Series you gave up on....
Gavin Williams
I gave up on Chung Kuo because it was taking so long for each new book
to come out, I forgot what happened in the previous books. (Despite
the first few books being great!)
Coming back to a bookshop now, the cover illustrations have changed,
and I don't even remember now which books I *have* read!
Gavin
--
Remove the blocks from my name to reply
Christopher Jorgensen
I gave up on Herbert's "Dune" books in the middle of the third book.
As I was bored.
I gave up on Danaldson's "Unbeliever" books in the second series,
as I was tired of being depressed.
I gave up on Mathews "Torture" books, for the same reason as
above. Made it through three of these, but won't read anymore.
I gave up on Feist's "Riftwar" books after the first three and
the Wurt's spin-offs. Since there is such a thing as too much
of a good thing (as far as I know, the rest are great).
I gave up on Eddings' "Malloran," in the first books, as I'd already
read the "Belgariad" and didn't need to read the same series again.
I gave up on Hamilton's "Reality Dysfuntion" 750 pages in, as I
was just plain bored and tired of trying to relate to people I
have nothing in common with.
I gave up on Brust, as he couldn't write his way out of a paper
bag. Okay, this one is a lie. I'll give up on Brust when they pry
The Final Contract out of my cold dead hands, but I had to stop
somewhere.
christopher....
--
El articulo es demasiado grande para su apartado.
William Davis
second book.
Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen Donaldson: Read the
first book and when I went out to buy the second one, I realized that
there were about a thousand books in the store that I wanted to read
more. I might give it another chance.
Bio of a Space Tyrant by Piers Anthony: I read it before I learned to
avoid Piers Anthony like the plague. Two books in, I began experiencing
major diminishing returns.
The Reality Disfunction by Peter Hamilton: Read the first three books
(or the first book and half of the second for our friends in the Mother
Country) and found that I really did not care that much anymore.
The War Against the Chtorr by David Gerrold: Once I realized that a) I
had read an old edition of the first two books that may or may not jibe
with the sequels since the author had gone back and retconned the series
and b) the author might never finish the thing anyway, I gave up.
The unending fantasies of Terry Goodkind, Terry Brooks and David
Eddings: Because I either grew out of them or realized they sucked.
I'm coming pretty close to adding Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time to the
list. They really do have a undefinable quality that the other Tolkien
imitators lack, but the books have been spinning their wheels for way
too long. If the next novel goes nowhere, I'm just going to write it off
until it gets finished, by which time I probably won't have any interest
in picking them back up.
Mike Giroux
>I'm coming pretty close to adding Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time to the
>list. They really do have a undefinable quality that the other Tolkien
>imitators lack, but the books have been spinning their wheels for way
>too long. If the next novel goes nowhere, I'm just going to write it off
>until it gets finished, by which time I probably won't have any interest
>in picking them back up.
You've summed it up very well! The last few books I've had the feeling that
all that was going on was bookeeping (Make prophecy 1223 come true: check!).
In the first few books, I really believed that Jordan was weaving a nice
complex pattern and knew how to wrap it all up. The last two give me
the impression he was winging it, and he's paying for it now. If that's the
case, then there's no way he's going to be able to complete all of his
prophecies or wrap up all of his plot threads, and a lot of people are
going to be very disappointed...
--
Mike
jti...@my-deja.com
lynn...@aol.com (Christopher Jorgensen) wrote:
>
> I gave up on Herbert's "Dune" books in the middle of the third book.
> As I was bored.
I didn't even bother finishing the second book, since I objected to the
first book's need for its glossary, and the second book wasn't as
interesting. I've since decided that if I need a glossary to read a
book, I probably won't like it.
Other noteworthy unfinished series:
Wolfe's 'Books of the Whatever Sun' - this thing was one of the prime
offenders that started the trend to neverending, plotless, and
presumably hugely profitable series. (Asimov, Tolkein and Herbert at
least _ended_ their long series.) If I want 'Real Life (tm)' I'll read
the newspapers.
L.E. Modesitt, Jr.'s 'Recluce' saga - I really like his later sci-fi
books and his Spellsong fantasy books, but the white-gray-black
technomagic/political-conspiracy tied to oddball history in
extrordinary length just didn't do it for me.
I never started most of the pseudo-Tolkein elf-hack fantasies like
Jordan, so I can't say they are unfinished. Just not my cup of tea.
Most other series I've started have either not been finished by the
author (Note to Alexi Panshin, please finish the Tony Villers series
some decade! I read the first two on the Nancy Hanks from Atlanta to
Savannah in 1969!), or the sequels were sufficiently good to at least
keep me buying to see what happened. Or at least good enough that I'll
not speak ill of them.
One series that's on the edge right now is Weber's HH series. I really
liked the first 6 books, bought the 7th and 8th in hardback and
regretted it. An unacknowledged arm-breaking duology in the middle of
a projected 20+ volume life-work seems dishonest somehow. Based on the
pre-release snippets thus far, I'll probably wait for the paperback of
the next volume or check it out of the library.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Liz Broadwell
because I found it unreadably dull (but I still think the _Belgariad_ is
good mind candy, and pick it up to reread now and again). I gave up on
Piers Anthony's _Xanth_ books, and Robert Asprin's _Myth_ books, because I
outgrew them. I gave up on Niel Hancock because he refused to mature as a
writer and I got tired of waiting. I gave up on Meredith Ann Pierce
retroactively because I thought _Pearl of the Soul of the World_ was such
an appalling conclusion to the _Darkangel_ trilogy. I'll only reread the
first two books now. I gave up on Stephen R. Donaldson's _Mirrors_ thing
because I couldn't figure out what he was on about.
Peace,
Liz
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | "If all you have is a hammer, everything
(ebro...@english.upenn.edu) | starts to look like a nail.... If all you
Department of English | have is duct tape, everything starts to
University of Pennsylvania | look like a duct. Right. When's the last
Philadelphia, PA | time you used duct tape on a duct?"
-- Larry Wall
Louann Miller
wrote:
>Bio of a Space Tyrant by Piers Anthony: I read it before I learned to
>avoid Piers Anthony like the plague. Two books in, I began experiencing
>major diminishing returns.
I can only credit momentum (I read rather quickly) for the fact that I
finished the *first* one.
BHardy1968
>>list. They really do have a undefinable quality that the other Tolkien
>>imitators lack, but the books have been spinning their wheels for way
>>too long.
> The last few books I've had the feeling that
>all that was going on was bookeeping
Danger! Danger! High probability of of LoveJordan/HateJordan flame war
occuring! If we can all just calmly evacuate the building and leave the area,
noone will get hurt....
Rick
wade through the two latest doorstops. And I have given up on ever
seeing the rest of the War Against the Chtorr series.
--
There is nothing new under the sun, but there are a lot of old things we
don't know.---Ambrose Bierce
Aron Gamman
>Other noteworthy unfinished series:
>
>Wolfe's 'Books of the Whatever Sun' - this thing was one of the prime
>offenders that started the trend to neverending, plotless, and
>presumably hugely profitable series. (Asimov, Tolkein and Herbert at
>least _ended_ their long series.) If I want 'Real Life (tm)' I'll read
>the newspapers.
Admittedly, if you need a strong plot to keep you reading, Wolfe's Book of the
New Sun series probably won't keep you interested. The series is more
interesting as how it gets where it's going, rather than where it goes.
If you're referring to his Book of the Long Sun, series I admit, I'm not sure
what you mean by plotless. I'm on the 3rd book in the series and the plot
seems fairly clear to me, especially compared to the New Sun series.
I'm also not sure what you mean with the neverending comment, though. Wolfe
had four books in both of the possible series you're referring to and finished
them both. Now, if you're bothered by the fact that New Sun had no clear,
linear ending, that's another matter entirely.
Aron
Please Remove "nospam." from my e-mail to contact me. This is done in an
effort to avoid bots from picking up my e-mail address to spam. Thanks.
Brenda
of DOLORES CLAIBORNE. I realized his style would irritate me forever, and
life is too short to deliberately cause oneself irritation.
Gave up on Robert Jordan after one paragraph. No more Tolkien clones for
me.
Gave up on the Alvin Maker series after three books.
Halfway through THE FALCON IN THE PORTAL by Elizabeth Peters, and am
rapidly losing interest. I checked it out of the library, renewed it
once, and simply cannot get on. When the book becomes due again, back it
goes, finished or not.
I'm sure there are lots more. I am easily bored and distracted, and
cruel, whimsical and highly demanding of grammar and punctuation to boot:
the Reader from Hell.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD, from Tor Books
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
James Nicoll
>author (Note to Alexi Panshin, please finish the Tony Villers series
>some decade! I read the first two on the Nancy Hanks from Atlanta to
>Savannah in 1969!)
You do know three of those got published, right?
James Nicoll
--
"You know, it's getting more and more like _Blade Runner_ down
here."
A customer commenting on downtown Kitchener
Coyu
>Wolfe's 'Books of the Whatever Sun' - this thing was one of the prime
>offenders that started the trend to neverending, plotless, and
>presumably hugely profitable series. (Asimov, Tolkein and Herbert at
>least _ended_ their long series.) If I want 'Real Life (tm)' I'll read
>the newspapers.
Eh? Books of the New Sun - ended. Books of the Long Sun - ended.
Three Books of the Short Sun, one published, and since Wolfe
writes these things as one unit, we know that there will only be
two more.
'Plotless' is an interesting word to describe Wolfe, whose books tend to
be terribly intricate in their plots on close inspection. 'Profitable' - I
_hope_ they're profiable, but I never see anyone else reading them.
As for 'Real Life (tm)', the day I have to attack an alzabo with my
azoth, I'll let you know.
jti...@my-deja.com
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <7u78cu$f8b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <jti...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >
> >Most other series I've started have either not been finished by the
> >author (Note to Alexi Panshin, please finish the Tony Villers series
> >some decade! I read the first two on the Nancy Hanks from Atlanta to
> >Savannah in 1969!)
>
> You do know three of those got published, right?
Yep, but from the ending of the third, I suspect the fourth was at
least plotted out. It seems cruel to leave Tony, Fred, Torve, and the
Gawk just hanging there. At the time, these were some of the most
original books done in SF, and were wickedly amusing too boot. I must
admit, I haven't gone back to see if they've stood the test of time,
but I'd at least like a wrap up of the wedding.
"'I'm a little teapot,' he said, filled his pants, and died." - how
can you not love it?
Nancy Lebovitz
>Let me see, I gave up on Stephen King, all his works, after one paragraph
>of DOLORES CLAIBORNE. I realized his style would irritate me forever, and
>life is too short to deliberately cause oneself irritation.
>
Tower series unreadable. I tried when the first novel came out in
F&SF, I tried again with the Whelan illos (which were very nice),
I've looked at other books in the series, and I give up. I don't know
what the problem is--I don't think I was hopelessly put off by the
mention of "parsecs of sand" early in the first book.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com
October '99 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Dorothy J Heydt
Christopher Jorgensen <lynn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I gave up on Herbert's "Dune" books in the middle of the third book.
I gave that one up after the second, and I finished the second
(with its soap-opera plot) only through momentum or something.
>
>...Danaldson's "Unbeliever" books....
>
>...Mathews "Torture" books....
>
>...Feist's "Riftwar" books....
>
>...Eddings' "Malloran"...
>
>...Hamilton's "Reality Dysfuntion"...
I never even started any of these.
I gave up on Jordan in Book One, Chapter Two, because the
protagonist was being such an idiot.
I read the first several Vorkosigan books, skipped _Cetaganda_ on
advice from this group (~"If you like cats, don't..."~), and then
remembered the hero swiving his female under a mutated cat
blanket, and gave him up too.
I gave up Farmer's Riverworld books after the second or so,
because he was repeating himself.
I'm blanking on the title, but there was that trilogy that was
trying to fuse Native American and Finnish mythology (a good
trick if you can do it, but he couldn't quite bring it off): I
read the first two volumes, peeked at the last page of the third,
murmured "Who is Number One?" "You are, Number Six," and closed it
again.
>I gave up on Brust, as he couldn't write his way out of a paper
>bag.
I read the first couple volumes, and I didn't mind the writing,
but the more I saw of the characters the less I cared about what
happened to them, and that went double for the hero.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Dorothy J Heydt
>me.
While I agree wholeheartedly about Jordan, I find I'm beginning
to object to the phrase "Tolkien clone." A clone, after all, is
supposed to contain the same genetic material as its forebear. A
genuine clone, not of Tolkien himself but of his work, would be a
desirable thing. What we keep getting are misbegotten Things
with superficial resemblance but no internal resources. As
though some misguided plant geneticist had tried to clone an oak
tree, and came up with something that was trying to grow oak
leaves, but had the shallow roots of a eucalyptus, and blew over
at the first stiff breeze.
>
>Gave up on the Alvin Maker series after three books.
Another one I never started. In fact, to change the form, Card
is an *author* I gave up on after, um, three books (two Enders
and one other). His essays on the craft of writing SF are very
good, but I'll never read any more of his fiction. The same is
true of LeGuin.
>Halfway through THE FALCON IN THE PORTAL by Elizabeth Peters, and am
>rapidly losing interest.....
Ah, Emerson and Peabody. I stopped after two or three of those
too. It's not that the books have lost their quality, it's just
that there are too many of them. It's like trying to make an
entire meal out of Turkish Delight.
William Davis
The first part had some good bits in it (mainly the ultra-grim refugees
attacked by space pirates need to eat their own dead, bits. Heavy YMMV).
I won't defend it too much though, because I read it when I was 14 and
I'm beginning to realize that a lot of things I loved then do not stand
up to re-reading. (A major problem in discussing SF in general, since I
read the majority of the classics - Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, etc. -
between the ages of 11 and 16.
Steve Parker
Heydt) wrote:
>I'm blanking on the title, but there was that trilogy that was
>trying to fuse Native American and Finnish mythology (a good
>trick if you can do it, but he couldn't quite bring it off): I
>read the first two volumes, peeked at the last page of the third,
>murmured "Who is Number One?" "You are, Number Six," and closed it
>again.
Possibly Tom Deitz's , _Dreambuilder_, _Soulsmith_, and _Wordwright_
trilogy, or the other series by Deitz, which is much more than a
trilogy, which starts with either _Fireshaper's Doom_ or _Windmaster's
Bane_?
Steve
William Davis
Brenda wrote:
>
> Let me see, I gave up on Stephen King, all his works, after one paragraph
> of DOLORES CLAIBORNE. I realized his style would irritate me forever, and
> life is too short to deliberately cause oneself irritation.
>
To be fair, isn't it a little premature to judge the body of work of a
prolific author by one paragraph of a novel that most fans consider his
weakest. It's the equivalent of dismissing Heinlein after reading the
first chapter of The Number of the Beast.
Rick
Some people have done just that, and announced it rather loudly on this
newsgroup.
Me, I don't like King. It isn't his writing style, per se, it's his
philosophy. He seems to me to write from an anti-humanist, Luddite
perspective that turns me off completely. Of course, I am not a big
horror fan even in the best of times. I just wish Dean Koontz had
King's imagination and writing ability...or that King had Koontz's
outlook on life.
Jim Mann
Brenda wrote in message <38074284...@erols.com>...
>Gave up on Robert Jordan after one paragraph. No more Tolkien clones for
>me.
>
bad, but if I'm going to read something 1000 pages plus, I'll re-read Don
Quixote or War and Peace.
>Gave up on the Alvin Maker series after three books.
This is still my favorite Card series. The first two were the best and the
latest one perhaps the weakest, but overall it's been a refreshingly
original fantasy series.
>
>Halfway through THE FALCON IN THE PORTAL by Elizabeth Peters, and am
>rapidly losing interest. I checked it out of the library, renewed it
>once, and simply cannot get on. When the book becomes due again, back it
>goes, finished or not.
I have grown to like Amelia Peobody, Emerson, Ramses, David, et al so much
that Peters is one of the very few mystery writers on my "buy in hardcover"
list (or, more specifically, her Amelia Peobody books are on this list).
---
Jim Mann
Jim Mann
Dorothy J Heydt wrote in message ...
>I gave up Farmer's Riverworld books after the second or so,
>because he was repeating himself.
Good move. The first two Riverworld books are by far the best. They go down
hill rapidly after that. The final one, Gods of the Riverworld, is awful.
---
Jim Mann
Dorothy J Heydt
Steve Parker <spar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:23:27 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>I'm blanking on the title, but there was that trilogy that was
>Possibly Tom Deitz's , _Dreambuilder_, _Soulsmith_, and _Wordwright_
>trilogy, or the other series by Deitz, which is much more than a
>trilogy, which starts with either _Fireshaper's Doom_ or _Windmaster's
>Bane_?
The title of one of the volumes may have been _The Winter of the
World,_ but that's also a Poul Anderson title and I may be
misremembering.
Kim DeVaughn
Gavin Williams <Gavin...@williams-interblocknet.block.org> wrote:
|
| I gave up on Chung Kuo because it was taking so long for each new book
| to come out, I forgot what happened in the previous books. (Despite
| the first few books being great!)
Once upon a time ... I picked up all 10 books in the L. Ron Hubbard
"dekology" collectively called "Mission: Earth". This was some time
after I'd read his "Battlefield Earth" saga, which I really enjoyed
for a bit of mindless fun. I guess I thought the M:E books would
be somewhat similar to BE.
I was very wrong.
Or at least I *think* I was ... since I've never been able to make it
past page ~50 in the 1st book, in the 3 or 4 times that I set out to
read the thing.
Ah well ... I only paid $10 for the full set (hardback), and they make
an *excellent* doorstop ...!
And then there is KSR's colored Mars series.
I *finally* forced myself to read "Red", after it had been sitting on
my shelf for many years, and several abortive attempts. I really
shouldn't have bothered (for reasons that I've mentioned a few times
before in r.a.sf.w), but at least I didn't waste any money on "Green"
or "Blue".
I guess it must've been better than the M:E "dekology" though ... as
I was able to force myself (finally) to make it through the entire 1st
book of the trilogy ...
YMMV, doncha know!
/kim
======================================================================
"When the dream dies, what of the dreamer? [] When the dreamer dies,
what of the dream?" --A. Bertram Chandler
Steve Parker
wrote:
>Me, I don't like King. It isn't his writing style, per se, it's his
>philosophy. He seems to me to write from an anti-humanist, Luddite
>perspective that turns me off completely. Of course, I am not a big
>horror fan even in the best of times. I just wish Dean Koontz had
>King's imagination and writing ability...or that King had Koontz's
>outlook on life.
Well said. I gave up on King when I realized that *EVERY TIME* his
characters faced a crucial choice, they choice the (obviously) wrong
one. Granted, the stories, as constructed would end prematurely, but
that's a flaw of the writer's
(Two examples: Harold's moment of decision in _The Stand_ (Will he put
aside his anger (mostly gone anyway) for love, respect and popularity
or will he go with cheap, melodrama revenge.) and Carrie's premonition
(if she *doesn't* vote for herself for prom queen she'll live happily
ever after, but if she *does* vote for herself, all will go wrong.)
King keeps hinging his novels on his characters making dumb choices.
Which is fine once in a while, but when it's his basic point...
I don't mind studies of inept characters (many of Sheckley's for
instance), but dumb characters just don't interest me.
Steve
gme...@trinity.edu
1. I loved the Tsuranni (sp?) aspect and that was
minimized.
2. The Valheru were similarly tossed away.
3. The books seem endless - the last one seems to
indicate more are on the way.
It's endless series syndrome. A problem is solved
and guess what even a worse one is one the way in the
next book.
It's like the Batman threads - just shoot the Damn Joker
already!
Jesper Svedberg
(na...@unix3.netaxs.com) says...
> In article <38074284...@erols.com>, Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Let me see, I gave up on Stephen King, all his works, after one paragraph
> >of DOLORES CLAIBORNE. I realized his style would irritate me forever, and
> >life is too short to deliberately cause oneself irritation.
> >
> Tower series unreadable. I tried when the first novel came out in
> F&SF, I tried again with the Whelan illos (which were very nice),
> I've looked at other books in the series, and I give up. I don't know
> what the problem is--I don't think I was hopelessly put off by the
> mention of "parsecs of sand" early in the first book.
Well, at least he didnt cross the sand in less than twelve parsecs.
// Jesper Svedberg
Paul Vader
>read the first two volumes, peeked at the last page of the third,
>murmured "Who is Number One?" "You are, Number Six," and closed it
>again.
>
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
James Nicoll
Steve Parker <spar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Well said. I gave up on King when I realized that *EVERY TIME* his
>characters faced a crucial choice, they choice the (obviously) wrong
>one. Granted, the stories, as constructed would end prematurely, but
>that's a flaw of the writer's
What about the protagonist in _The Shawshank Redemption_?
There's a definition of horror: the genre where all the
decisions are wrong ones.
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <380b5c36...@news.mindspring.com>,
> Steve Parker <spar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:23:27 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>>I'm blanking on the title, but there was that trilogy that was
>>>trying to fuse Native American and Finnish mythology...
>
>>Possibly Tom Deitz's , _Dreambuilder_, _Soulsmith_, and _Wordwright_
>>trilogy, or the other series by Deitz, which is much more than a
>>trilogy, which starts with either _Fireshaper's Doom_ or _Windmaster's
>>Bane_?
>
> The title of one of the volumes may have been _The Winter of the
> World,_ but that's also a Poul Anderson title and I may be
> misremembering.
Michael Scott Rohan. "Winter of the World" was the series title, I think.
_Anvil of Ice_, _Forge in the Forest_, _Hammer of the Sun_, not in that
order.
I liked them, but I like his Spiral books a lot more.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
gnohm...@my-deja.com
I re-read star well just a few months ago, and can tell you it was wonderful.
Very few books are that good, and few of those are quite so good when read
for the 4th or 5th time, so many years after their writing.
Even when you make the inevitable comparison between Villiers and Clarence
(lord of Blandings), and the books that contain them, star well does not fare
badly.
Dorothy J Heydt
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Michael Scott Rohan. "Winter of the World" was the series title, I think.
>_Anvil of Ice_, _Forge in the Forest_, _Hammer of the Sun_, not in that
>order.
That was it.
gnohm...@my-deja.com
Anthony Villiers novel.
I've given up on the all militarists (including even much of joatsimeon), all
of cyberpunk, and all of Anthony, McCaffrey, Crispin and Forward.
I gave up on Chalker because I could never read a whole series. The bookstore
always has volume 1 of 3 or volume 2 & 3, but I read several of the books and
never had the chance to finish a whole set. (Didn't like it much, but there
were some interesting ideas).
I'll probably give up on the cross-time knight after one more book, the quest
for rubber still had a few good things in it after all.
Not much left, eh? Especially when you read too fast. Finished O for Outlaw
in a day, just on my commute.
Conversely, I haven't given up on some that others mention. The space battle
where Angus delivered a black hole by hand will keep me going for several
more books, hoping for a tidbit that good; might be able to read another
Aubrey and Maturin saga; I thought rainbow mars was okay but not spectacular,
would read another (but wouldn't buy another). There are several series like
that, I'd pick up one from a used book store or from the library, but
wouldn't buy: anything by Orson Scott Card, which is another category --
series have come out at great length which were okay but didn't impress me
much, and now I'm not sure which I've read, and besides, it's been so long
since I read the first I'd feel better if I started by rereading it!
It's a bummer when you go to the book store, browse a while, and come out
empty handed.
Christopher Jorgensen
In article <38075F74...@weblnk.net>, William wrote:
>Brenda wrote:
>> Let me see, I gave up on Stephen King, all his works, after one
>> paragraph of DOLORES CLAIBORNE. I realized his style would
>>irritate me forever, and life is too short to deliberately cause
>>oneself irritation.
>>
>To be fair, isn't it a little premature to judge the body of work of a
>prolific author by one paragraph of a novel that most fans consider his
>weakest. It's the equivalent of dismissing Heinlein after reading the
>first chapter of The Number of the Beast.
Okay, then how about "It" or "Tommynockers?" In It he takes 300
pages to introduce a handful of characters, then he messes with
them for 300 pages, then he takes another 300 to set everything
back the way it was at the beginning of the book, including having
the characters forget everything. You could have walked up to any
of the characters at the end of It and asked if anything was new
or exciting in their lives, and instead of, "Well, I decended into
the sewers and saved the universe from a giant metaphore. Oh,
yeah, and had sex a couple of times," you'd get, "Not really."
And Tommyknockers, yack. Lame aliens, lame story. The book
was no better than the movie, so if you feel like suffering through
a "Oh, we're going to be batteries. Yawn," reaction. It's easier and
quicker to do it with the movie.
These two books, back to back, were enough to put me off King
forever.
christopher....
--
El articulo es demasiado grande para su apartado.
Christopher Jorgensen
>>I gave up on Brust, as he couldn't write his way out of a paper
>>bag.
>
>I read the first couple volumes, and I didn't mind the writing,
>but the more I saw of the characters the less I cared about what
>happened to them, and that went double for the hero.
Wow, what a way to pull a quote out of context. Almost makes
it look like I'm on the record as not liking this author. It's no
longer clear that I was *joking.* I think Brust is up there. He
matured faster as a writer than I did as a reader though, so
it was years before I really loved anything after Yendi, but I
still bought it all. Brust is only one of handful who are on my
"buy in hard cover, then buy in paper so you have lendable copies"
list. Heck, I even snap up extras of his stuff at used stores, just
because I know I'll eventually find someone who could use X
book.
Maybe you should try one of his non-Dragarean books. "The Sun, The
Moon, and The Stars," is a great portrayal of a writer. Start there.
Or the Gypsy, though it took me a couple of readings to get to like
this one. Freedom & Necessity I've only read once, but as soon as
I finish my copy of The Science of Logic, I'm going to reread it.
Chris Taylor
_Ender's Shadow_. And I'm having a hard time convincing myself
to get the latest Alvin Maker book, though I probably will eventually.
I gave up on Cherryh's _Fortress_ books after the first one -- I just
find I can't stand her fantasy, though I really enjoy her SF. And
I never finished LWE's Lords of Dus series. I read the first one
and really disliked the main character, and never picked any of the
others up.
But in general I almost always read the entire series, especially
if there are important plot elements that don't get resolved until
the last book. I guess this is one of those many catagories where
you can divide people into two catagories -- those who will stop
reading a series, and those who keep on reading, even to the point
of masochism.
-- Chris Taylor
David Navarro
>
> I gave up on Chung Kuo because it was taking so long for each new book
> to come out, I forgot what happened in the previous books. (Despite
> the first few books being great!)
>
> and I don't even remember now which books I *have* read!
The Recluce series, after a hundred pages into the first book...
YAWN...
Stephen King's _Dark Tower_ series, a bit into the second book. Don't
ask me why, I'm one of the biggest King fans alive, but there you go.
Tad Williams _Otherland_ series, about fifty pages into the first
book.
--
__________________________________________
David Navarro http://www.alcaudon.com
__________________________________________
Ia! Ia! Cthulhu ftaghn!
Cthulhu fhtagn. Cthulhu. R'lyeh. Ph'nglui
mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
David Navarro
>
> William Davis wrote:
> >
> > Brenda wrote:
> > >
> > > Let me see, I gave up on Stephen King, all his works, after one paragraph
> > > of DOLORES CLAIBORNE. I realized his style would irritate me forever, and
> > > life is too short to deliberately cause oneself irritation.
> > >
> > To be fair, isn't it a little premature to judge the body of work of a
> > prolific author by one paragraph of a novel that most fans consider his
> > weakest. It's the equivalent of dismissing Heinlein after reading the
> > first chapter of The Number of the Beast.
>
> newsgroup.
> philosophy. He seems to me to write from an anti-humanist, Luddite
> perspective that turns me off completely. Of course, I am not a big
> horror fan even in the best of times. I just wish Dean Koontz had
> King's imagination and writing ability...or that King had Koontz's
> outlook on life.
<boggle>
Would you care to elaborate? My luddite/anti-humanist/technophobic
sensors are as honed as they get; I don't put up with that from any
author, and I never ever got that vibe from King (and I've read, if
not everything, a whole chunk of his work). Even if I didn't like his
style, I've always liked his politics.
Brenda
Jim Mann wrote:
> I have grown to like Amelia Peobody, Emerson, Ramses, David, et al so much
> that Peters is one of the very few mystery writers on my "buy in hardcover"
> list (or, more specifically, her Amelia Peobody books are on this list).
>
>
I keep on getting that haunting "I've seen this before" feeling whenever the
characters do their usual thing. It's the same feeling I get with the St.
Germain books, which I have also given up on. You can write about the same
characters, okay. But at least, please! Give them totally different plots to
run around in.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD, from Tor Books
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Brenda
Steve Parker wrote:
> I don't mind studies of inept characters (many of Sheckley's for
> instance), but dumb characters just don't interest me.
>
> Steve
Ah! Now there's the root cause for me. Stupid characters, wherever and
whatever they are, bang! Out the door! Can't stand 'em, and won't read
books about them.
Brenda
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <38074284...@erols.com>, Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >Gave up on Robert Jordan after one paragraph. No more Tolkien clones for
> >me.
>
> While I agree wholeheartedly about Jordan, I find I'm beginning
> to object to the phrase "Tolkien clone." A clone, after all, is
> supposed to contain the same genetic material as its forebear. A
> genuine clone, not of Tolkien himself but of his work, would be a
> desirable thing. What we keep getting are misbegotten Things
> with superficial resemblance but no internal resources. As
> though some misguided plant geneticist had tried to clone an oak
> tree, and came up with something that was trying to grow oak
> leaves, but had the shallow roots of a eucalyptus, and blew over
> at the first stiff breeze.
> >
Too true, but is there another phrase that would say the same thing in a
better way? At least everyone knows what you're talking about when you say
Tolkien clone.
The way I refuse to read any more books about a society of animals who contrive
to use their innate animalish characteristics to save the world from some
Ultimate Evil. The DUNCTON WOOD kind of book, but nobody would know what I was
talking about if I said I abhor DUNCTON WOOD clones.
David Owen-Cruise
>Okay, then how about "It" or "Tommynockers?"
>These two books, back to back, were enough to put me off King
>forever.
>
tight novel getting lost inside a huge one.
To tell the truth, I wasn't quite smart enough. I read the
reconstructed version of _The Stand_ where he put back all the stuff
the editor made him take out. The editor was right.
--
David Owen-Cruise
"Letters are things, not pictures of things."
Eric Gill
James Nicoll
It has been decades since I read either series but wasn't
Clarence not entirely the brightest person around? Whereas Villiers
seemed bright enough.
James
Arthur
series.
I was getting bloated.
Arthur =o)
Louann Miller
>Not much left, eh? Especially when you read too fast. Finished O for Outlaw
>in a day, just on my commute.
How was that, BTW? I've liked most of the series, but N for Noose was
pretty L-for-lame.
Dorothy J Heydt
>
>The way I refuse to read any more books about a society of animals who contrive
>to use their innate animalish characteristics to save the world from some
>Ultimate Evil. The DUNCTON WOOD kind of book, but nobody would know what I was
>talking about if I said I abhor DUNCTON WOOD clones.
I hope, on the other hand, that you did read _Watership Down._
hy...@tamu.edu
Brenda <clo...@erols.com> writes:
>
>
> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>> In article <38074284...@erols.com>, Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Gave up on Robert Jordan after one paragraph. No more Tolkien clones for
>> >me.
>>
>> While I agree wholeheartedly about Jordan, I find I'm beginning
>> to object to the phrase "Tolkien clone."
>
> Too true, but is there another phrase that would say the same thing in a
> better way?
"Tolkein imitation"?
"Tolkein ripoff"?
"Terry Brooks"?
William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Louann Miller
>I keep on getting that haunting "I've seen this before" feeling whenever the
>characters do their usual thing. It's the same feeling I get with the St.
>Germain books, which I have also given up on. You can write about the same
>characters, okay. But at least, please! Give them totally different plots to
>run around in.
But surely, the more things change the more they same. In all cultures
and times, all strong and intelligent women are sadly misunderstood
(and usually abused). Most men are sexually sadistic, and all of them
are selfish and stupid. If you really want a trustworthy male friend,
he ought to be rich, powerful, wise, and above all impotent.
The exception being "A Candle for D'Artagnan." I don't think it was my
admitted musketeer obsession that made Charles my favorite character
in any of Yarbro's books. He was just the only male with a sex drive
who wasn't Snidely Whiplash-ly evil. Brought a sense of friendly fun
to the whole thing. He's the only character anywhere in her books that
I can imagine putting his face in a woman's cleavage and making
motorcycle noises.
Rick
>
> Would you care to elaborate? My luddite/anti-humanist/technophobic
> sensors are as honed as they get; I don't put up with that from any
> author, and I never ever got that vibe from King (and I've read, if
> not everything, a whole chunk of his work). Even if I didn't like his
> style, I've always liked his politics.
Have you read the Stand? That was where I got the biggest impression of
it, but once you get that vibe, it seems to run through all his books.
Humans seem to be inherently evil and stupid. Technology is always bad,
or at least always used for bad ends by those stupid, evil humans.
Salvation comes not from rational thought and understanding but from
irrational, supernatural means.
Course, you may disagreee, and that is why they have horse races.
--
There is nothing new under the sun, but there are a lot of old things we
don't know.---Ambrose Bierce
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>
>I gave up on Herbert's "Dune" books in the middle of the third book.
>As I was bored.
>
>I gave up on Danaldson's "Unbeliever" books in the second series,
>as I was tired of being depressed.
>
>I gave up on Mathews "Torture" books, for the same reason as
>above. Made it through three of these, but won't read anymore.
I conclude that you have more endurence than I do.
I gave up on the _Dune_ series in the middle of book 2, the
"Unbeliever" books after the first series, and I quite definitely gave
up on Mathews after the first. And I wish I could unread that one.
Pete McCutchen
Heydt) wrote:
>
>I read the first several Vorkosigan books, skipped _Cetaganda_ on
>advice from this group (~"If you like cats, don't..."~), and then
>remembered the hero swiving his female under a mutated cat
>blanket, and gave him up too.
Huh? I don't recall such an incident.
Oh, and the incident in _Cetaganda_ does not involve Miles being cruel
to a cat; it involves Cetagandans being cruel to cats and Ivan's
unsuccessful attempt to save one.
William Davis
>
> The way I refuse to read any more books about a society of animals who contrive
> to use their innate animalish characteristics to save the world from some
> Ultimate Evil. The DUNCTON WOOD kind of book, but nobody would know what I was
> talking about if I said I abhor DUNCTON WOOD clones.
>
> Brenda
>
Does Animal Farm or Watership Down count as that kind of book? I have a
feeling Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials might include some hint of
innate animalishness overcoming EVIL before it is all over with (why
else would you introduce armored polar bears?)
I am a believer that there is an exception to every rule.
Kate Nepveu
[Brust]
> I read the first couple volumes, and I didn't mind the writing,
> but the more I saw of the characters the less I cared about what
> happened to them, and that went double for the hero.
_Teckla_, which might've been the one you stopped on, was very hard
going for me the first time through--it made my teeth hurt because Vlad
was just so *wrong*. Luckily, I had taken out of the library all of the
volumes that existed at the time (which went up to _Athyra_, I think),
so I had enough momentum built up to keep reading. Vlad immediately
starts getting better, and the later books in the series are very
interesting examples of the way long series can manage the kind of
character evolution that may be harder in shorter works. (I ended up
reading them _all_ in one weekend in published order, IIRC, and then
started straight over in chronological--alas for the days when I could
do things like that...)
Kate
--
http://lynx.neu.edu/k/knepveu/ -- The Paired Reading Page; Reviews
* Updated 10/2: Review, _A Civil Campaign_ * | "Hurrah for the Socratic
method. Do you ever wonder why none of his students simply hauled off
and hit the old bastard?" --Brust & Bull, _Freedom and Necessity_
Aaron P. Brezenski
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:23:27 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I read the first several Vorkosigan books, skipped _Cetaganda_ on
>>advice from this group (~"If you like cats, don't..."~), and then
>>remembered the hero swiving his female under a mutated cat
>>blanket, and gave him up too.
>Huh? I don't recall such an incident.
Brothers in Arms. They buy a blanket which purrs and snuggles.
--
Aaron Brezenski
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me."
Card-Carrying Member of the Illuminati
Louann Miller
McCutchen) wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:23:27 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>>I read the first several Vorkosigan books, skipped _Cetaganda_ on
>>advice from this group (~"If you like cats, don't..."~), and then
>>remembered the hero swiving his female under a mutated cat
>>blanket, and gave him up too.
>Huh? I don't recall such an incident.
In "Brothers in Arms," Miles buys Elli a blanket of gene-altered cat
fur. *Living* cat fur, from a gene-engineering vat rather than a cat,
which took absolutely no harm from being lain on or under by people.
In fact, if something with less brain than a plant could be said to
have feelings, it liked being used as a blanket. It snuggled, anyway.
The duvet equivalent of the live-grass rug in "Stranger in a Strange
Land."
Miles definitely bought it in hopes of doing a horizontal mambo on it
with Elli (they'd just become lovers earlier in the book) but what
with kidnappings and torture and the complete text of "Richard the
Third" and stunner tag and so forth, they don't get to by the end of
the book. She still had the blanket at the end, so maybe later
offscreen.
>Oh, and the incident in _Cetaganda_ does not involve Miles being cruel
>to a cat; it involves Cetagandans being cruel to cats and Ivan's
>unsuccessful attempt to save one.
Yep. Definitely pro-cat, both incidents. No suprise; I understand
Bujold is owned by at least two of them.
David Owen-Cruise
>On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:23:27 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>>I read the first several Vorkosigan books, skipped _Cetaganda_ on
>>advice from this group (~"If you like cats, don't..."~), and then
>>remembered the hero swiving his female under a mutated cat
>>blanket, and gave him up too.
>
>Huh? I don't recall such an incident.
>
fabric based on cats. It feeds on microwave radiation, IMS. I
believe Bujold leaves some white space for our imaginations regarding
the actual swiving.
The blanket, of course, tries to sleep on the faces of both Miles and
Ivan, though not at the same time.
>Oh, and the incident in _Cetaganda_ does not involve Miles being cruel
>to a cat; it involves Cetagandans being cruel to cats and Ivan's
>unsuccessful attempt to save one.
>
I'm not sure "cruel" is the right term, but icky nonetheless.
Wendy Shaffer
Lebovitz) wrote:
> In article <38074284...@erols.com>, Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Let me see, I gave up on Stephen King, all his works, after one paragraph
> >of DOLORES CLAIBORNE. I realized his style would irritate me forever, and
> >life is too short to deliberately cause oneself irritation.
> >
> I like most Stephen King on a read-once basis, but I find the Dark
> Tower series unreadable. I tried when the first novel came out in
> F&SF, I tried again with the Whelan illos (which were very nice),
> I've looked at other books in the series, and I give up. I don't know
> what the problem is--I don't think I was hopelessly put off by the
> mention of "parsecs of sand" early in the first book.
Hmmm...I feel exactly the opposite. I can't read most Stephen King, but
love the Dark Tower series. Though I haven't read the most recent one
yet, because I'm afraid that King will never finish the series. And if
it's not going to have a satisfactory conclusion, I figure I might as well
just stick where I am.
---wendy
--
Wendy A. Shaffer
wsha...@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Doctor Witch
p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net (Pete McCutchen) wrote:
> On 15 Oct 1999 08:29:54 GMT, lynn...@aol.com (Christopher
> Jorgensen) wrote:
> >I gave up on Herbert's "Dune" books in the middle of the third
> book.
> >As I was bored.
[snip]
> I conclude that you have more endurence than I do.
> I gave up on the _Dune_ series in the middle of book 2 [...]
FWIW, I thought _Dune Messiah_ sucked, but the series picks up again.
"It gets better, man, it really does." I really enjoyed _Children of
Dune_ and _God-Emperor of Dune_ for the way they covered the long,
weird tranformation of Leto II from hunted refugee to Old King Worm.
The historical sweep of that exceeds that of any other SF series I've
ever read.
OTOH, life's too short. But I wanted to point out that even Dune-
philes think book #2 is lifeless.
(After _God-Emperor_, things stop making any kind of sense at all,
though, consider yourself warned. )
Doc W
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
hy...@tamu.edu
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> In article <19991015042954...@ngol01.aol.com>,
> Christopher Jorgensen <lynn...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>I gave up on Herbert's "Dune" books in the middle of the third book.
>
> (with its soap-opera plot) only through momentum or something.
Read the first three (was quite young then) and ploughed
through most of the rest - more or less for the same
reason some people can't take their eyes off an auto
accident. I just could not believe that this was happening.
>>...Danaldson's "Unbeliever" books....
Carelessly purchased books one and three from the book
club so I figured I'd read them. Even without book two,
book three was predictable. Never read any more Donaldson
bar a short story or two - which I also did not like at all.
>>...Feist's "Riftwar" books....
Read this series - had a lot of time on my hands then -
and bought one more book by Feist which has gone unread
in the ten plus years I have owned it.
>>...Eddings' "Malloran"...
Read about two pages of Eddings before dropping him for
all time.
> I gave up Farmer's Riverworld books after the second or so,
> because he was repeating himself.
I read this to the end a long time ago. I regret it.
Farmer should never finish any of his series - but
I understand he is always under considerable fan/publisher
pressure to do so.
> I'm blanking on the title, but there was that trilogy that was
> trying to fuse Native American and Finnish mythology (a good
> trick if you can do it, but he couldn't quite bring it off): I
> read the first two volumes, peeked at the last page of the third,
> murmured "Who is Number One?" "You are, Number Six," and closed it
> again.
Michael Scott Rohan's "The Winter of the World".
"Anvil of Ice" - I found it good and one of the few
fantasies with any trace of originality. Quite a bit
of science/engineering presented from a magical point
of view. Having just read Feist, I found this book
fairly refreshing.
"The Forge in the Forest" - not quite so good, but
I did like it. I know quite a bit about the background
he is using (I'm trying to avoid spoilers here) and
this made the book better for me. Might not work for
others.
"The Hammer of the Sun". To a degree this seems to
have been written as a "time to wind up the series"
book. Less original and less carefully thought out
than the first two - at least as far as I can tell -
it is for me the least of the three books. But
I found it quite readable nonetheless. Better done
by far than Feist's final volume, in my opinion.
That was the last series I finished. Now I generally
don't start them - Wolfe being an exception.
[re brust]
> I read the first couple volumes, and I didn't mind the writing,
> but the more I saw of the characters the less I cared about what
> happened to them, and that went double for the hero.
I like Brust, but don't feel the urge to read his stuff
too often. I'm hopelessly behind in his series as he
generally writes five books for every one of his that
I read. For me the characters are still interesting.
Dorothy J Heydt
Doctor Witch <doctorwit...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>"It gets better, man, it really does."
I've heard that many many times, and since it has usually not
been true I don't believe it when I hear it any more.
>OTOH, life's too short.
My other reason. Indeed, when one is *well into* middle age and
beginning to look at the other side, one has to resist the
temptation to quantify, to think, "Okay, so my remaining years are
short--- HOW short?" That way lies depression at the very least.
It is better to leave it unquantified. It's not like being
young, when one can say, "Okay, so I have so much time left I
can't even estimate it, but there's *still* not enough time to
read Jordan, Volumes Two through Nineteen...."
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Dorothy J Heydt
>>
>> Too true, but is there another phrase that would say the same thing in a
>> better way?
>
> "Tolkein imitation"?
> "Tolkein ripoff"?
> "Terry Brooks"?
All of the above. And don't forget "The work of the third artist."
walter tingle
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote in message
news:1KoO3.497$1H.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 21:26:33 -0400, "walter tingle"
> <jti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Kai Henningsen <kaih=7QxAZ...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote in message
> >news:7QxAZ...@khms.westfalen.de...
> >> It's as if all Space Opera was viewed as clones of some prototype Space
> >> Opera. People wouldn't like it either.
> >>
> >> (And what gets called "Tolkien clone" mostly is the Fantasy equivalent
of
> >> Space Opera.)
> >
> >Would you prefer Elf Opera?
>
> I think "sword opera" has a better ring to it, and some of them don't
> have literal elves.
>
> But I think they all have swords.
But then you might get them mixed up with Conan the Librarian and all the
Thud-and-Blunder-Barbarian epics.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Dan Swartzendruber
>
> Then she started writing the prequels. These ranged from so-so to yuck. Go
> figure. I had to force myself to finish _Magnificat_.
>
> For some reason, the hints and allusions to the Metapsychic Rebellion and its
> back-story were *much* more intriguing than the actual story we ended up getting.
>
> Anyone else feel this way about these?
Yup, sure do. When I was reading the MCL series, I had this feeling that
the Metapsychic Rebellion was this huge to-do, but when I got around to
reading the prequels (some of which I had trouble finishing), it seemed,
well, flat. The big blowoff at the end (where the Rebels are thwarted)
didn't seem very grand (to me at least). It just left me feeling let
down...
Peter H. Granzeau
I stopped reading Piers Anthony's "Xanth" novels when _Golem in the
Gears_ came out. I just couldn't make myself pick it up and read it.
I stopped reading anything by Jack Chalker at about the same time, but
I don't know if I actually stopped in the middle of a series or not.
I read all of Eddings' first series, but nothing else by him. There
are other authors I have done that to, as well. Adrian Cole, for
instance. One series, and that was it.
I have also stopped reading Terry Goodkind.
Also notable, I guess, are the authors I just can't make myself start
reading. Donaldson, for instance.
I don't wait for Jordan novels with bated breath, but if I see the
latest in the library, I may pick it up and take it home. I haven't
actually stopped, however.
--
Regards, PHG
To reply by mail, send to PGranzeau at the same site)
Joseph Major
: On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 21:26:33 -0400, "walter tingle"
: <jti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: >Kai Henningsen <kaih=7QxAZ...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote in message
: >news:7QxAZ...@khms.westfalen.de...
: >> It's as if all Space Opera was viewed as clones of some prototype Space
: >> Opera. People wouldn't like it either.
: >>
: >> (And what gets called "Tolkien clone" mostly is the Fantasy equivalent of
: >> Space Opera.)
: >
: >Would you prefer Elf Opera?
: I think "sword opera" has a better ring to it, and some of them don't
: have literal elves.
: But I think they all have swords.
How about Processed Fantasy Product? Like "processed cheese
product" -- it has all the standard bits, but they have been merged into
something totally lacking in individuality.
Joseph T Major
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yrlsqb nx sobshuggum illingoon. Mark my words!"
-- Cyril Q. Kornbluth
--
Jay Shorten
Reverend Sean O'Hara wrote:
> Well, there is the famous case of Tolkien (I think it was in "The
> Hobbit" or maybe "Fellowship of the Ring") where a copy editor went
> through the MS and changed "dwarves" to "dwarfs", thinking Tolkien
> didn't know how to spell properly. According to Tolkien, he didn't
> notice the change until the book was published.
Agatha Christie suffered in her first book from a copy-editor who thought
"cocoa" was spelled COCO, and who would not believe Christie no matter how
many dictionaries she showed her.
Jay Shorten
Phil Fraering
> "Tolkein imitation"?
> "Tolkein ripoff"?
> "Terry Brooks"?
Tolkeinoid.
--
Phil Fraering Now I lay me down to sleep
p...@globalreach.net Try to count electric sheep
/Will work for tape/ Sweet dream wishes you can keep
How I hate the night. - Marvin, the Paranoid Android.
Phil Fraering
>Does Animal Farm or Watership Down count as that kind of book? I have a
>feeling Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials might include some hint of
>innate animalishness overcoming EVIL before it is all over with (why
>else would you introduce armored polar bears?)
I think Pullman did a good job of making the Polar Bears relatively
alien instead of anthropomorphic people.
R.D. Elliott
<jsho...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
- Reverend Sean O'Hara wrote:
-
- > Well, there is the famous case of Tolkien (I think it was in "The
- > Hobbit" or maybe "Fellowship of the Ring") where a copy editor went
- > through the MS and changed "dwarves" to "dwarfs", thinking Tolkien
- > didn't know how to spell properly. According to Tolkien, he didn't
- > notice the change until the book was published.
-
- Agatha Christie suffered in her first book from a copy-editor who thought
- "cocoa" was spelled COCO, and who would not believe Christie no matter how
- many dictionaries she showed her.
Reminds me of somebody I know who once, as a child, confused cocoa with
coca, and attempted to nasally inhale some Ovaltine...
But that's more than a little off topic :).
R.D. Elliott
William December Starr
lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) said:
> I presume Elf Opera does not actually have to be about elves.
> Eddings' talking rocks spring immediately to mind. I *hate* fantasy
> that has talking rocks.
Make it "Cutesy-poo smug-bastard talking rocks" and I'll agree with
you. Part of Glen Cook's most excellent original Black Company
trilogy (_The Black Company_, _Shadows Linger_, _The White Rose_) took
place on a plain populated by, among other things, talking menhirs.
Didn't suck.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
William December Starr
jtm...@iglou.com (Joseph Major) said:
> How about Processed Fantasy Product? Like "processed cheese
> product" -- it has all the standard bits, but they have been
> merged into something totally lacking in individuality.
Extruded Fantasy Product. "Extruded" is one of those words
that always improves a phrase.
jerome rondeau
Scott J. Promish wrote:
> I have given up on Alan Dean Foster's Spellsinger series. The first six
> were great (which I suppose is remarkable in itself) but the last two --
> were all the books that formulaic and I just didn't notice? Actually it was
> around then I started seeing that about his books in general. I've given up
> on Foster entirely.
Too bad, I read his Journeys of the Catechist books recently and wasblown away.
Stayed up until 3:00 am to finish them (got them from the library). Can't wait
for the third book in the series as I am very curious if he'll follow thru on
the prophesy given at the start, or is it just a cleverly worded lie.
Jerome
Scott J. Promish
If they're that good maybe I will indeed give them a try, because I really
did love his writing once.
jerome rondeau <jer...@tamarack.nt.ca> wrote in message
news:380A7909...@tamarack.nt.ca...
William December Starr
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>>- Agatha Christie suffered in her first book from a copy-editor
>>- who thought "cocoa" was spelled COCO, and who would not believe
>>- Christie no matter how many dictionaries she showed her.
>
> And reprints of that book, by however many different publishers,
> have spelled it that way ever since.
I hear copy-editor horror stories like these, and I have to wonder:
what exactly was/is the hierarchy at these publishing houses? Was
there no one there to whom the author could go and say "This idiot
*that* *works* *for* *you* is ruining my book -- stop him!" and get
results? Did the book editors just plain Not Care? Were the copy-
editors all the nephews of the publishing house's owners or something?
jerome rondeau
Scott J. Promish wrote:
> I don't think I even know of this series. What are the individual titles?
> If they're that good maybe I will indeed give them a try, because I really
> did love his writing once.
>
First is 'Carnivores of Light and Darkness', second 'Into the Thinking
Kingdoms'. Note I tend to like a great deal of writting that others on this ng
deem dreck so take my recommendations with a grain of salt. However having said
that, these books are very good by my standards, being one of the few books I
really enjoyed reading this summer (i'm a completist and try to finish any book
I start out of a desire to get the story wrapped up in my mind).
Jerome
Phil Fraering
>Incidentally, in the DuFief area off Rte. 28 in Montgomery County,
>Maryland, there is a Talking Rock Court. I've always wondered why.
Is it anywhere near Burkitt?
dearj...@my-deja.com
"Baker's Boy". It just was too clumsily written, although the ideas were
good. Lots of stereotyping and little room for individual thought.
Jessie
In article <19991015042954...@ngol01.aol.com>,
lynn...@aol.com (Christopher Jorgensen) wrote:
>
> I gave up on Herbert's "Dune" books in the middle of the third book.
> As I was bored.
>
> I gave up on Danaldson's "Unbeliever" books in the second series,
> as I was tired of being depressed.
>
> I gave up on Mathews "Torture" books, for the same reason as
> above. Made it through three of these, but won't read anymore.
>
> I gave up on Feist's "Riftwar" books after the first three and
> the Wurt's spin-offs. Since there is such a thing as too much
> of a good thing (as far as I know, the rest are great).
>
> I gave up on Eddings' "Malloran," in the first books, as I'd already
> read the "Belgariad" and didn't need to read the same series again.
>
> I gave up on Hamilton's "Reality Dysfuntion" 750 pages in, as I
> was just plain bored and tired of trying to relate to people I
> have nothing in common with.
>
> I gave up on Brust, as he couldn't write his way out of a paper
> bag. Okay, this one is a lie. I'll give up on Brust when they pry
> The Final Contract out of my cold dead hands, but I had to stop
> somewhere.
>
> christopher....
> --
> El articulo es demasiado grande para su apartado.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
gnohm...@my-deja.com
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <7u7vm3$1tf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <gnohm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <7u7mpa$qqd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > jti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >Even when you make the inevitable comparison between Villiers and
> >Clarence (lord of Blandings), and the books that contain them, ...
>
> It has been decades since I read either series but wasn't
> Clarence not entirely the brightest person around? Whereas Villiers
> seemed bright enough.
Both characters cope with the world by seeming to be ineffectual, foppish,
and not too bright. Lord Emsworth is simply better at hiding it -- it was
only in one book (and I don't remember which) that a hint of the truth
emerged.
Clarence not only hides it better but also does a bang-up job of seeming
ineffectual.
gnohm...@my-deja.com
loua...@yahoo.net (Louann Miller) wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:05:34 GMT, gnohm...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Not much left, eh? Especially when you read too fast. Finished O for Outlaw
> >in a day, just on my commute.
>
> How was that, BTW? I've liked most of the series, but N for Noose was
> pretty L-for-lame.
By the time you get to the 13th book, some of the magic is gone. This is true
for Kinsey just as it was true for Travis or for Bertie Wooster. Even Archie
and Nero suffered from it.
Now that I've lowered your expectations let me raise them back up again.
O was pretty good, I thought, and N was just a lapse.
Dorothy J Heydt
> Reverend Sean O'Hara wrote:
>
> > Well, there is the famous case of Tolkien (I think it was in "The
> > Hobbit" or maybe "Fellowship of the Ring") where a copy editor went
> > through the MS and changed "dwarves" to "dwarfs", thinking Tolkien
> > didn't know how to spell properly. According to Tolkien, he didn't
> > notice the change until the book was published.
It's not quite that bad. He caught it in galleys, and changed
every one of them back.
>- Agatha Christie suffered in her first book from a copy-editor who thought
>- "cocoa" was spelled COCO, and who would not believe Christie no matter how
>- many dictionaries she showed her.
And reprints of that book, by however many different publishers,
have spelled it that way ever since.
Dorothy J. Heydt
john v verkuilen
>Douglas Muir <dougla...@yale.edu> wrote in message
>news:38094AF3...@yale.edu...
>[Julian May's writing discussion]
>> For some reason, the hints and allusions to the Metapsychic Rebellion and
>its
>> back-story were *much* more intriguing than the actual story we ended up
>getting.
>>
>> Anyone else feel this way about these?
>Yes. The post/prequels to the "Pliocene Exile"
>were significantly less captivating than the original
>series.
I don't know how these were written but a "sophomore slump" isn't exactly
uncommon. This happens with musicians and other artists too. You have a
bunch of good ideas and think about them carefully before you get your
writing/recording deal. Afterwards you have only a little time to do your
followup material and it shows.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@staff.uiuc.edu
"Tabloids are the print version of television."
--Dunnigan & Nofi, Shooting Blanks
jonathan dale mccall
>
>
>I gave up on Chung Kuo because it was taking so long for each new book
>to come out, I forgot what happened in the previous books. (Despite
>the first few books being great!)
>
I bailed on Robert Jordan's _Wheel of Time_ series two-thirds of the
way through the first book. It's an admirable doorstop.
I gave up on Hamilton's _Neutronium Alchemist_ thingy because 1) the
carnographical aspect had me slightly squicked and 2) he was taking
too long to get to the bloody point.
Although I loved Brust's Taltos books, it's taking so long for
_Dragon_ to come out in pb that I'm afraid I'm going to forget what's
happened previously...
--
Jonathan McCall
Chris Camfield
Swartzendruber) wrote:
>In article <38094AF3...@yale.edu>, dougla...@yale.edu says...
>>
>> Then she started writing the prequels. These ranged from so-so to yuck. Go
>> figure. I had to force myself to finish _Magnificat_.
>>
>> For some reason, the hints and allusions to the Metapsychic Rebellion and its
>> back-story were *much* more intriguing than the actual story we ended up getting.
>>
>> Anyone else feel this way about these?
>
>Yup, sure do. When I was reading the MCL series, I had this feeling that
>the Metapsychic Rebellion was this huge to-do, but when I got around to
>reading the prequels (some of which I had trouble finishing), it seemed,
>well, flat. The big blowoff at the end (where the Rebels are thwarted)
>didn't seem very grand (to me at least). It just left me feeling let
>down...
I didn't get that far... (I gave up on the series before) but the
whole idea that Mark wasn't responsible for his actions, that he'd
been corrupted/influenced by Fury, seemed like a big apology to me. I
preferred the way he appeared and was described in the Pliocene saga.
Chris
Proc
After reading most of the replies to this thread so far, I think I've
got one that no one has mentioned yet:
Spider Robinson's Callahan's Saloon series.
I read about 3 of them one day a few months ago, and I've already put
them so far out of my mind that I can't remember why I gave up on
them.
Steve Taylor
> Maybe you should try one of his non-Dragarean books. "The Sun, The
> Moon, and The Stars," is a great portrayal of a writer.
I've actually held off on reading Brust because I hated _The Sun, The
Moon, and The Stars_ so deeply. I found the characters to be horribly
self important, pretentious, and shallow. I do admit the book might be
considered as a very good character portrait, but I was deeply out of
sympathy with the characters.
I've often said on the net that I'm perfectly happy with books with
unlikeable characters, but there is an exception to that rule: If I
suspect that the author likes a character I can't stand, then the book
become sunreadable for me.
So - given my fairly strong feelings about this book, is the rest of
Brust different enough that I should try again?
> christopher....
Steve
Steve Taylor
> Try rereading them! I find (most) Clark, Asimov, and heinlein stand up
> pretty well (maybe excepting some of the Heinlein's which were written
> for the juvenile maket).
I've found that Heinleins juveniles stand up much better than his adult
books. They do seem dated, but as long as you're willing to credit an
alternate universe where slide rules are still the rage, they're well
written and unpretentious. Some of his adult fiction looks worse every
time I look at it.
> ROU Evolution in Action
Steve
jere7my tho?rpe
wrote:
*So - given my fairly strong feelings about this book, is the rest of
*Brust different enough that I should try again?
Brust is nothing if not varied. Vlad Taltos is as likeable and
down-to-earth as an assassin can be, and his compatriots are great fun;
Khaavren and company (of _The Phoenix Guards_) are pretty lofty, but in a
charming, Three Musketeersy way. Try a sample chapter from one of his
Dragaeran books and see how it goes down.
The only books of his that bear any resemblance to _The Sun, the
Moon, and the Stars_ are _Brokedown Palace_ and (maybe) _Cowboy Feng's_.
----j7y
******************************* <*> *******************************
jere7my tho?rpe "Being an Osmond, you must
c/o kesh...@umich.edu have many arch-enemies."
(734) 769-0913 ----Space Ghost
Steve Taylor
> While I agree wholeheartedly about Jordan, I find I'm beginning
> to object to the phrase "Tolkien clone." A clone, after all, is
> supposed to contain the same genetic material as its forebear. A
> genuine clone, not of Tolkien himself but of his work, would be a
> desirable thing. What we keep getting are misbegotten Things
> with superficial resemblance but no internal resources.
Though have you seen recent articles saying that Dolly the sheep has
proven to be not quite identical to her clone-parent? Her cells are
'older' than they should be (sorry - not details - I breezed through the
article).
It looks from this article as if clone may be *exactly the right word.
> Dorothy J. Heydt
Steve
Steve Taylor
> I presume Elf Opera does not actually have to be about elves. Eddings'
> talking rocks spring immediately to mind. I *hate* fantasy that has
> talking rocks.
Even Zelazny's _Jack of Shadows_? My favourite talking rock in all of
fiction. (Though to nitpick, I think it might be just a common
telepathic rock.)
> -- Larry
Steve
Steve Taylor
> *So - given my fairly strong feelings about this book, is the rest of
> *Brust different enough that I should try again?
> Brust is nothing if not varied. Vlad Taltos is as likeable and
> down-to-earth as an assassin can be, and his compatriots are great fun;
> Khaavren and company (of _The Phoenix Guards_) are pretty lofty, but in a
> charming, Three Musketeersy way. Try a sample chapter from one of his
> Dragaeran books and see how it goes down.
Good enough for me - I'll give him another go.
Steve
Louann Miller
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <38078e20...@news.smu.edu>,
>Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>...Most men are sexually sadistic, and all of them
>>are selfish and stupid. If you really want a trustworthy male friend,
>>he ought to be rich, powerful, wise, and above all impotent.
>Oh, dear, dear.
>In fact, most men are just human beings. Which is not the
>equivalent of what you just said. Most women are just human
>beings, too, with the same implications.
I should have stuck an "if you're to believe the cumulative worldview
from reading several Yarbro books in a row, then ..." on the front of
that paragraph. Not my own views at all. I won't even swear they're
Yarbro's, although they might be.
>>....He was just the only male with a sex drive
>>who wasn't Snidely Whiplash-ly evil. Brought a sense of friendly fun
>>to the whole thing. He's the only character anywhere in her books that
>>I can imagine putting his face in a woman's cleavage and making
>>motorcycle noises.
>Gakk. And you would find that a positive characteristic?
>Truly, it takes all kinds.
I think silliness is a vital component in a long-term relationship --
not every minute, but often. The bit with the deep soulful looks and
and having the ground you walk on worshipped gets old fast as a steady
diet. Saint-Germain may have been Alan Alda with fangs, but I don't
think we caught him making a joke once in 6,000 years.
Louann, who would kick the DiCaprio kid out of the way and spend a
relaxed evening with Drew Carey.
David Kennedy
Or, if you don't fancy trying the Vlad books (see below) hunt out
_Freedom & Necessity_, co-authored with Emma Bull. It's
standalone, not genre fantasy and damn good.
Why not try the Vlad series first?
1) It's a series. Not a good idea when you're unsure of an
author.
2) It's weaker at the start. Brust's writing, especially in the Vlad
books, gets better over time.
3) It's pretty thin fantasy to start with; if I was unconvinced
I'd just see a basic goodfellas story with dragons glued
on.
--
David Kennedy, | kenn...@nortelnetworks.com
Northern Ireland Telecommunications | ESN: 6 751 2678
Engineering Centre (NITEC), | Phone: 01232 362678
Nortel Networks | Fax: 01232 363170
Louann Miller
>William December Starr wrote:
>> loua...@yahoo.net (Louann Miller) said:
>>
>> [ re the St. Germain books ]
>>
>> > But surely, the more things change the more they same. In all
>> > cultures and times, all strong and intelligent women are sadly
>> > misunderstood (and usually abused). Most men are sexually sadistic,
>> > and all of them are selfish and stupid. If you really want a
>> > trustworthy male friend, he ought to be rich, powerful, wise, and
>> > above all impotent.
>>
>> ten years too long. When it comes to reading the writing on the wall,
>> St. Germain tends to be an illiterate...
He's only ruthless and intelligent when it won't bring the book to an
end too soon. The first Olivia book, "Blood Games," where he was ever
so nice and sweet and supportive to her throughout what, ten or twelve
years that she was being systematically tortured by an evil husband?
He's got money and status and Imperial favor, entirely apart from his
vampiric abilities, and yet it never occurs to him that popping the
husband would be more helpful than any amount of post-traumatic
cuddling. Charles (from "A Candle for D'Artagnan," later in the series
and earlier in this thread) would have rushed right out the second he
heard about the abuse, and strangled the guy to death in broad
daylight on a public street first time he set eyes on him. Somebody
with both Charles' cojones and Saint-Germain's abilities could have
arranged an untraceable heart attack nearly as easily.
The Olivia books always worked better for me than the Saint-Germain
ones, and I think that's why. Yarbro's main characters tend to
*dither,* no matter what their objective abilities are. That kind of
passivity is a lot less annoying from a heroine, especially in times
and places where she really was gravely socially handicapped by her
sex, than from a hero.
Louann
Christopher Jorgensen
>I hear copy-editor horror stories like these, and I have to wonder:
>what exactly was/is the hierarchy at these publishing houses? Was
>there no one there to whom the author could go and say "This idiot
>*that* *works* *for* *you* is ruining my book -- stop him!" and get
>results? Did the book editors just plain Not Care? Were the copy-
>editors all the nephews of the publishing house's owners or something?
I think it's on Robert Sawyer's webpage that there is an article he
wrote called "Note to the Copyeditor" or somesuch. It's interesting to
read because he has a whole list of "overrides," many of which I
assumed an author wouldn't have to worry about.
Christopher Jorgensen
In article <gPoO3.500$1H.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, Lawrence wrote:
>Are you sure? 'Cause I was thinking of putting a talking rock into an
>upcoming story.
Glen Cook has some talking rocks on his books. On the Plain of Fear,
he has some creature called Menhar (or something). These are the
Black Co. books if you care. I can provide a cite. There are some
wonderful scenes of these things falling off the back of these
floating whales. Okay, sound cheesy, but it works.
This is one of the few times I can recall talking rocks done well.
I loved their sense of humor, or lack of.
Dennis Higbee
: Brenda wrote:
: >
: > The way I refuse to read any more books about a society of animals
: > who contrive to use their innate animalish characteristics to save
: > the world from some Ultimate Evil. The DUNCTON WOOD kind of book,
: > but nobody would know what I was talking about if I said I abhor
: > DUNCTON WOOD clones.
: >
: You mean like Brian Jaques' REDWALL series?
I don't think _Redwall_ qualifies, since the E-e-e-evil is
generally only cataclysmic for the mice and other creatures
of of the Abbey. The rest of the world (such as it is) will
go on quite merrily if the mice lose.
FWIW, I've pretty much given up on the Redwall books. I loved
the first one, but there's only so many times you can read the
same book under a different title before it gets boring.
--
Dennis Higbee | "Ain't it funny that they all fire the
bn...@li.net | pistol at the wrong end of the race."
http://www.li.net/~bnook/ | -P. Townshend
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> writes:
>
>>Incidentally, in the DuFief area off Rte. 28 in Montgomery County,
>>Maryland, there is a Talking Rock Court. I've always wondered why.
>
>Is it anywhere near Burkitt?
You mean Burkittsville? Not really. It's in a slightly tatty
subdivision built in the late 1960s. I suspect that whoever laid out
the streets thought he was being Very Modern.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 10/1/99
DRAGON WEATHER is now available -- ISBN 0-312-86978-9
Brenda
Louann Miller wrote:
> He's only ruthless and intelligent when it won't bring the book to an
> end too soon. The first Olivia book, "Blood Games," where he was ever
> so nice and sweet and supportive to her throughout what, ten or twelve
> years that she was being systematically tortured by an evil husband?
> He's got money and status and Imperial favor, entirely apart from his
> vampiric abilities, and yet it never occurs to him that popping the
> husband would be more helpful than any amount of post-traumatic
> cuddling.
Yes! Wasn't that infuriating? And it was at least as maddening as in the
next one (the one set in Medici Florence) in which he would make late-night
calls upon the imprisoned heroine. Did it ever occur to him to -spring- said
heroine? No, and it never occurred to her to grab him by the nuptuals and
insist on him taking her with him, either. I am convinced that stupidity in
characters is the root of nearly all bad fiction!
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD, from Tor Books
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Brenda
William December Starr wrote:
> In article <FJrx1...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>
> >>- Agatha Christie suffered in her first book from a copy-editor
> >>- who thought "cocoa" was spelled COCO, and who would not believe
> >>- Christie no matter how many dictionaries she showed her.
> >
> > And reprints of that book, by however many different publishers,
> > have spelled it that way ever since.
>
> I hear copy-editor horror stories like these, and I have to wonder:
> what exactly was/is the hierarchy at these publishing houses? Was
> there no one there to whom the author could go and say "This idiot
> *that* *works* *for* *you* is ruining my book -- stop him!" and get
> results? Did the book editors just plain Not Care? Were the copy-
> editors all the nephews of the publishing house's owners or something?
>
Note that it was Christie's first book. She probably didn't have very
much bulge then, and could not prevail against corporate idiocy. Once she
became a best-seller, then the boot was on the other foot, and I trust she
stomped it often and hard. (And there is something serpentine about
leaving 'coco' in forever and ever and aye, as a rebuke to the foolish
copyeditor. The malicious author would take care to bring up that
copyeditor by name, every time the book was mentioned...) An author who
insists upon his own way sometimes gets the reputation of being
"difficult." It is a nice calculation, when a writer can afford to
acquire such a reputation.