|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 22, 2016 12:36:40 GMT -5
The Mucker by Edgar Rice Burroughs I couldn't hazard a guess as to how many times I've read this book. It is, bar none, my favorite Burroughs book...and it is one of my favorite books ever. In one book Burroughs hits almost every pulp genre except SF/Fantasy and westerns (he'll get to the latter in the sequel). And while it's full of the usual ERB tropes, it is unusual in that Billy Byrne is a very atypical Burroughs protagonist. He is low-born and virtually devoid of values through the first half of the book. Of course he's redeemed through the auspices of his betters. What else could happen in the ERB-verse. The book is generally well received by Burroughs-philes. Richard Lupoff placed it fourth on his list of essential ERB reads in Master of Adventure. It hits almost all the right notes...while still being thoroughly Burroughs.
|
|
|
Post by Calamas on May 22, 2016 21:51:20 GMT -5
RECENTLY FINISHED:
The Butcher’s Boy by Thomas Perry There are both advantages and disadvantages to the preference of reading books in a series in order. An obvious plus is that surprises are not ruined when referenced or built upon in later works. The most common drawback is encountering an author before he has learned the ins and outs of his craft. Unfortunately, The Butcher’s Boy is an example of the later. Throughout most of the book I kept wondering, Did he have an editor?
The novel follows two characters on their separate journeys: a professional killer known only by the title of the book (though I understand he gets a proper name later in the series) and Elizabeth Waring, a Justice Department analyst forced into the field on an evidence-gathering assignment, which eventually turns into the tracking of the assassin. It is interesting in premise. It’s in the execution that it begins to fray.
Even allowing for thirty-four years--it was copyrighted in 1982--it was absurdly easy to kill both a U.S. Senator and a mafia chieftain, each with no preplanning. And twice the assassin openly and dramatically slips by pursuers and ducks out of sight, only to complete the rest of his escape “off-screen.” Meanwhile Elizabeth makes multiple mistakes, the first of which is incredibly stupid. In all fairness, though, her second error could be safely put down to inexperience. Still, as the story winds down her end begins to sag.
Perhaps the most interesting thing--in my copy, anyway (Random House, 2003)--is the introduction by Michael Connelly, where he does virtual gymnastics to avoid calling The Butcher’s Boy a great novel. He calls it a favorite, and praises character and pace, and remarks on Perry’s grasp of “the cornerstones of craft.” Connelly also reminds us that the author continues to get better and that this particular work won an Edgar Award. The last is certainly true. But the Edgar was for Best First Novel. In any given year the competition could be fierce or extremely light. I suspect light.
In the end, I’ll admit there were enough positives for me to read the next one. But neither can I deny I was disappointed.
Hard Candy by Andrew Vachss The first reaction to the start of this novel could legitimately be: “Why is Vachss cleaning up loose ends from a previous book now?” Turns out it is completely relevant to this story. Perhaps he had learned from an oversight earlier in the series. In his second book, Strega, Burke was dealing with a loss suffered in his debut outing; and the angst did not particularly match what the readers had experienced at his side in Flood. This time we know exactly how far Burke has fallen as a result of his latest loss.
Burke’s World is populated by people like himself, living on the fringes of New York City, along its underbelly. These are almost always long-term relationships: some are personal, some are professional, and a few are antagonistic. All are to some extent or another ambiguous. This time Burke entwines himself with an early girlfriend and a childhood friend turned hit man, the latter suspecting that Burke is encroaching on his territory thanks to previous events growing in stature as it circulates through the rumor mill. As always Vachss drags elements from the seamy side of life into harsh daylight, and enthralls you along the way. A master craftsman with a successful effort.
Easy Prey by John Sandford I guess it was inevitable. After the high quality of the previous two Prey novel, a drop off had to come sometime. Luckily Sandford’s average is still higher than most. This time Davenport and his people investigated the murder a fashion model and a bystander during a party at a socialite’s mansion. The cops get everything wrong but each time still find enough to take the next step in the right direction. Nothing great but worth the price of admission.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,064
|
Post by Confessor on May 23, 2016 8:28:38 GMT -5
The Lord of the Rings: Book 1 - The Fellowship of the Ring by J. R. R. Tolkien. I grew up reading Tolkien's The Hobbit and its sequel The Lord of the Rings as a kid -- well, I say "grew up reading", but I didn't actually read them until I was about 13, so saying that I "spent my adolescence reading them" is more accurate. Anyway, I read and re-read those books again and again as a teenager. My best friend and I were both heavily into the characters, situations and world that Tolkien created, back in the day. As my Twenties came, I began to read Tolkien less often and when I hit my 30s I basically stopped, preferring instead to get my Middle-earth fix from the BBC Radio Dramatisations of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings or from Peter Jackson's LotR's movies (his Hobbit was horrible!). Three or four years ago I re-read The Hobbit for the first time in well over a decade and found it to be just as charming and enchanting as ever, and a couple of weeks ago I felt compelled to start re-reading The Lord of the Rings again. The Fellowship of the Ring has always been my favourite volume of the story and I think much of that is down to the fact that the adventure is still fairly compact at this point. The book follows Frodo Baggins and a small band of fellow Hobbits, who later become part of the nine-strong fellowship on a mission to destroy the magical ring of the dark lord Sauron. Later on, in The Two Towers and The Return of the King, the characters are split up into smaller groups and the saga explodes onto a much wider and more epic canvas, which has its attractions, for sure, but there's something about the small band of heroes traveling across Middle-earth in The Fellowship of the Ring that has always appealed to me. What I'd forgotten though, is just what a magnificently written book The Fellowship of the Ring is. The way in which Tolkien conjures his world and characters is both poetically romantic and extremely readable. The story is deeply imaginative and, at turns, is exciting, charming, comforting and even creepy (I'm especially thinking of the scenes in the Mines of Moria here). The characters are memorable, while still being fairly complex on occasion – even in their apparent simplicity. Tolkien famously hated allegory and refused to accept that there was any in his books, but it really is hard not to see certain events in The Lord of the Rings as veiled criticisms of our lack of respect for the natural world and our environment, the scourge of modern industry, and even World War II and the atomic bomb. Certainly, I'm not surprised at all that readers of these books back in the '50s and '60s jumped to those allegorical conclusions so readily. The other thing to say about about The Lord of the Rings in general, and The Fellowship of the Ring in particular, is that Tolkien's Middle-earth feels so thoroughly three-dimensional and well crafted, that it's almost as if you're reading the forgotten mythology of a real place. His attention to detail and extreme verisimilitude as a fantasy writer rank him head and shoulders above pretty much any other fantasy author I've ever read. In short, I really enjoyed revisiting The Fellowship of the Ring and it feels good to be back in Middle-earth. Now, on to The Two Towers!
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on May 23, 2016 16:15:06 GMT -5
The Lord of the Rings: Book 1 - The Fellowship of the Ring by J. R. R. Tolkien. I grew up reading Tolkien's The Hobbit and its sequel The Lord of the Rings as a kid -- well, I say "grew up reading", but I didn't actually read them until I was about 13, so saying that I "spent my adolescence reading them" is more accurate. Anyway, I read and re-read those books again and again as a teenager. My best friend and I were both heavily into the characters, situations and world that Tolkien created, back in the day. As my Twenties came, I began to read Tolkien less often and when I hit my 30s I basically stopped, preferring instead to get my Middle-earth fix from the BBC Radio Dramatisations of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings or from Peter Jackson's LotR's movies (his Hobbit was horrible!). Three or four years ago I re-read The Hobbit for the first time in well over a decade and found it to be just as charming and enchanting as ever, and a couple of weeks ago I felt compelled to start re-reading The Lord of the Rings again. The Fellowship of the Ring has always been my favourite volume of the story and I think much of that is down to the fact that the adventure is still fairly compact at this point. The book follows Frodo Baggins and a small band of fellow Hobbits, who later become part of the nine-strong fellowship on a mission to destroy the magical ring of the dark lord Sauron. Later on, in The Two Towers and The Return of the King, the characters are split up into smaller groups and the saga explodes onto a much wider and more epic canvas, which has its attractions, for sure, but there's something about the small band of heroes traveling across Middle-earth in The Fellowship of the Ring that has always appealed to me. What I'd forgotten though, is just what a magnificently written book The Fellowship of the Ring is. The way in which Tolkien conjures his world and characters is both poetically romantic and extremely readable. The story is deeply imaginative and, at turns, is exciting, charming, comforting and even creepy (I'm especially thinking of the scenes in the Mines of Moria here). The characters are memorable, while still being fairly complex on occasion – even in their apparent simplicity. Tolkien famously hated allegory and refused to accept that there was any in his books, but it really is hard not to see certain events in The Lord of the Rings as veiled criticisms of our lack of respect for the natural world and our environment, the scourge of modern industry, and even World War II and the atomic bomb. Certainly, I'm not surprised at all that readers of these books back in the '50s and '60s jumped to those allegorical conclusions so readily. The other thing to say about about The Lord of the Rings in general, and The Fellowship of the Ring in particular, is that Tolkien's Middle-earth feels so thoroughly three-dimensional and well crafted, that it's almost as if you're reading the forgotten mythology of a real place. His attention to detail and extreme verisimilitude as a fantasy writer rank him head and shoulders above pretty much any other fantasy author I've ever read. In short, I really enjoyed revisiting The Fellowship of the Ring and it feels good to be back in Middle-earth. Now, on to The Two Towers! Well put, Confessor. Makes me want to try starting it again. I wonder if you noticed the allegory when you were younger or whether that was only more evident upon your return to the story. And, always an ineresting question: did you find a difference in your feelings toward any of the characters? For instance, did you identify yourself more with say, Frodo when you were 13 than you did upon rereading? I've never read any of them, maybe because I was too young or just not ready for Tolkien's style when I first tried The Hobbit. I found Robert E. Howard and he provided years' worth of a fantasy fix for me. I did enjoy the films, particularly the first, which I didn't want to end. The others seemed more like one long CGI or videogame battle. Fun once, but just too much to commit to a second or third time. Someday, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 23, 2016 17:41:26 GMT -5
Confessor's experience is similar to my own, though I think I was a year older, having just turned 14 when I read The Hobbit, and then LotR a month or two later. I remember because I was given the Hobbit by my older brother for my 14th birthday in December 1075 and read it a couple weeks later on Christmas Eve - one of my memorable reading experiences.
I have re-read The Hobbit since then but not LotR, or at least not all the way through - I certainly re-read favourite passages from the trilogy many times in the first few years after that first reading.
I think the style of the Hobbit falls within a tradition of English children's writing that would include things like Carroll's Alice books, George MacDonald's fairy tales, Kipling's Just So Stories (which I prefer to The Jungle Book, personally), Graham's The Wind in the Willows, TH White's The Once and Future King, among others, so if you've enjoyed any of those I'd say The Hobbit would be worth trying again.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,064
|
Post by Confessor on May 23, 2016 20:44:53 GMT -5
The Lord of the Rings: Book 1 - The Fellowship of the Ring by J. R. R. Tolkien. I grew up reading Tolkien's The Hobbit and its sequel The Lord of the Rings as a kid -- well, I say "grew up reading", but I didn't actually read them until I was about 13, so saying that I "spent my adolescence reading them" is more accurate. Anyway, I read and re-read those books again and again as a teenager. My best friend and I were both heavily into the characters, situations and world that Tolkien created, back in the day. As my Twenties came, I began to read Tolkien less often and when I hit my 30s I basically stopped, preferring instead to get my Middle-earth fix from the BBC Radio Dramatisations of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings or from Peter Jackson's LotR's movies (his Hobbit was horrible!). Three or four years ago I re-read The Hobbit for the first time in well over a decade and found it to be just as charming and enchanting as ever, and a couple of weeks ago I felt compelled to start re-reading The Lord of the Rings again. The Fellowship of the Ring has always been my favourite volume of the story and I think much of that is down to the fact that the adventure is still fairly compact at this point. The book follows Frodo Baggins and a small band of fellow Hobbits, who later become part of the nine-strong fellowship on a mission to destroy the magical ring of the dark lord Sauron. Later on, in The Two Towers and The Return of the King, the characters are split up into smaller groups and the saga explodes onto a much wider and more epic canvas, which has its attractions, for sure, but there's something about the small band of heroes traveling across Middle-earth in The Fellowship of the Ring that has always appealed to me. What I'd forgotten though, is just what a magnificently written book The Fellowship of the Ring is. The way in which Tolkien conjures his world and characters is both poetically romantic and extremely readable. The story is deeply imaginative and, at turns, is exciting, charming, comforting and even creepy (I'm especially thinking of the scenes in the Mines of Moria here). The characters are memorable, while still being fairly complex on occasion – even in their apparent simplicity. Tolkien famously hated allegory and refused to accept that there was any in his books, but it really is hard not to see certain events in The Lord of the Rings as veiled criticisms of our lack of respect for the natural world and our environment, the scourge of modern industry, and even World War II and the atomic bomb. Certainly, I'm not surprised at all that readers of these books back in the '50s and '60s jumped to those allegorical conclusions so readily. The other thing to say about about The Lord of the Rings in general, and The Fellowship of the Ring in particular, is that Tolkien's Middle-earth feels so thoroughly three-dimensional and well crafted, that it's almost as if you're reading the forgotten mythology of a real place. His attention to detail and extreme verisimilitude as a fantasy writer rank him head and shoulders above pretty much any other fantasy author I've ever read. In short, I really enjoyed revisiting The Fellowship of the Ring and it feels good to be back in Middle-earth. Now, on to The Two Towers! Well put, Confessor. Makes me want to try starting it again. I wonder if you noticed the allegory when you were younger or whether that was only more evident upon your return to the story. And, always an ineresting question: did you find a difference in your feelings toward any of the characters? For instance, did you identify yourself more with say, Frodo when you were 13 than you did upon rereading? I've never read any of them, maybe because I was too young or just not ready for Tolkien's style when I first tried The Hobbit. I found Robert E. Howard and he provided years' worth of a fantasy fix for me. I did enjoy the films, particularly the first, which I didn't want to end. The others seemed more like one long CGI or videogame battle. Fun once, but just too much to commit to a second or third time. Someday, maybe. Interesting point, Hal, about my reaction to and interpretation of the book now, compared to when I was a teen. I can definitely say that I had never noticed the ecological -- or what we might call nowadays "environmentalist" or "green" -- overtones to the story. Likewise, the World War II/atom bomb allegory would never have occurred to me back then, but seems like a very logical interpretation to me as an adult. Although, if we take Tolkien at his word (and personally, I'm very much inclined to) this is entirely my interpretation of it and not something that was intended by him at all. However, Tolkien dearly loved the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire countryside (I live in Buckinghamshire myself) and I think his dislike of the way in which it was "raped" by the building of roads, houses and modern industrial centres in the post-war era seeped into his work and as such, an ecological reading of the story is very much justified in my view, even if it wasn't deliberate on the author's part. Something else I noticed was that certain parts of The Fellowship of the Ring resonated with me much more on this read through than they did last time because of world events that I've lived through since I last read the book. For example, there's a passage in the book where Frodo is talking to the wizard Gandalf about the rise of the dark lord Sauron and the war that is threatening to engulf Middle-earth... "I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."Those few lines really choked me up when I read them this time around because, for me, it called to mind things like 9/11, the 7/7 bombings in London (which I was indirectly caught up in, since I was on a train heading into Kings Cross station when it happened), and the whole rise of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Plus, being middle-aged now, I'm sure a growing sense of my own mortality came into play as I read that passage. On the other hand, much of my reaction to the book was very similar to how it was back in my teens. My attitude towards the central characters was pretty much the same as it had always been and I still found the scenes in the Elven realm of Lothlórien to be the dullest bit of the whole book, just like I always used to. ...I was given the Hobbit by my older brother for my 14th birthday in December 1075Time travel? I have re-read The Hobbit since then but not LotR, or at least not all the way through - I certainly re-read favourite passages from the trilogy many times in the first few years after that first reading. Yeah, me and my best friend used to do that too: re-read our favourite parts, rather than re-read the whole thing. Although, I reckon that this is my fifth time reading the LotR from start to finish. I think the style of the Hobbit falls within a tradition of English children's writing that would include things like Carroll's Alice books, George MacDonald's fairy tales, Kipling's Just So Stories (which I prefer to The Jungle Book, personally), Graham's The Wind in the Willows, TH White's The Once and Future King, among others, so if you've enjoyed any of those I'd say The Hobbit would be worth trying again. I would agree, although I consider it superior to the likes of Alice in Wonderland and The Wind in the Willows, both of which I really like BTW. Even my old Dad enjoyed reading The Hobbit and he hated anything remotely sci-fi or fantasy-based.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 23, 2016 22:40:17 GMT -5
...I was given the Hobbit by my older brother for my 14th birthday in December 1075Time travel? Damn! I knew I was bound to screw up and give myself away eventually. Hopefully my superiors at the Time Patrol Bureau won't see this.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 23, 2016 22:48:41 GMT -5
I would read LoTR about every 18 months as a teen and into my 20s. I eventually just trailed off.
About the time the first movie came out I read The Hobbit to my son. Which we both enjoyed. We then started Fellowship and it wasn't working for him, he wasn't old enough. So I kept on for myself...and got to Tom Bombadil. And that was it. It wasn't working for me anymore either. I'm not sure why, but I just wasn't interested any more. And I found the language and the mythology tiresome.
I may give it another go at some point. But I feel that I've left it behind.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 24, 2016 14:20:28 GMT -5
I LOVED the BBC dramatization of both the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings... I've honestly never really liked the writing style of for the main books... I find I enjoy the world and its character much more in other mediums. That's very rare for me... not sure why. Maybe I should give it another go at some point. I've got Sword of Shannara on my plate soon for my sci-fi/fantasy book club at the library (Though how they picked that over Starship Troopers I don't understand... I was out of town for the vote)... so we'll see how I get through a watered down clone of LoTR first
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 17:25:08 GMT -5
I suppose it will surprise no one (given my user name and profile pic) that I'm a huge LotR fan.
My dad was never much of a reader but he loved Tolkien. I can vividly remember sitting on his lap and him reading to me from his red-leather-bound copy of the trilogy.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on May 24, 2016 18:07:19 GMT -5
I first heard of Tolkien and the trilogy in the letters pages of Marvel comics. I borrowed the books from the library when I was in junior high, and bought a paperback all-in-one edition when I visited London in 1973. I hadn't re-read it in decades but a few months ago, there was a copy of The Return of the King in the lunchroom at work, and I read the Frodo & Sam parts.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 25, 2016 15:32:08 GMT -5
Read the first 50 pages or so of Sword of Shannara on the ride into work...I LOVED it as a teenager (IIRC, it was the 2nd fantasy novel I read), but boy does it read like medicore LoTR fan fiction now. I hope it I don't feel that way the whole way through. yesterday's book: Castle of Iron by L. Sprague de Camp It turns out that d Camp is really the Kevin J. Anderson of his era. He handled Conan passibly, and this series seems to also want to take other properties and use them in his own way. Granted, I haven't read the first book of the series, but that doesn't cover the fact that this was a hot mess. The premise seems to be anything ever written in fiction is an alternate universe locked in place and time, I guess, since where they go is Crusades-era Arabia, and it's still the Crusade era. Also, there's magic, which anyone at all can do if they just say a goofy rhyme and think really hard. The plot revolves around one of the characters finding his lost wife from a previously visited alternate universe, and doesn't really offer anything one wouldn't expect. I'm glad I satisfied my curiosity about the series, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 25, 2016 16:14:21 GMT -5
Read the first 50 pages or so of Sword of Shannara on the ride into work...I LOVED it as a teenager (IIRC, it was the 2nd fantasy novel I read), but boy does it read like medicore LoTR fan fiction now. I hope it I don't feel that way the whole way through. That's because it's mediocre LoTR fan fic.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 16:28:05 GMT -5
Read the first 50 pages or so of Sword of Shannara on the ride into work...I LOVED it as a teenager (IIRC, it was the 2nd fantasy novel I read), but boy does it read like medicore LoTR fan fiction now. I hope it I don't feel that way the whole way through. yesterday's book: Castle of Iron by L. Sprague de Camp It turns out that d Camp is really the Kevin J. Anderson of his era. He handled Conan passibly, and this series seems to also want to take other properties and use them in his own way. Granted, I haven't read the first book of the series, but that doesn't cover the fact that this was a hot mess. The premise seems to be anything ever written in fiction is an alternate universe locked in place and time, I guess, since where they go is Crusades-era Arabia, and it's still the Crusade era. Also, there's magic, which anyone at all can do if they just say a goofy rhyme and think really hard. The plot revolves around one of the characters finding his lost wife from a previously visited alternate universe, and doesn't really offer anything one wouldn't expect. I'm glad I satisfied my curiosity about the series, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it. Interesting. IIRC, the Harold Shea stories are pretty highly thought of, or at least were back in the day. I enjoyed them myself, though granted that would've been (unbelievably enough) around 40 years ago. Memory tells me (perhaps falsely) that the series debuted in the pages of the legendary fantasy pulp Unknown Worlds; I'll have to check that. Edit: Yep. The initial story, "The Roaring Trumpet," appeared in the May 1940 Unknown, back before Worlds was added to the name. The vintage stuff, of course, isn't for everyone. DeCamp was probably pretty much at the height of his powers back then, as Lest Darkness Fall had come out a few months earlier. From a quick glance, Pratt's pure fantasy works didn't start coming out till the decade was nearing an end.
|
|
|
Post by lobsterjohnson on May 25, 2016 16:35:27 GMT -5
I would read LoTR about every 18 months as a teen and into my 20s. I eventually just trailed off. About the time the first movie came out I read The Hobbit to my son. Which we both enjoyed. We then started Fellowship and it wasn't working for him, he wasn't old enough. So I kept on for myself... and got to Tom Bombadil. And that was it. It wasn't working for me anymore either. I'm not sure why, but I just wasn't interested any more. And I found the language and the mythology tiresome. I may give it another go at some point. But I feel that I've left it behind. I remember reaching that point of the book when my dad read me the books as a little kid. I think we eventually ended up skipping over it.
|
|