a good read and better than the last book by her I read, A Fist Full of Charms. It's not the best written in the world, but she certainly knows how to tell a good story. And that's what counts imo.
Yeah Outlaw Demon Wails was awsome. Hope she writes another one.
She did, it's called White Witch, Black Curse. We were supposed to run down to Austin for a book signing, but I got food poisoning from Chile's and we were stuck at home instead. It's a change of pace for her, WWBC, because The Outlaw Demon Wails was sort of a finale. Now she moves on to a different situation, a different point in her life as it were. So it's a real slow down from TODW, but it's still a great Rachel Morgan novel.
If I were to put it in D&D terms, it's like finishing one plot arc and beginning another.
The Outlaw Demon Wails by Kim Harrison.
Is that anything like The Outlaw Josey Wales?
I just finished The God Delusion and was looking for a new read when I stumbled across a book sale. Picked up Life in a Medieval Village and Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages for $2 each. Glee!
It's an Urban Fantasy series. The character is a witch (which is different than being human) and it has all kinds of supernatural goodness in it.
It also has a pretty well thought out world that I think personally would make a killer campaign setting. (as would Dresden's world) it's not -too- covered in detail but you get the feel and vibe of the world quite well from reading it.
Dead Witch Walking (first book)
The Good the Bad and the Undead
(Second)
Every Which way but Dead
(Third)
A Fistful of Charms
(fourth)
then of course
For A Few Demons more
(fifth)
and the one I'm reading now
The Outlaw Demon Wails.
I kind of like the titles actually. The book series kind of reads like a Western, set into an Urban Fantasy so they fit. I'm a sucker for pulpy titles.
From the 40k books on the same shelf (I have multiple shelfs for my books but I still don't own that many books) Ravenor, Ravenor Rogue, and Ravenor Returned. Double Eagle.
Micah
Blood Noir
Danse Macabre (what makes this one bad is how many books have this name)
Narcissus in Chains
Wait. The Outlaw Demon Wails and For A Few Demons More? For serious? What else? A Fistfull of Charms? Two Ghosts for Sister Rachel? Pale Demon? Hang Demons High? The Good, The Bad and the Undead? Part of me hopes you were kidding about that second title, Micha. Another part really hopes you weren't.
But you were close. I thought it was intentional overreaction at first, but I'm unconvinced.
I think she took the titles because the books read like a Western. As far as shameless title pilfering goes though I've seen far worse.
(The aforementioned Danse Macabre for example... straight up rip off word for word of another title)
My list is more expansive than what I had listed. Tombstone, though, isn't near the top. It's good, but it just doesn't hold the same place as those Clint movies. Nothing really does, though. Heh.
Clint Eastwood as a director is the man. I honestly haven't seen his Westerns (although I have Unforgiven somewhere that I need to watch) but he was good in Gran Torino.
I haven't seen it yet and I'm thinking about checking it out.
I honestly had no idea that an author ripped off most of - if not all of - the names of my favorite Westerns. It's funny, but lame at the same time. Odd.
Ditto. I was being ironical when I made the Outlaw Josey Wales comment above. I had no idea it was actually intentional.
Ditto. I was being ironical when I made the Outlaw Josey Wales comment above. I had no idea it was actually intentional.
Yeah, I couldn't figure out whether Micha's response to you was serious or not. Oh well.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0800308/
I was just wondering if you had seen it. It did well critically speaking if I recall correctly.
Instead of No country we tried There Will Be Blood... I'm not sure how I feel about that movie. I hate it and like it at the same time. Equally.
I vaguely recall seeing trailers at some point. Never saw it, though, but I think I wanted to. The last Western I saw was 3:10 to Yuma (the new one) which was amazing. Before that, No Country for Old Men (yes, it's very Western). Also amazing.
I don't think I'm a huge fan of Westerns (haven't really seen too many), but I thoroughly enjoyed the 3:10 to Yuma remake. I mainly watched it because I liked the leads; I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have seen it if it were two random people I never heard of.
Have you've seen the original? Is it good?
I wanted to see the new 3:10 to Yuma same with No Country.
Instead of No country we tried There Will Be Blood... I'm not sure how I feel about that movie. I hate it and like it at the same time. Equally.
Never saw TWBB. The other two are totally worth your time, IMO.
I don't think I'm a huge fan of Westerns (haven't really seen too many), but I thoroughly enjoyed the 3:10 to Yuma remake. I mainly watched it because I liked the leads; I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have seen it if it were two random people I never heard of.
Have you've seen the original? Is it good?
I do like Westerns, but I'm also a Christian Bale fan. So it was something I really wanted to see. I don't like Crowe all that much, but he was great in 3:10. Never seen the original, but I hear it's good.
For the 40k novels my favorite is Eisenhorn. It's by the same guy who did the Gaunt's ghost books.
I think I'll probably start reading "Foundation" next since its supposedly the greatest science fiction series of all time... of ALL TIME. From reading random opinions (and thinking about it), I figure I'll read it in the order it was published instead of chronologically.
The sad thing is the author hinted at them, for several books now but some how it was just subtle enough that I didn't catch it.
Very good book. It's worth reading the whole series over. (And the rest of the series is an entertaining read)
Just finished Outlaw Demon Wails and I was hit with not one but two major plot twists that I didn't actually see coming.
The sad thing is the author hinted at them, for several books now but some how it was just subtle enough that I didn't catch it.
Very good book. It's worth reading the whole series over. (And the rest of the series is an entertaining read)
Yeah it was an amazing book. White Witch Black Curse does not hit with as many plot twists but is still a very very fun and interesting read. Right now I'm rereading the heralds of Valdamar series by Mercedes Lackey best use of psionics in a fantasy setting ever.
As today is the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species I decided to read it again.
I should read that again sometime.
Is it written like a scientific article or is it written for a mass audience? Is it like an old text book? I've considered reading it, but decided that current books on evolution would be more accurate or informed.
What is your opinion of it, especially compared to modern books on the subject?
To people who read "On the Origin of Species":
Is it written like a scientific article or is it written for a mass audience? Is it like an old text book? I've considered reading it, but decided that current books on evolution would be more accurate or informed.
What is your opinion of it, especially compared to modern books on the subject?
From what I remember at the time *I was in junior high at the time I read it so keep that in mind*, it was written pretty dry like most works of that period. It does explain things to you, but you've got to be at a certain level of understanding already to comprehend it. It helps tremendously that, what is in the book is already taught to you in school (and then some in some parts). The theory hasn't changed terribly much from what I remember (Is it really still called a theory or is it considered a Law at this point?) from reading it, and reading high school text books on the subject later.
It is a great deal more wordy obviously than most modern books on the subject that I've read.
A law basically just states a fundamental principle. It does not try to explain why the principle works. It is typically based upon observation. For example, gravity is a law. Objects with large mass attract other objects. It is universal but not really known why.
Theories try to explain specific instances. Theories typically require knowledge of why something is happening and what causes it.
Therefore, from my understanding, evolution cannot be a scientific law. It is way too specific and requires too many qualifiers. This isn't to say that its "worse" than laws though.
(I've had a professor who felt very strongly that people misunderstood theory vs law. He actually thought theories were "better" science. So I typically try to explain that laws are not just "proven" theories when I get a chance.)
But anyway, thanks for the information on the book.
Evolution is a scientific theory. From my understanding, it CANNOT be a scientific law. I think there is much misunderstanding between theories and laws (regarding science). A law isn't "better" than a theory. Its not like you can prove a theory "enough" and it becomes a law. Theories many times are more complex and require more proof than laws.
A law basically just states a fundamental principle. It does not try to explain why the principle works. It is typically based upon observation. For example, gravity is a law. Objects with large mass attract other objects. It is universal but not really known why.
Theories try to explain specific instances. Theories typically require knowledge of why something is happening and what causes it.
Therefore, from my understanding, evolution cannot be a scientific law. It is way too specific and requires too many qualifiers. This isn't to say that its "worse" than laws though.
(I've had a professor who felt very strongly that people misunderstood theory vs law. He actually thought theories were "better" science. So I typically try to explain that laws are not just "proven" theories when I get a chance.)
But anyway, thanks for the information on the book.
Technically speaking, that's not true. You COULD have a Law of Evolution if you could provide enough proofs and narrow down the focus of it.
It's simply that something of such a broad scope, like Evolution (and all of the various things that go with it), is difficult to undoubtably prove. Whereas gravity, which is sort of one shot deal. It USED to be called the Theory of Gravity. Since then, it has been tested and proven. Hence, Law.
It would be sort of like instead of a Theory of Gravity, Newton had proposed the Theory of Physics. It would STILL be a theory, because there are so many little riders and ins and outs and various facets that we obviously don't know everything about physics.
Same for Evolution. Now, if there was a Theory of Increase in Bright Colors over Generations by Blue-Neck Warblers over Time by Means of Mate Selection based on Plumage (or some such), it could probably be a Law by now. But instead we have the Theory of Evo-freaking-lution, which is just too broad a subject, and it is possible we will never understand every facet of the subject.
Same for Evolution. Now, if there was a Theory of Increase in Bright Colors over Generations by Blue-Neck Warblers over Time by Means of Mate Selection based on Plumage (or some such), it could probably be a Law by now. But instead we have the Theory of Evo-freaking-lution, which is just too broad a subject, and it is possible we will never understand every facet of the subject.
From my understanding, that'd be too specific with too many qualifiers to count as a Law. Laws are supposed to describe fundamental properties. I don't think you can have scientific laws which are specific to one characteristic of one species of animal.
Same for Evolution. Now, if there was a Theory of Increase in Bright Colors over Generations by Blue-Neck Warblers over Time by Means of Mate Selection based on Plumage (or some such), it could probably be a Law by now. But instead we have the Theory of Evo-freaking-lution, which is just too broad a subject, and it is possible we will never understand every facet of the subject.
From my understanding, that'd be too specific with too many qualifiers to count as a Law. Laws are supposed to describe fundamental properties. I don't think you can have scientific laws which are specific to one characteristic of one species of animal.
Well, right. I was exaggerating for the sake of clarity. Clearly, I have failed in my self-appointed task.
But yes, what you said helps. The reason the Theory of Evolution is still a theory is because it is complex, but to simplify removes it from the realm of "fundamental properties." Now, If the Theory of Evolution was simple something along the lines of "Organisms change over generations", then it would be a Law. But it's not that simple. It includes all kinds of riders about reactions, breeding, natural selection, mutation, and all kinds of other fun biology that it cannot be quantifiably proved.
This is why I like physics so much. It is either IS, or it is NOT. Not of this maybe/maybe nonsense that people who deal with meatbags have to ... wait, what? Uncertainty Principle? Quantum Mechanics? Up-Quarks? Super Strings?
Oh crap, Physics has gone squishy.
What I'm reading: A terribly boring discussion about the difference between theory and law. :P
I have failed to entertain ZB.
*flings self off a cliff*
I have failed to entertain ZB.
*flings self off a cliff*
That's right, punk.
A theory is just a guess, right?
Not exactly. A "theory" is a technical term used when there is evidence to back up your claim, but it has not yet been peer-approved yet to be considered a law. The lowest level of verification would be a "hypothesis", which is about as close as you get to a guess in science.
Basically, it goes like this:
Observe: Hey, look at that thing. I wonder why it does that.
Hypothesis: I bet this is why it does it.
Test: Let's see if I'm right.
Theory: Looks like I'm right. I am claiming, officially, that this is why that thing does that.
Peer Review: We all tested it too.
Law: Our findings were conclusive: The thing is totally undeniably true!
Or were you just baiting me to further bore ZB?
Not exactly. A "theory" is a technical term used when there is evidence to back up your claim, but it has not yet been peer-approved yet to be considered a law.
...
Theory: Looks like I'm right. I am claiming, officially, that this is why that thing does that.
Peer Review: We all tested it too.
Law: Our findings were conclusive: The thing is totally undeniably true!
I disagree with this assessment of the theory/law relationship. Laws are not theories which have been verified. Laws simply exist because we don't know why something works. Its just states a relationship without cause or explanation as I stated in previous posts.
But since I don't want my brains to be eaten by baby zombies, I'll leave it there.
Back on topic, I've started reading "Foundation" and so far it seems pretty interesting. It started off a little slow since it was mainly describing someone's visit to the central planet (imagine Coruscant), but it picked up after a couple chapters. I'm pretty excited to see where it goes since there's a little mystery as to what's the real plan.
Or were you just baiting me to further bore ZB?
Nope, just making a joke aimed at people who think that is actually what "theory" means.
I disagree with this assessment of the theory/law relationship. Laws are not theories which have been verified. Laws simply exist because we don't know why something works. Its just states a relationship without cause or explanation as I stated in previous posts.
But since I don't want my brains to be eaten by baby zombies, I'll leave it there.
The problem lies in an inconsistent use of the terms by not only society at large, but even within the scientific community.
I have seen my "version" of law. I have also seen yours. I have seen another that basically says that the only difference between a theory and a law is that theories are more complex. In essence, a group of similar laws makes up a theory. The whole thing is a hornet's nest of language.
I have seen my "version" of law. I have also seen yours. I have seen another that basically says that the only difference between a theory and a law is that theories are more complex. In essence, a group of similar laws makes up a theory. The whole thing is a hornet's nest of language.
The problem is that your definition would suggest that the Theory of Evolution has yet to be sufficiently peer reviewed or accepted, when this is not even remotely the case. Evolution is a fact.
What makes Evolution a Theory rather than a Law is the fact that it is not a constant. If one were to go back and restart evolution on Earth with precisely the same conditions and influences over time we might very well have completely different end results than what we currently see. Also, the end result of an evolutionary process cannot be predicted mathematically.
What makes Gravity a Law rather than a Theory is that if you have the same conditions the same result will always occur. If I were to drop a cannonball from a tower it will fall and hit the ground. No matter how many times I jumped back in time and repeated the experiment from the start it would always yield the same result. Also, with knowledge of the prevailing conditions one can always predict the outcome of such a process mathematically.
I have seen my "version" of law. I have also seen yours. I have seen another that basically says that the only difference between a theory and a law is that theories are more complex. In essence, a group of similar laws makes up a theory. The whole thing is a hornet's nest of language.
The problem is that your definition would suggest that the Theory of Evolution has yet to be sufficiently peer reviewed or accepted, when this is not even remotely the case. Evolution is a fact.
What makes Evolution a Theory rather than a Law is the fact that it is not a constant. If one were to go back and restart evolution on Earth with precisely the same conditions and influences over time we might very well have completely different end results than what we currently see. Also, the end result of an evolutionary process cannot be predicted mathematically.
What makes Gravity a Law rather than a Theory is that if you have the same conditions the same result will always occur. If I were to drop a cannonball from a tower it will fall and hit the ground. No matter how many times I jumped back in time and repeated the experiment from the start it would always yield the same result. Also, with knowledge of the prevailing conditions one can always predict the outcome of such a process mathematically.
You have a valid point. I think it comes down to, also, actually stating the actual theory of evolution. "Theory of Evolution" is the name of a scientific theory. So what, exactly, is the theory? That animals evolve over time to adapt to their environments? If that were true, you could repeat an experiment with flies or something, and they would always be different. But the end result would also be "the flies changed". What they changed into is a different matter. But does the theory attempt to predict the end result, or simply state that the general category of said result?
I drop a ball off a tower, and it hits the ground. I run back up, and drop it again. This time, it hits the idiot walking under the tower. The part of my theory that matters, "ball falls down", is consistently repeatable. The "end result" is not the same thing as "the proof of the theory".
I place two groups of flies in a superheated environment. Survivable, but difficult. Over time, one group develops larger wings to ride the heated air better and keep away from the hot ground. The other group develops thicker and more resilient organs so they don't have to float away. My end result changed, but the part that matters, the thing I am actually testing, was the same: "Animals change to adapt to their environment". I'm not trying to predict what they change in to.
Evolution is a fact.
the lack of predictability is why evolution is a theory.
It would be nearly impossible to prove evolution as a law of nature.
Which doesn't change the fact that it's the most scientific theory. And that young earth theory and the like have been disproved.
There is room for a better theory, but for now evolution is the best theory we have and should be treated as fact.
Newton's Laws (F = ma, etc.)
Ideal Gas Laws (PV = nRT and variants)
Coulomb's Law (F = kqQ/r^2)
Laws of thermodynamics (heat flows from hot media to cold media, energy is conserved, entropy increases with time)
Then you have:
Theory of evolution (an attempt to explain speciation)
Molecular orbital theory (an attempt to explain why atoms do all the weird things they do)
Unified field theory (an attempt to explain where the fundamental forces come from)
In terms of which things are laws and which things are theories, a law is something that simply describes a phenomenon. For example, the ideal gas law in just a description of the state variables of a gas.
A theory, on the other hand, is something we infer from the phenomena we see. Something that attempted to explain why the ideal gas law exists (such as a description of a gas as a cloud of tiny particles that can bump into the walls of their container and move more quickly the hotter they are) would be a theory.
To be glib, a theory is a story we tell to make sense of the laws we observe. With respect to the theories I listed, the corresponding "laws" are:
- The observation that various species exist.
- The observation that atoms have various affinities for other types of atoms.
- The observations that (a) charged particles of like charge repel each other and (b) the nuclei of atoms to not fly apart despite this.
Currently re-reading Terry Pratchet's witch books, with the exception of Equal Rites. Already got through Wyrd Sisters, Witches Abroad, and Lords and Ladies. Currently on Maskerade. After that is Carpe Jugulum, Wee Free Men, Hat Full of Sky, and Wintersmith.
I'm a fan of the guard series, myself, although I love them all.
Currently re-reading Terry Pratchet's witch books, with the exception of Equal Rites. Already got through Wyrd Sisters, Witches Abroad, and Lords and Ladies. Currently on Maskerade. After that is Carpe Jugulum, Wee Free Men, Hat Full of Sky, and Wintersmith.
I'm a fan of the guard series, myself, although I love them all.
That's probably next on the list after the witch series, but I'll have to go pick them up first. Don't own copies of most of 'em, and as my sister finally moved out of my parent's house I can't borrow her copies as easily.
The sad thing about Terry Pratchet books is if I take the time for it, I can get through about one a day. Onto Carpe Jugulum then!
Mouse Guard
The art Is beautiful and the story is gripping.
please dont expect an epic its just a lovely story and you have got to read
there is now an RPG for it
Unfortunately, when most people use the word 'theory', they mean 'speculation'.
/sigh
The sad thing about Terry Pratchet books is if I take the time for it, I can get through about one a day. Onto Carpe Jugulum then!
Same here. When a new one finally comes out, I run out and grab it ... and have finished it that night, usually. Oh wells.
Weird. Must be me.
Anywho, I'm finished with Jane Austen. Now working on Study in Scarlet, which is meant to be the earliest Sherlock Holmes novel in the series. I have no idea if it was written first or not, but it introduces Watson to Holmes in the first few chapters. Starts out like I'd expect it to. Should be a fun read.
After that it's going to be Conrad, starting with Heart of Darkness. There's another I'm keen to read after that, but the name escapes me at the moment. After that, I hope to struggle through Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur.
Currently re-reading Terry Pratchet's witch books, with the exception of Equal Rites. Already got through Wyrd Sisters, Witches Abroad, and Lords and Ladies. Currently on Maskerade. After that is Carpe Jugulum, Wee Free Men, Hat Full of Sky, and Wintersmith.
Why not Equal Rites?
Hmm... am I really the only one who finds Pratchett tiresome and not at all funny?
Weird. Must be me.
No, I am sure there a few other people who are equally as wrong.
Anywho, I'm finished with Jane Austen. Now working on Study in Scarlet, which is meant to be the earliest Sherlock Holmes novel in the series. I have no idea if it was written first or not, but it introduces Watson to Holmes in the first few chapters. Starts out like I'd expect it to. Should be a fun read.
After that it's going to be Conrad, starting with Heart of Darkness. There's another I'm keen to read after that, but the name escapes me at the moment. After that, I hope to struggle through Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur.
Although I'm more of an Agatha Christie than a Doyle person, I did find Study in Scarlet decent. And as already mentioned, Heart of Darkness is awesome; important: no matter how boring it may seem at first, don't stop. I was all about to stop after like fifty pages, but the punchline that makes it great comes pretty near the end.
The other you're keen to read would not be Lord Jim, by any chance? He who recommended Heart of Darkness to me also told me to read that one, but I didn't get around to doing it yet. I want to, though - sounds great.
Hmm... am I really the only one who finds Pratchett tiresome and not at all funny?
Nah, I'm pretty sure DF would say the same.
In short: humor is subjective. Some people enjoy certain brands of it, some people don't.
Currently re-reading Terry Pratchet's witch books, with the exception of Equal Rites. Already got through Wyrd Sisters, Witches Abroad, and Lords and Ladies. Currently on Maskerade. After that is Carpe Jugulum, Wee Free Men, Hat Full of Sky, and Wintersmith.
Why not Equal Rites?
Just don't like it as much. Especially after I've read one of his more recent books, it feels a bit clunky and unpolished. /shrug
Just don't like it as much. Especially after I've read one of his more recent books, it feels a bit clunky and unpolished. /shrug
I don't disagree with your assessment, I was just curious. Equal Rites is one of the few Pratchett books I've not revisted, though it was the one that got me into Pratchett to begin with.
Just don't like it as much. Especially after I've read one of his more recent books, it feels a bit clunky and unpolished. /shrug
I don't disagree with your assessment, I was just curious. Equal Rites is one of the few Pratchett books I've not revisted, though it was the one that got me into Pratchett to begin with.
Eh I'm not a pratchett fan either. Just reread 1634 baltic war by Eric Flint and David Webber. Really great read the ring of fire series is awsome. Modern day town in west virginia gets dropped into Germany during the 30 years war. Amazing series.
Although I'm more of an Agatha Christie than a Doyle person, I did find Study in Scarlet decent. And as already mentioned, Heart of Darkness is awesome; important: no matter how boring it may seem at first, don't stop. I was all about to stop after like fifty pages, but the punchline that makes it great comes pretty near the end.
The other you're keen to read would not be Lord Jim, by any chance? He who recommended Heart of Darkness to me also told me to read that one, but I didn't get around to doing it yet. I want to, though - sounds great.
Actually, upon further reflection I remembered that it was The Man Who Would Be King. I've seen parts of the movie they made of it, with Sean Connery.
Of course, I've also seen several movie adaptations of Heart of Darkness, including one with John Malkovitch that I fell asleep during. I've started to read the novel before, but never finished. After my current book, I will finish it.
I also did not know that Apocalypse Now was totally a HoD rip-off until I read it.
Currently rereading Michael Moor**** History of the Runestaff (a.k.a. the Dorian Hawkmoon quartet).
I think you meant Michael Moorrooster. :P
I also did not know that Apocalypse Now was totally a HoD rip-off until I read it.
It wasn't a "rip off", as that implies deceit or something done in bad fiath. The filmmakers never hid the fazct that Apocalypse Now was based on Heart of Darkness. They admitted it freely and openly acknowledged that AN was a modern retelling of HoD.
It wasn't a "rip off", as that implies deceit or something done in bad fiath. The filmmakers never hid the fazct that Apocalypse Now was based on Heart of Darkness. They admitted it freely and openly acknowledged that AN was a modern retelling of HoD.
Yeah, I thought about my word choice after I posted that and considered changing it. But I can't be bothered with that sort of thing today.
I enjoy how it's hard-boiled and gritty without being gruesome or excessive. I also really enjoy the Black Company's nature. I've read all about grand companies that dominate the field through strength of arms and skill, but never about a company that dominated the field by deception and deciet. I'm especially a fan of the company's minor wizards.
I am now digging deeper into Glen Cook's "The Black Company" novels. I finished the Books of the North and am most of the way through the Books of the South. I dare say they are my favorite medieval high fantasy series with the exception of Absolutely Anyone Ever.
I enjoy how it's hard-boiled and gritty without being gruesome or excessive. I also really enjoy the Black Company's nature. I've read all about grand companies that dominate the field through strength of arms and skill, but never about a company that dominated the field by deception and deciet. I'm especially a fan of the company's minor wizards.
Brilliant books. Simply fantastic writing, characters, and atmosphere.
Luckily I picked up the "Foundation and Empire" and "Second Foundation" this weekend. I'll probably start "Foundation and Empire" during lunch today. One of my coworkers keeps tell me that I look really happy when I go to lunch with my book.
I also recieved "I, Robot" from Amazon the other day so I'll have some good amount Asimov in my library. It only seems natural since I like science fiction and he's generally considered one of the greatest science fiction writers ever.
Finished Heart of Darkness, really enjoyed it. Definitely have to read more Conrad. Working my way through Le Morte d'Arthur right now. Slower going because of the antiquity of the language and the bizarre spelling. Interesting enough, though. Makes me want to reference lots of it in my own writing, but people today (for the most part) just wouldn't pick up on it.
I've always wanted to read "Le Morte d'Arthur" but I heard that its really hard to get through because of the style. But it still is the definative King Arthur source. I would like to know what you think of it when you finish it.
I've always wanted to read "Le Morte d'Arthur" but I heard that its really hard to get through because of the style. But it still is the definative King Arthur source. I would like to know what you think of it when you finish it.
Not only but also, there is one big battle scene which seems to consist only of various knights being unhorsed, various other knights noticing this, unhorsing a knight from the opposing side, and bringin that knight to their buddy who doesn't have a horse. I swear, at least twenty or thirty times this happens in that one battle, and at most one or two people are killed. Well, of the knights, anyway. Who knows about the footmen? They're not really important. If they were important, somebody would have brought them a horse.
I'm used to the style now. Sir Kay is a ****. Just thought I'd mention that.
It definitely has its moment, some unexpectedly graphic ones. I'd recommend plugging on through it.
My friend handed me a copy of the first book of this 'wheel of time' stuff.
Hand it right back…and slap him.
It's a bit slow, with uninteresting characters and too much focus on unimportant descriptions that, while setting a mood, as intended, set a throughly uninteresting mood (Yes, I get it, the trees in the woods do not have any leaves during the winter. Move on already damn you.) Also the state of the world is apparantly a massive, partisan gender war. Every conflict in the book thus far seems to be boys vs girls, really bizzare and annoying.
Put the book down and run for your life. I managed to slog my way through that thing and I deeply regret the hours of my life wasted on it. I also took the "maybe it gets better" approach and was sorely disappointed. Truly one of the worst books I've ever read. My loathing for it is so intense you'd think it had personally violated a loved one. One of the most derivative, hackneyed, boring, unimaginative, bloated and poorly-written pieces of junk it has eve been my displeasure to read. Avoid at all costs.
…when it actually decides to go somehwere.
It doesn't.
My friend handed me a copy of the first book of this 'wheel of time' stuff.
Hand it right back…and slap him.It's a bit slow, with uninteresting characters and too much focus on unimportant descriptions that, while setting a mood, as intended, set a throughly uninteresting mood (Yes, I get it, the trees in the woods do not have any leaves during the winter. Move on already damn you.) Also the state of the world is apparantly a massive, partisan gender war. Every conflict in the book thus far seems to be boys vs girls, really bizzare and annoying.
Put the book down and run for your life. I managed to slog my way through that thing and I deeply regret the hours of my life wasted on it. I also took the "maybe it gets better" approach and was sorely disappointed. Truly one of the worst books I've ever read. My loathing for it is so intense you'd think it had personally violated a loved one. One of the most derivative, hackneyed, boring, unimaginative, bloated and poorly-written pieces of junk it has eve been my displeasure to read. Avoid at all costs.…when it actually decides to go somehwere.
It doesn't.
Thats funny I thought it and the whole series far better than Tolkien or for that matter many of the other works mentioned in this thread specially the American classics. The world and series are amazingly done. The village gets attacked they are on the run battles, being hunted a city with a dark shadow that tries to EAT THEIR SOULS, a guy who talks to wolves, and magic really what more could you possibly want out of a fantasy novel?
As for what I'm reading I just finished First Lords Furies which is absolutley amazing. Jim Butcher is a genius.
Thats funny I thought it and the whole series far better than Tolkien or for that matter many of the other works mentioned in this thread specially the American classics. The world and series are amazingly done. The village gets attacked they are on the run battles, being hunted a city with a dark shadow that tries to EAT THEIR SOULS, a guy who talks to wolves, and magic really
Not really funny. Some people adore the series, I'm just not one of them. I wish it did like it, cos theres a lot of pages to keep one occupied.
what more could you possibly want out of a fantasy novel?
Good writing.
what more could you possibly want out of a fantasy novel?
Good writing.
Ahh. So you're a Terry Goodkind fan then? ... ... ... Ok, you got me. I was jus' kiddin'.
If a bunch of retarded teen farmboys seem to be capable of repeatedly besting them in battle, why do they keep running from the damn Trollocs? Also, apparantly, being descended from people allow you to speak their language and randomly spout gibberish sentences that refrence their old rulers.
Because those retarded farm boys are not that retarded also people fear the trollocs because armies of them almost destroyed all of civilization at some point in the past. The first book by itself is not meant to be a stand alone. A lot of things only become clear later on in the series. Your not supposed to know what all is going on in the first book, your supposed to be confused at times, at least thats the way I read it. Jordan's writing in my opinion is better than that of some authors that were named in this thread, Steinbeck Im looking at you.
Just reread Gilgamesh, and wow every time I reread that story I'm blown away by it. Probably the oldest story ever put to paper but it's still everything a good story should be. If you have not read it then drop what you are reading and pick it up.
Ahh. So you're a Terry Goodkind fan then?
Never read him. I prefer Terry Pratchett.
Never read him. I prefer Terry Pratchett.
Well, that's something in your favor. I strongly suggest sticking with the Terry you know and forgetting entirely about the one I mentioned. Cuz he's terrible.
Maybe one day I'll get around to reading this Pratchett fellow everyone is always talking about. Fantasy just ain't my bag anymore, though. Still, I'm runnin' out of stuff to read that ain't. Well, stuff that I want to read that ain't.
Well, that's something in your favor. I strongly suggest sticking with the Terry you know and forgetting entirely about the one I mentioned. Cuz he's terrible.
I'll likley read soemthing by him at some time - I like to give everything a chance, at least - but I've not heard good things.
Maybe one day I'll get around to reading this Pratchett fellow everyone is always talking about. Fantasy just ain't my bag anymore, though. Still, I'm runnin' out of stuff to read that ain't. Well, stuff that I want to read that ain't.
In truth, Pratchett isn't really Fantasy. His first few books in the Discworld series (which are generally the weakest) started out as pretty normal Fantasy fare but he moved fairly quickly away from that. His writing, and the setting, evolved and now he writes some pretty damned clever satire set in (and often poking fun at) a Fantasy world.
I'll likley read soemthing by him at some time - I like to give everything a chance, at least - but I've not heard good things.
To be fair, Wizard's First Rule - the first book in the Sword of Truth series - was ok. The major issue is that he establishes a formula here and he then follows it exactly in every other book. It becomes almost a chore to follow - you know nothing is ever actually fixed cuz there's something worse coming. Every. Single. Time. The repetition of basic plot is mind numbing. Still, I did like the first book and made it through four before it pissed me off to the point of quitting. And he does have some fans. Just not me. ;)
In truth, Pratchett isn't really Fantasy. His first few books in the Discworld series (which are generally the weakest) started out as pretty normal Fantasy fare but he moved fairly quickly away from that. His writing, and the setting, evolved and now he writes some pretty damned clever satire set in (and often poking fun at) a Fantasy world.
Interesting. This actually sounds like something I'd enjoy. Once I finish this book my mom wanted me to read (yay for favors for mom
) and then finish up Faulkner, maybe I'll head to Pratchett.I started the book my mom gave me, The Shack by Wm. Paul Young. I'm only about 30 pages in, but I do have an impression of the work so far. It's simple. Now, I have no problem with simple writing - many authors have created some amazing stuff writing simply. It's just that you can write simply without being simple. Thus far, I'm not getting that feeling of depth. It's just right there in your face. There's some attempts at jokes, but they're pitiful at best. That may be the intent, but, if it is, it's not needed. Anyhoo, I've still got plenty to read. I'm hoping things get a little better.
If a bunch of retarded teen farmboys seem to be capable of repeatedly besting them in battle, why do they keep running from the damn Trollocs? Also, apparantly, being descended from people allow you to speak their language and randomly spout gibberish sentences that refrence their old rulers.
Because those retarded farm boys are not that retarded also people fear the trollocs because armies of them almost destroyed all of civilization at some point in the past. The first book by itself is not meant to be a stand alone. A lot of things only become clear later on in the series. Your not supposed to know what all is going on in the first book, your supposed to be confused at times, at least thats the way I read it. Jordan's writing in my opinion is better than that of some authors that were named in this thread, Steinbeck Im looking at you.
Just reread Gilgamesh, and wow every time I reread that story I'm blown away by it. Probably the oldest story ever put to paper but it's still everything a good story should be. If you have not read it then drop what you are reading and pick it up.
By 'people' I mean the retarded farm boys who keep trouncing them. Seeing a pattern: Ah trollocs are coming, run! Ah the trollocs found us anyways! Oh look, all the trollocs died when I stabed them incompetently. As for 'not supposed to understand everything' I'm going to be pissed when it turns out they are all just fighting future versions of themselves, which I highly suspect to be the case.
If a bunch of retarded teen farmboys seem to be capable of repeatedly besting them in battle, why do they keep running from the damn Trollocs? Also, apparantly, being descended from people allow you to speak their language and randomly spout gibberish sentences that refrence their old rulers.
Because those retarded farm boys are not that retarded also people fear the trollocs because armies of them almost destroyed all of civilization at some point in the past. The first book by itself is not meant to be a stand alone. A lot of things only become clear later on in the series. Your not supposed to know what all is going on in the first book, your supposed to be confused at times, at least thats the way I read it. Jordan's writing in my opinion is better than that of some authors that were named in this thread, Steinbeck Im looking at you.
Just reread Gilgamesh, and wow every time I reread that story I'm blown away by it. Probably the oldest story ever put to paper but it's still everything a good story should be. If you have not read it then drop what you are reading and pick it up.
By 'people' I mean the retarded farm boys who keep trouncing them. Seeing a pattern: Ah trollocs are coming, run! Ah the trollocs found us anyways! Oh look, all the trollocs died when I stabed them incompetently. As for 'not supposed to understand everything' I'm going to be pissed when it turns out they are all just fighting future versions of themselves, which I highly suspect to be the case.
NOT even close. Trust me the whole series is amazing. Im not a fan of pratchett or Faulkner, but to each their own. I also recommend the Kushiel series by Jaquelyn Carey to anyone who can hanlde it a very different fantasy series, note NOT ABSOLUTLEY NOT FOR CHILDREN.
I also recommend the Kushiel series by Jaquelyn Carey to anyone who can hanlde it a very different fantasy series, note NOT ABSOLUTLEY NOT FOR CHILDREN.
Seconded, on both the quality of the series and the NOT FOR KIDS warning.
NOT ABSOLUTLEY NOT FOR CHILDREN.
Is the double negative for emphasis, or are you affirming that it is child safe? I still have some Christmas shopping to do.
Is the double negative for emphasis, or are you affirming that it is child safe? I still have some Christmas shopping to do.
Eh, books are always safe gifts for children...
I'm now reading Storm Front, which is book 1 in the Dresden Files. I was a fan of the TV series, and my husband read the book on his trip back to AFG and sent it back to me. He's devouring the rest of the series in AFG, and so far I'm enjoying the book. It's totally a solo Mage game, which is why it's so fun.
However, "vampiress" is a dumb word, regardless who says it or why. :P
The window into early beat culture is also pretty fascinating. At times it evokes a real yearn for the open road and at others it makes you glad you have a roof over your head which I think makes the book distinctly American. In a very good way.
Is the double negative for emphasis, or are you affirming that it is child safe? I still have some Christmas shopping to do.
Eh, books are always safe gifts for children...
Not those books trust me very adult in nature but very good series over all.
Dresden files is also awsome.
... Too late. I hope jenny likes it.
Well don't blame me if she asks some interesting questions after reading it, I warned you.
Hey, I actually finished World War Z. It made me tear up in a few spots. Pretty good, for a book.
"World War Z" was a good book. I am a fan of it. Apparently they're trying to make a movie out of it. I'm not really sure how it'll work since its not really character based. As usual, I'll assume it'll be bad until proven otherwise.
While I'm on movie adaptations, I saw "The Road" movie this weekend. I saw it in New York City since it was a limited release. It was good. I thought it had less uplifting parts than the book (or the uplifting parts of the book were better described). But it was a good movie and I almost got emotional at the end (but I didn't because I'm a MAN). Although there wasn't a baby on a stick scene... I guess I'll have to wait for the DVD extras =P
... Too late. I hope jenny likes it.
Well don't blame me if she asks some interesting questions after reading it, I warned you.
What's so scary about questions?
In other news, current book that I'm reading: Computer Architecture 4th Ed, by John L. Hennessey and David A. Patterson.
What's so scary about questions?
In this case, the answers.
What's so scary about answers?
Depends on the answers you wind up having to supply. In some cases, the answers are merely uncomfortable. In other cases, life-changing and vile.
For myself, I'm rereading a book I wrote some years ago, trying to edit. Need to pack in about another 8000 words to get it to stock novel length (90,000-ish).
-Sarena
What's so scary about answers?
Read the books and you'll understand.
My verdict: YES. They are that bad. Worse, even. I, an amateur writer who has taken one measly course in creative writing, can spot glaring "mistakes." Just... so many things she did very badly, and could have easily done so much better. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go see if those things get any better.
What's so scary about answers?
Read the books and you'll understand.
Meh. It'll need a better recommendation then "not suitable for children" to entice me.
As is, I know I was reading a lot of books considered "not suitable for children" while in elementary school. And honestly, if your kid is at an adult reading level I can't imagine that you, as a parent, are uncomfortable with discussing adult concepts. Mostly on account of they only get to that level if they read a lot, and if you're that uncomfortable with answers then you would have put a stop to it a long time before then, no?
So one of my friends told me she watched the latest Twilight movie recently. Found it quite unintentionally hilarious. So I decided to see if the books really were as bad as people said they were; I mean, people frequently exaggerate these things and all, right?
My verdict: YES. They are that bad. Worse, even. I, an amateur writer who has taken one measly course in creative writing, can spot glaring "mistakes." Just... so many things she did very badly, and could have easily done so much better. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go see if those things get any better.
It doesn't. If anything, fame went to Stephanie's head, and things went way downhill after that.
-Sarena
Meh. It'll need a better recommendation then "not suitable for children" to entice me.
"Not suitable for children" was a warning, not an enticement.
As is, I know I was reading a lot of books considered "not suitable for children" while in elementary school. And honestly, if your kid is at an adult reading level I can't imagine that you, as a parent, are uncomfortable with discussing adult concepts. Mostly on account of they only get to that level if they read a lot, and if you're that uncomfortable with answers then you would have put a stop to it a long time before then, no?
If you are comfortable discussing vivid sexuality and brutal violence - often in combination - with your child and answering questions like "what is a ****", "why is it bad for one to have jagged metal studs", and "if it is so bad then why does Phaedre enjoy being taken with by it" then have at it, but generally speaking most parents are not.
I think Stephen King summed up the Twilight crap the best when he said that, though they target a similar audience, the difference between Stephanie Meyer and JK Rowling is that JK Rowling can write. I've never read Potter or Twilight (hell, or King for that matter) but that statement always tickles me. And after all of the opinions I've seen on both, I also believe it's true.
My wife (and to a lesser extent myself) likes Stephen King and loved that quotes. She liked the Harry Potter books and attempted to read the Twilight books, but hated them more than I can describe. She has complaints from how poorly its written (my wife often says that its worse than bad fanfic), to how bad the characters are (they have no depth or outside interests), to how it teaches bad values (women should just sit at home lusting over "hot" men or cooking for their father), and much more.
We often mock Stephanie Meyers just because she seems so delusional. Its one thing to write books and make money, but she honestly believes she's a good writer? And I remember she was saying how the actor in "Twilight" was so good that he should get an Academy Award. Totally nuts...
Oh and he hates the character :-p
Well to be fair to Robert Pattinson (that was his name right?) he did play Edward and not commit suicide afterwards. I think that deserves at least some kind of award.
Oh and he hates the character :-p
Yeah, it must be pretty horrible to have to deliver those lines and play that character, but his "award" is cash and fame (or imfamy). I actually thought the girl who plays Bella is kinda cute, but whenever I see anything Twilight associated, I just get to angry to process things properly.
she'd be kind of cute... if she didn't have the same face.
She's definately not in my top tier, but she's not nearly as bad as her Twilightness.
But there are some pictures that she just looks awful, like her picture on Wikipedia. And she definately suffers from the Megan Fox disease of taking too many pictures where her mouth's open like a retard. But I guess that's popular these days.
Its like they had to make her look bitcher and more helpless to fit the role or something. And I don't know how, but her face just seems rounder or something when she's all Twilighted up. She also does something with her nose like something always stinks (like her lines probably). I guess that's what makeup and acting will do?
Dude, that's what I'm saying!
Its like they had to make her look bitcher and more helpless to fit the role or something. And I don't know how, but her face just seems rounder or something when she's all Twilighted up. She also does something with her nose like something always stinks (like her lines probably). I guess that's what makeup and acting will do?
Yeah twilights bad, it is annoying because there are much better teen vampire books out there. The House of Night series by P.C and Kristen Cast is pretty good and I just started reading the vampire academy series fairly good so far.
Meh. It'll need a better recommendation then "not suitable for children" to entice me.
"Not suitable for children" was a warning, not an enticement.
Maybe that's the intent, but when you say something like that and then get all vague and hedgey about the why, and follow it up with "go read it yourself, why don'tcha?" it sure sounds like an enticement. Giving away just enough to get someone curious, but not enough to tell them whether or not they'd actually like it and all that jazz.
As is, I know I was reading a lot of books considered "not suitable for children" while in elementary school. And honestly, if your kid is at an adult reading level I can't imagine that you, as a parent, are uncomfortable with discussing adult concepts. Mostly on account of they only get to that level if they read a lot, and if you're that uncomfortable with answers then you would have put a stop to it a long time before then, no?
If you are comfortable discussing vivid sexuality and brutal violence - often in combination - with your child and answering questions like "what is a ****", "why is it bad for one to have jagged metal studs", and "if it is so bad then why does Phaedre enjoy being taken with by it" then have at it, but generally speaking most parents are not.
... you do realize that should I ever have a kid that they're probably going to have two daddies, right? And that they'll have been on the side-lines of a few pride parades before they're in school? So yeah. I think I'll be pretty vetted with answering uncomfortable questions long before any kid o' mine is reading books that far above their age category. 'specially since what the kids say at school are bound to get a whole mess of "uncomfortable questions".
So yeah. Kid o' mine reads enough books to get their skill up to that level, hears about this violent S&M book and wants to read it? Sure I'd let them. Not like I could realistically stop them. If they're intelligent enough to be able to read it and are interested in reading it, I doubt they're ignorant of the public library and not clever enough to get it whether I'm there with them or not. And if they're going to be reading it anyway, I'd rather they ask me or my SO their uncomfortable questions then going to someone else, whose judgement and bias I may not trust.
... you do realize that should I ever have a kid that they're probably going to have two daddies, right?
As I am not intimately familiar with you and your family plans, and there is nothing intrinsic to your online persona that would in any way suggest what this is a somehow obvious scenario (as you imply) so why, exactly, should I "realize" this?
And that they'll have been on the side-lines of a few pride parades before they're in school? So yeah. I think I'll be pretty vetted with answering uncomfortable questions long before any kid o' mine is reading books that far above their age category. 'specially since what the kids say at school are bound to get a whole mess of "uncomfortable questions".
Immaterial. Being exposed to non-standard familial groups does not suddenly mean that every and all topics are suddenly acceptable and suitable for kids of all ages. Thanks to my sister - who was 9 years older than I and openly gay - I was aroundpeople of all sexual orientations and lifestyles growing up and I marched in pride parades before I was in school, that doesn't mean The Story of O would've made an appropriate bedtime story.
All of this aside, they are simply very good books. I picked up the first book based on a recommendation from someone on these forums and I've never regretted it. I passed it on to my wife and it quickly became her favourite series. I highly recommend trying the first book - Kushiel's Dart - and seeing if you enjoy it, and you can then judge for yourself whether it is kid-appropriate or not.
Cheers.
So yeah. Kid o' mine reads enough books to get their skill up to that level, hears about this violent S&M book and wants to read it? Sure I'd let them. Not like I could realistically stop them. If they're intelligent enough to be able to read it and are interested in reading it, I doubt they're ignorant of the public library and not clever enough to get it whether I'm there with them or not. And if they're going to be reading it anyway, I'd rather they ask me or my SO their uncomfortable questions then going to someone else, whose judgement and bias I may not trust.
Of course you cannot prevent kids from getting hold of something if they choose too. That was never the point. No warning would be sufficient to stop this and the very argument is absurd as that was not at all what was suggested. As was fairly obvious, the intent was to make parents aware that the content is quite adult and so it should probably not be given to a child. I've read enough of your posts to know you are not wanting for intelligence, so I can only surmise this misrepresentation was intentional.
As I said, if you are comfortable with it then so be it, but the majority of parents are likely not. You can show your kid porn if you want, that doesn't mean a general warning that the contents are inappropriate to children does not apply. If the warning does not apply to you then ignore it, but I'm still unsure what you hoped to accomplish by arguing against it particularly when you are admittedly unfamiliar with the books being discussed.
And if they're going to be reading it anyway, I'd rather they ask me or my SO their uncomfortable questions then going to someone else, whose judgement and bias I may not trust.
"We answer questions with WORDS goddamnit!"
As I am not intimately familiar with you and your family plans, and there is nothing intrinsic to your online persona that would in any way suggest what this is a somehow obvious scenario (as you imply) so why, exactly, should I "realize" this?
... 'cause you're not new 'round here and I'm a big loudmouth ****? Who consistently refers to his boyfriend as his partner or SO, has a pink triangle in his sig, has made no secret of his orientation in a friggin' long time, and in general make a loud ****-licious liberal nuissance of myself? And you've been around for a while to see all of this?
I mean, it's certainly not impossible for you to completetly miss me being a complete ****, but it is suprising to me, and being the smug self-proclaimed pretentious (and arrogant) elitist who is "biased and delusional" it's not like being condescending is beneath me, ya know?
And that they'll have been on the side-lines of a few pride parades before they're in school? So yeah. I think I'll be pretty vetted with answering uncomfortable questions long before any kid o' mine is reading books that far above their age category. 'specially since what the kids say at school are bound to get a whole mess of "uncomfortable questions".
Immaterial. Being exposed to non-standard familial groups does not suddenly mean that every and all topics are suddenly acceptable and suitable for kids of all ages. Thanks to my sister - who was 9 years older than I and openly gay - I was aroundpeople of all sexual orientations and lifestyles growing up and I marched in pride parades before I was in school, that doesn't mean The Story of O would've made an appropriate bedtime story.
No, but it does mean that, as a parent, I'll be plenty prepared answering uncomfortable questions. Which is part of what you expressed as what made it inappropriate for kids. [link] So me not being worried about questions kinda makes moot your plea to my comfort as for why it's inappropriate for kids, no? [link]
All of this aside, they are simply very good books. I picked up the first book based on a recommendation from someone on these forums and I've never regretted it. I passed it on to my wife and it quickly became her favourite series. I highly recommend trying the first book - Kushiel's Dart - and seeing if you enjoy it, and you can then judge for yourself whether it is kid-appropriate or not.
Meh. Kinky violent sex is boring. I'll need a better enticement then "inappropriate for kids and has kinky violent sex" to get me interested.
And if they're going to be reading it anyway, I'd rather they ask me or my SO their uncomfortable questions then going to someone else, whose judgement and bias I may not trust.
"We answer questions with WORDS goddamnit!"
... what?
And if they're going to be reading it anyway, I'd rather they ask me or my SO their uncomfortable questions then going to someone else, whose judgement and bias I may not trust.
"We answer questions with WORDS goddamnit!"
... what?
Oh nothing. Just a possible response to someone using poor judgment and bias in answering an uncomfortable question.
Terry Pratchett's Tiffany Aching series
- The Wee Free Men
- A Hat Full of Sky
- Wintersmith
This is filed under Terry Pratchett's "young adult" books. This is probably one of the best series to jump into the Discworld. Light-hearted and funny, the series is the story of Tiffany Aching and her "Wee Free Men". When you read these stories, the most important thing to remember is that the "Wee Free Men" are not speaking gibberish - they merely have an overpowering Scottish (I think) accent. This series is nothing short of brilliant. I personally guarantee at least one (more, if you're not a sour-puss) out-loud laugh from anyone reading these books. Probably my favorite book(s) to date. I eagerly await and salivate over the next book in the series, tenatively named I shall Wear Midnight. Though, there is no guarantee that we will see it.
Kim Harrison's "The Hollows" series
- Dead Witch Walking
- The Good, The Bad, and The Undead
- Every Which Way But Dead
- A Fistful of Charms
- For a Few Demons More
- The Outlaw Demon Wails
- White Witch Black Curse
Kim Harrison's "The Hollows" series is creative and exciting. It is set in a world where a genetically-engineered tomato wiped out a huge portion of the earth's Humans, leaving the mythological (or so we thought) beings to lash the world together until we recovered. The protagonist is a strong woman working as an Inderland Security Runner (that means she bags magical, mythological bad-guys) who quits her job. The last guy to quit his job was found shortly thereafter on his porch - almost every square-inch of it. I highly suggest reading the entire series in succession, but as a stand-alone book, it is great.
Patricia Briggs' Mercy Thompson series
- Moon Called
- Blood Bound
- Moon Called
- Bone Crossed
Mercedes Thompson (her friends call her 'Mercy') is the protagonist in Patricia Briggs' Mercy Thompson series (did that sound as stupid to you as it did to me?). Mercy is a shapeshifter called a "Walker" (not to be confused with a skin-walker). Mercy works as a Volkswagen mechanic in a world where the Fey creatures of mythology have 'outted' themselves. With technology getting more advanced, the Fey have been having an increasingly hard time staying a secret - so, they brought themselves to light. Mercy lives next door to a wealthy werewolf and does mechanic work for her friend, a vampire who owns a van created in the image of the Scooby Doo Mystery-machine. Curiously enough, neither werewolves nor vampires are known by humans - they're just ridiculous myths, afterall. A good, strong series with plenty of mystery and a sexy mechanic lady. What's not to like?
Catherine Jinks' Evil Genius
- Evil Genius
S.L. Viehl's Stardoc series
- Stardoc
- Beyond Varallan
S.L. Viehl's Stardoc series is about Doctor Cherijo Grey Veil and her travels from Terra to distant and remote points of space and the adventures she has there. Not my normal kind of read, I was extremely skeptical and confused when I started reading. Right in the first few lines, already everything is hectic and alien. A few pages in, though, I was intrigued and couldn't stop reading. Dr. Cherijo Grey Veil is on the run from home but we don't know why. She goes bar-hopping in the slums to find a ride off of Terra in the hopes of excaping. When she gets off-world and reaches her destination (a planet named K-2), she fights and claws to learn, to live, and to save lives. I am only on the second book in the series, but already I want more. If you like stories about strong women fighting to keep their power, their sanity, and their lives, you will enjoy this. I promise. It's better than you think. :P
Not only is the writing terrible and the editing sloppy, the stories present abusive stalkers as the epitome of romantic love interests.
Oh it gets worse later.
It promotes **** later on.
Yeah. They go there.
Meh. Kinky violent sex is boring. I'll need a better enticement then "inappropriate for kids and has kinky violent sex" to get me interested.
Never said anything about kinky. Indeed that fact that it is not kinky is kind of the point.
I'm not trying to sell you on it, I was just seconding a recommendation made by someone else as I consider the series to be quite excellent. If you don't care to read it then don't. If you want to know more I would suggest checking Amazon or Google for a full description.
So I'm grudgingly reading the Twilight Series. Currently on the third book, Eclipse. They're awful. I wouldn't be reading them except I don't want people to accuse me of being able to like them if I'd only read them, after I decry them as terrible books. Which they are, having read two. Ugh.
Not only is the writing terrible and the editing sloppy, the stories present abusive stalkers as the epitome of romantic love interests.
That is a tough line to walk. When you know enough about a series to know it is bad you run the risk of looking like an ignorant ass if you decry it without having read it, but in order to rectify that you have to read it. I admire your commitment, sir.
I've not read Twilight but I've seen enough and read enough about it, and enough small excerpts, to know that it is crap. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't care enough to find out. There are enough good books in the world that I don't need to waste my time on bad ones. I mean I've never been shot but I know enough about it to decide it is not a pleasant experience and I am comfortable with my decision to, if at all possible, remain ignorant of the experience.
Never said anything about kinky. Indeed that fact that it is not kinky is kind of the point.
Kinky: relating to, having, or appealing to unconventional tastes especially in sex; also : sexually deviant
...
You have odd ideas about what constitutes mainstream sexual appeal I take it?
Kinky: relating to, having, or appealing to unconventional tastes especially in sex; also : sexually deviant
You have odd ideas about what constitutes mainstream sexual appeal I take it?
No, but if you'd read the books you'd know that's not what it is about. If you don't want to know more about them then you don't have to, but drawing broad opinions of their theme based solely on very vague snippets in an unrelated forum conversation is nonsensical.
Kinky: relating to, having, or appealing to unconventional tastes especially in sex; also : sexually deviant
You have odd ideas about what constitutes mainstream sexual appeal I take it?
No, but if you'd read the books you'd know that's not what it is about. If you don't want to know more about them then you don't have to, but drawing broad opinions of their theme based solely on very vague snippets in an unrelated forum conversation is nonsensical.
Who are you suggesting should be sensible, punk.
Not only is the writing terrible and the editing sloppy, the stories present abusive stalkers as the epitome of romantic love interests.
They have editing on that series? I thought it was a pair of zombie-monkeys throwing pages between covers at random.
-Sarena
They have editing on that series? I thought it was a pair of zombie-monkeys throwing pages between covers at random.
-Sarena
As a representative of Zombie Labor Local 316, I can assure you none of our undead were on the job. Even in times like these - where employment is hard to find - we soulless walking dead still have lines we simply cannot cross. Even when invited.
They have editing on that series? I thought it was a pair of zombie-monkeys throwing pages between covers at random.
-Sarena
As a representative of Zombie Labor Local 316, I can assure you none of our undead were on the job. Even in times like these - where employment is hard to find - we soulless walking dead still have lines we simply cannot cross. Even when invited.
Child labor is not one of them, however.
Child labor is not one of them, however.
We at Local 316 support the work rights of all undead members - be they man, woman, child, amphibian or colossal abomination of god. We also support their right to work. As undead, we have many advantages over meatbags. Our 'children' don't tire. They don't need food, sleep or even air. In other words, they're not weaklings like the children of man and therefore don't need as much babysitting. We do, however, take safety very seriously. While the loss of a limb may not be painful to one of our members, it may very well effect their future employment eligibility. That's why it's our focus to not only ensure employment opportunities for our traditionally discriminated members, but also to prevent their abuse. We take our responsibilities to our undead brothers, sisters and favorite things very seriously. If there wasn't a need for us, we'd not exist.
As a representative of Zombie Labor Local 316, I can assure you none of our undead were on the job. Even in times like these - where employment is hard to find - we soulless walking dead still have lines we simply cannot cross. Even when invited.
Ah, thank you. Then the monkeys in question were drunk and hooked on crack.
At least we know ;)
-Sarena
Ah, thank you. Then the monkeys in question were drunk and hooked on crack.
At least we know ;)
-Sarena
I will, unfortunately, be unable to comment on this particular assumption. Pending litigation, and all.
- Game Theory: Concepts and Applications
- Game Theory: A Nontechnical Introduction
- Diplomacy, by Henry Kissinger (possibly along with his newer books)
- or, The Flawed Arquitech (though I really want 'The Quirky Realist') because I want an academic perspective on the man
So I'm grudgingly reading the Twilight Series. Currently on the third book, Eclipse. They're awful. I wouldn't be reading them except I don't want people to accuse me of being able to like them if I'd only read them, after I decry them as terrible books. Which they are, having read two. Ugh.
Not only is the writing terrible and the editing sloppy, the stories present abusive stalkers as the epitome of romantic love interests.
Isn't reading just one book enough to have an informed opinion about their crappiness?
I read "The Da Vinci Code" pretty much for the same reason and I feel justified when I decry any Dan Brown book.
Currently I'm reading through Draconomicon: Metallic Dragons. However, on saturday I'll be leaving for Spain to se my girlfriend and on the plane I shall be enjoying two great works of art:Also I'm thinking about getting one of these in e-book in case I need something more entretaining:
- Game Theory: Concepts and Applications
- Game Theory: A Nontechnical Introduction
- Diplomacy, by Henry Kissinger (possibly along with his newer books)
- or, The Flawed Arquitech (though I really want 'The Quirky Realist') because I want an academic perspective on the man
I read parts of "Diplomacy" for a defense policy class. I thought the parts I read were quite good so I bought the book. It still sits in my library unread though.
I need to stop buying books.
Now I can go back to reading something decent. One of the books that Stephanie Meyer no doubt thinks herself very intelligent for having read (and thus, having her main character read) is Wuthering Heights, which seems like the kind of book I should read. So maybe that's next. Or maybe I'll try fro Dracula. You know, the actual novel by Bram Stoker. Something good, anyway.
Still gagging over the first one, so I haven't seen the second.
-Sarena
My condolences for the bad fanfics. Dracula's always good. I suggest it. You need a vampire story after the horrid demigod abusive stalker-centered masturbatory fantasy of a moronic bitch.
My god; you sum it up completely, accurately, and concisely. My hat is off to you, sir.
What pains me most is that there was a time when it was believed that moral educations could and should come from literature and its discussion. The model of romance presented as ideal in these novels is nothing but hurtful to all parties. Mansfield Park, by Jane Austen, is actually the perfect remedy for parts of it, but not all.
Sorry. Too much time spent recently thinking about it, and talking about it with the wife. I still hate those books for their horrifying editing and terrifying writing; however, the most unforgivable part is the influence they might have in forming the fantasies of the adolescent girls who read them.
After looking through the public domain stuff I can get easily in ebook form, I've got a full slate for the next several months (assuming I don't get sick again). Dracula, Frankenstein, Wuthering Heights, a bunch of Kippling (including some for the kids), and Grimm's Fairy Tales.
After looking through the public domain stuff I can get easily in ebook form, I've got a full slate for the next several months (assuming I don't get sick again). Dracula, Frankenstein, Wuthering Heights, a bunch of Kippling (including some for the kids), and Grimm's Fairy Tales.
If you like Sci-fi, and promise to be nice, I can forward you a .pdf copy of the book I mentioned upthread. I'd like a critical eye or six to tell me what, if anything, I'm doing wrong.
Promise I write and self-edit better than Steffy.
-Sarena
Countdown to right-wing windbag using this on-topic post to go OT and insult Franken and the left: 10…9…8…
(assuming I don't get sick again)
You said you're done with Twilight, right? I'm sure you'll be fine. ;)
Not.
I personally find Franken amusing, in the same way as I find Louis Farrakahn. Of course, I put the same labels on Algore, Micheal Moore, Rush Limbaugh, LarryKing, and the Reverend Sharpton.
But then, I find American Politics and the people that espouse it hilarious and terrifying by degrees. More terrifying still is the idea that I live in a nation that gives so much credence to such blowhards.
Please note I included more Democarps than I did Rethuglicans. Not that I'm right-wing, far from. The Democarps just seem to find their way onto the News decrying whatever is cool this week more often. I notice when people scream at me.
Usually. Particularly if they're telling me something obviously (or very likely) false, and calling me an idiotic ***** in the process. Religion is as guilty as Global Warming. I just want to see better evidence of both positions. Is that really so bad?
Nor am I Left-wing. I like my rights, especially those that involve being allowed to dispose my body as I like (Roe v. Wade), and the right to keep and arm Bears (Amendment 2). Right to worship as I wish, free speech, and separation of Church and State are more iffy, and I'd like to see all three of those strengthened.
Right now, they seem to be shrinking away nicely.
Now, back on topic, a read of the Constitution, Amendments, and the US PATRIOT act would do lots and lots of us a lot of good. We seem to have forgotten that the rights of the individual were considered paramount above and beyond those of all other interested parties.
That got lost somewhere, and we should really look into getting that back.
I mention the PATRIOT Act for a reason: Most of the Legislature that voted on it didn't take the time to read it. Nor, I suspect, did George II.
If anyone else wants a look at the book I mentioned in my last post, let me know.
-Sarena
Now, back on topic, a read of the Constitution
More Americans should do this. I suspect most people who claim to believe in it have not done so.
I mention the PATRIOT Act for a reason: Most of the Legislature that voted on it didn't take the time to read it. Nor, I suspect, did George II.
Probably cos it lacked large colorful illustrations and rounded corners.
Probably cos it lacked large colorful illustrations and rounded corners.
Perversely, I can believe that. Give it a look over. They can literally do anything they like. Renewing it was even worse.
Oh, and I have a serious giggle at Penn Jillette as well. But then he's *trying* to be funny. I give Penn and Teller credit for having done their homework, at the very least.
-Sarena
I also find the name Patriot Act quite ironic.
-Sarena
I also find the name Patriot Act quite ironic.
Terrible politicians seem to have a love for cruel irony. In the 90's the Province of Ontario suffered under an absolutley awful government run by a piece of human filth named Mike Harris. This government instituted a policy that eliminate rent control, allowed landlords to raise rents dramatically, to evict people with little notice and for pretty much any reason, and greatly reduced or eliminated tenants' rights and legal recourses.
The name of this piece of legislation? The "Tenant Protection Act".
I can't believe that it ever passed let alone so whole heartedly.
Remember, Americans are idiotic when it comes to "protecting themselves". Add into this that they don't have the heart or stomach for war and you get such documents.
Fear. Control fear, control the people. Sheep are afraid of dogs. That one dog can tell an entire herd of sheep where to go. They listen. Every time. See, they're so busy being afraid together, they've no idea where they're goin'.
I refer you to Starship Troopers, wherein Sufferance comes at a price of Service.
Methinks Heinlien made a very powerful statement in the OCS version of History and Moral Philosophy. If you give the proven aggressives power, then rest will follow. No Revolution will amount to much of anything without the aggression and will to follow through.
-Sarena
But then, he also asserted that Soverign Franchise itself was violence.
-Sarena
I feel like I should read more by Heinlein since he's considered one of the best science fiction writers.
1. Untamed by P.C. & Kristin Cast;
2. Death on the Nile by Agatha Christie;
3. The Dragonlance Chronicles by Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman;
4. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain;
5. Dracula by Bram Stoker;
6. Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind;
and 7. LotR: The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien
Ok, that one ain't so bad. The rest in the series? Uhh ... notsogood, IMO.
I'll be starting Faulkner's The Reivers today after I finish The Shack. Man, that book hurt my brain. Just some guy with an idea that pretty much walks you through it in the guise of a book. Towards the end, he pretty much stops trying to hide it, too. The main character gets dumber and dumber the more he learns. It's ... interesting, I guess. A far cry from my usual read, but I read it for my mom. I wonder how I'll discuss it with her without sounding like a prick. Oh well. She'll probably be all about the message over form, but I feel the form detracts from the message - which isn't all that impressive anyway. It has some moments, but overall it's kind of lame. The good news is that it'd be a quick read for those that don't read like I do (at lunch only). So feel free to give it a try. It's a bestseller, so it can't be bad, right?
EDIT: It reminds me of Animal Farm. The author has this idea that he wants you to get. So he bludgeons you with it repeatedly for hundreds of pages. It's not fun. And this seems like it could have been written by an 8th grader, too. At least AF had Orwell as author. I think I didn't like AF cuz I read 1984 first and AF is pretty much exactly the same book but written for idiots. Had I read it first, I think it would have seemed ok but also would have made 1984 seem better. Odd.
What am I reading? Here's mah list:
1. Untamed by P.C. & Kristin Cast;
2. Death on the Nile by Agatha Christie;
3. The Dragonlance Chronicles by Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman;
4. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain;
5. Dracula by Bram Stoker;
6. Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind;
and 7. LotR: The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien
Why would you reading so many books concurrently? It seems like it'd just be easier to finish one or two quickly than to spread out seven. I ask my wife the same question (although she only reads three or so at once) so maybe its a demented female thing.
EDIT: It reminds me of Animal Farm. The author has this idea that he wants you to get. So he bludgeons you with it repeatedly for hundreds of pages. It's not fun. And this seems like it could have been written by an 8th grader, too. At least AF had Orwell as author. I think I didn't like AF cuz I read 1984 first and AF is pretty much exactly the same book but written for idiots. Had I read it first, I think it would have seemed ok but also would have made 1984 seem better. Odd.
I enjoyed "Animal Farm", but I read it when I was in 8th grade and I didn't read "1984" until after high school. I think "1984" is vastly superior so maybe if I read it in the other order, I'd think "Animal Farm" was "1984"-light.
But don't they have different themes? I haven't read either in a while though I probably should read both again.
I enjoyed "Animal Farm", but I read it when I was in 8th grade and I didn't read "1984" until after high school. I think "1984" is vastly superior so maybe if I read it in the other order, I'd think "Animal Farm" was "1984"-light.
But don't they have different themes? I haven't read either in a while though I probably should read both again.
I felt the message was nearly exactly the same. The story was told differently about different things, but overall he was criticising the same stuff. Could be wrong, but that was my feel. And it's possible I got that impression because of the order I read them and the time in between - none. So I could have been 1984'd out at that point. ;)
I felt the message was nearly exactly the same. The story was told differently about different things, but overall he was criticising the same stuff. Could be wrong, but that was my feel. And it's possible I got that impression because of the order I read them and the time in between - none. So I could have been 1984'd out at that point. ;)
Two bites at the same apple. One post-revolution, one of the revolution in-progress.
-Sarena
Two bites at the same apple. One post-revolution, one of the revolution in-progress.
-Sarena
That's a good way to express it. Thanks. I'm so far divorced from Orwell at this point I couldn't put my finger on it. I read too much.
What am I reading? Here's mah list:
1. Untamed by P.C. & Kristin Cast;
2. Death on the Nile by Agatha Christie;
3. The Dragonlance Chronicles by Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman;
4. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain;
5. Dracula by Bram Stoker;
6. Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind;
and 7. LotR: The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien
Why would you reading so many books concurrently? It seems like it'd just be easier to finish one or two quickly than to spread out seven. I ask my wife the same question (although she only reads three or so at once) so maybe its a demented female thing.
Did you have to call it a "demented female thing"? that hurts my feelings...
Did you have to call it a "demented female thing"? that hurts my feelings...
That's another demented female thing. Feelings. *scoff*
I have an eighth book to add to that list: Twilight Dragon by Kiersten Renee Nichols. It was my Christmas present for myself. She's my friend, too. Makin' her a D&D character tomorrow, so that should be fun!
Not. Manly.
Tyson thought it was.
Tyson thought it was.
Not really. He's since apologized to Evander for doin' it. Men don't apologize for doin' manly things.
EDIT: Just read Id's new sig quote. Is this Nyx character some sort of twelve stepper?
EDIT: Just read Id's new sig quote. Is this Nyx character some sort of twelve stepper?
No its a quote from the house of night series a very well done vampire series so far, the only one ive read thats better for what it does is the vampire academy series, and both are so superior to twilight saga that it isnt even funny. For anyone with kids I recommend the Septemus Heap books.
No its a quote from the house of night series a very well done vampire series so far, the only one ive read thats better for what it does is the vampire academy series, and both are so superior to twilight saga that it isnt even funny. For anyone with kids I recommend the Septemus Heap books.
It's also remarkably similar to one of the twelve step prayers or whatever. Hence my goofball query. ;)
It's also remarkably similar to one of the twelve step prayers or whatever. Hence my goofball query. ;)
I hope not. 12 step programs are a load of horse
.I hope not. 12 step programs are a load of horse
It's similar in structure, not content. Just kinda amused me. I have the same feeling about those programs but I also know personally two people that they've benefited immensely. They're like religion (ok, they are religion) in that, so long as you only take the parts that wor for you, you'll be ok. There's nothing wrong with that. And if one of these programs can help someone I care about get through something incredibly difficult and, in the process, make them a better person, I can't hate 'em all that much. They ain't for me, but that's cool. The 12 steps are not the only answer, but they can be one.
No its a quote from the house of night series a very well done vampire series so far, the only one ive read thats better for what it does is the vampire academy series, and both are so superior to twilight saga that it isnt even funny. For anyone with kids I recommend the Septemus Heap books.
It's also remarkably similar to one of the twelve step prayers or whatever. Hence my goofball query. ;)
Do you mean the serenity prayer?
- God, grant me the serenity
- To accept the things I cannot change;
- The courage to change the things that I can;
- And the wisdom to know the difference.
Do you mean the serenity prayer?
- God, grant me the serenity
- To accept the things I cannot change;
- The courage to change the things that I can;
- And the wisdom to know the difference.
Yup, that be it.
No its a quote from the house of night series a very well done vampire series so far, the only one ive read thats better for what it does is the vampire academy series, and both are so superior to twilight saga that it isnt even funny.
Almost everything is superior to the Twilight "Saga".
Almost everything is superior to the Twilight "Saga".
See Jack
See Jane
See Jane kiss Jack
See Jack stalk Jane
See Jane kick Jack's
See? Better already.
Edit: Wouldn't let me use the original character name. Too many *'s.
-Sarena
No its a quote from the house of night series a very well done vampire series so far, the only one ive read thats better for what it does is the vampire academy series, and both are so superior to twilight saga that it isnt even funny.
Almost everything is superior to the Twilight "Saga".
That's true, which is sad because there are some very good vampire books out there like the house of night series written for teens, but twilight kinda hurts the whole genre. Yes I happen to like vampire and supernatrual books, I also read romance books. And on that note anything by Mary Barlough is usually worth reading if you like historical romances.
Over the holidays, I got a few books as presents. I got three Kurt Vonnegut books ("The Monkey House", "Slaughterhouse Five", and "Breakfast of Champions"). So I'll eventually read them since I was a fan of his works. I'll probably read the books I have instead of trying to read them in order like I was doing.
I also recieved "The Yankee Years" by Joe Torre and Tom Verducci. I was pretty interested in reading it since I heard it was a really good book for baseball situations and such. I mainly held off purchasing it because it was hard cover. But I look forward to reading it.
But right now, I just started "Open" by Andre Agassi. Its actually quite good (so far). In the first section, he described the day of one of his last matches. It was really interesting to see how such a great athlete saw things and how his physical state is completely different than what you see on the court. He also went through important parts of the match, which was great since I watched that match live at the Open. Then he started to go back to his childhood. So far, its pretty excellent. I look forward to see how it goes.
No its a quote from the house of night series a very well done vampire series so far, the only one ive read thats better for what it does is the vampire academy series, and both are so superior to twilight saga that it isnt even funny. For anyone with kids I recommend the Septemus Heap books.
It's not a quote, per se. Nyx is a legitimate ancient Greek goddess: the Goddess of the Night.
Bored of the Rings, of all things. I neede a laugh and it does its work quite well. Boggeys are hilarious.
Hwhat?
Reminds me of another thread, where somebody was complaining that Dracula made vampires sexy, and added the vulnerability to sunlight. It does neither of those things. Dracula is decidedly not sexy, and as previously outlined, not hugely vulnerable to sunlight. Profoundly vulnerable to communion wafers, but not the sun.
Although it really isn't for light reading.
Adventurer's Vault
Player's Handbook 2
Dungeon Master's Guide 2
Monster Manual 2
Adventurer's Vault 2
Forgotten Realms Player's Guide
Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide.
Needless to say, there's ups and downs to all of the information presented. I still don't like the Deva. Not sure why.
-Sarena
My aunt recently got me started on Dune, which I enjoyed very much. She got me the prequal trilogy for christmas, which I'm working on.
Although it really isn't for light reading.
Yeah dune is good, I read through god emperor of dune then it got too weird for me. I just finished The God Speaker Trilogy by Karen Miller, and Through Stone And Sea by Barb and C.J. Hendee good reads both though God Speaker trilogy is a bit strange and dark.
Needless to say, there's ups and downs to all of the information presented. I still don't like the Deva. Not sure why.
-Sarena
The campaign I'm going to be running soon features a former worlds-spanning human empire that had discovered immortality. Unknown to most of the world, one city still exists. Every time they die, they reincarnate. Why yes, they do use the stats for Deva...
I love reinterpreting creatures/PC races.
Needless to say, there's ups and downs to all of the information presented. I still don't like the Deva. Not sure why.
-SarenaThe campaign I'm going to be running soon features a former worlds-spanning human empire that had discovered immortality. Unknown to most of the world, one city still exists. Every time they die, they reincarnate. Why yes, they do use the stats for Deva...
I love reinterpreting creatures/PC races.
That is an interesting way of looking at them. I might steal this idea, and tie it into the fall of the illithid empire, and maybe even the start of the ice age in my setting.
I'm not sure what I want to read next. My initial thoughts are "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo, "Paradise Lost" by John Milton, "Mother Night" by Kurt Vonnegut, "The Gunslinger" by Stephen King, "The Mists of Avalon" by Marion Zimmer Bradley... I guess it'll depend on how adventurous I feel when I make my decision. Maybe I'll see something good in my library later today.