A Good Thriller discussion

Hi Alice,
What about Firefly or Cowboys and Aliens? :-) Cross-genre stuff can be original...and confusing.
r/Steve

A friend of mine is still trying to get me to read Jane Austen. It's just not my cup of tea. I don't particularly like 18th century romance novels. I know they are probably classics and yes, I do have a few on my "to read" list but I'd rather read a good mystery/thriller. They keep you on the edge of your seat.

Hi Kat,
You've found a kindred soul. I might have said it above, but I'm not a Jane Austen fan either. Silas Marner, ugh! Dickens is only good for the Christmas Carol and Tale of Two Cities (a thriller in today's terms). Moby Dick is mostly a manual on how to turn whale blubber into lamp oil (I'm an environmentalist--killing wild animals is wrong--just ask Cecil). Les Miserables describes readers of that story (the B'way show and movie based on it are sappy and boring). You get the idea.
Of course, I don't like many early 20th century books either. Mockingbird has been in the news because they decided to sell the first draft, Watchman. I won't be hopping on that bandwagon anytime soon.
As a genre-fiction author, I suppose I should be more open-minded. Well, I am: I'm currently reading through a 1000+ page bio of Churchill. You'll find more non-fiction titles on "Steve's Bookshelf" page of my website than fiction titles, in fact.
All readers should be selective about books as much as they are about food and drink. Tastes are personal. If someone wants to read Moby Dick, go for it. Just don't make me do it. (I said as much to my HS English teacher, but it didn't do any good.)
One should be open to new things, of course. N. Scot Momaday taught me how to love poetry. Can't write the stuff, but there's a lot I like now. I've even attended poetry slams (sophisticated rap?)!
r/Steve

Steven wrote: "Hi Kat,
You've found a kindred soul. I might have said it above, but I'm not a Jane Austen fan either. Silas Marner, ugh! Dickens is only good for the Christmas Carol and Tale of Two Cities (a t..."

I'm glad there are others out there like me! :) I just can't stand reading something I don't find any interest in. I know some people insist you read the classics but if I start reading something and it's boring me to death I'd rather spend my precious minutes on this earth reading something I find thrilling. Give me a good murder mystery and I'm a happy girl!

Alice wrote: "Don't like Westerns, sparkly vampires, Harlequin level Romance or slasher stories. Other than that, I keep an open mind."

Only people who are functionally illiterate about the folkloric origins of vampires like the "emo sparkly blood fairies that call themselves vampires" in the Twatlight saga.

Kat: Austen was NINETEENTH century, NOT eighteenth century.

Steve: I too can't stand Austen, the Bronte sisters or Dickens. Hell, I can't really stand Dickens, either; or anything by Shakespeare other than the Scottish Play. Ditto Hemingway, Capote, Lee, and whoever the (bleep) it was wrote THE CATCHER INT HE RYE.

Kat (again): I wouldn't even use the works by authors I despise as pooper scoopers for my worst enemy's DOG! Much less my OWN tp!

@ Alice,
Firefly, starring that guy from Castle, was the first sci-fi series to combine Western trappings in a sci-fi context, as far as I know. Cowboys and Aliens was a movie along the same lines. I don't know of any books with those features.
My point on cross-genre books was intended to be more general. Romantic mysteries (Higgins Clark comes to mind) and vampire romances (the Twilight series) are cross-genre. Space operas are often a cross between romance, fantasy, and sci-fi. The very name military sci-fi says cross-genre. Many of my own books are combinations of thriller, mystery, suspense, and sci-fi.
For genre fiction, the most important thing is that the author spins a good yarn that keeps readers of that book interested. That's my basic problem with the nineteenth century drivel and much of the early twentieth.
r/Steve

Amber wrote: "Alice wrote: "Don't like Westerns, sparkly vampires, Harlequin level Romance or slasher stories. Other than that, I keep an open mind."

Only people who are functionally illiterate about the folklo..."

Well shows how much I know about Jane Austen. I honestly have never read anything by her. I just don't find the subject matter interesting. Seems like I hit a sore spot though. I have nothing against her work and I know a lot of people like her writing. Also, I wouldn't use ANY book as a pooper scooper. Just because I don't find it interesting doesn't mean I would disrespect a book.

Well said Kat. I do not read romance unless it is by Nicholas Sparks. He is the ONLY one I will read. I do not read historical fiction typically. I do not read a lot of memoirs or autobiographies, and I do not care much for sci-fi.

@ Jaime,
I can then recommend the Churchill bio I'm reading--a bit dense, but definitely interesting. Also, I just reviewed a memoir about the Cambodian Genocide. A re-post will appear on my blog tomorrow. (I apologize for beating my own drum.)
I respect all readers and writers--diversity is a great thing. How boring this world would be if we were all alike and liked the same things?
r/Steve

Thanks!

The question is what genre don't you like to read. And the point is we ALL like different things.

The key is not to stand in judgement of anyone's choices. Only a finite number of minutes in a lifetime, make them count.

I read genres many don't like. Reading is my own personal journey. That's it....

Janet.."..reading is my own personal journey"

Nicely put

@ Janet and E,
I think I said the same thing. But we can say something akin to "if you like X, you might like Y," right? Isn't that what Goodreads is all about?
Or, maybe you're just putting me back on topic? It's a bit of six-v.-half-dozen-of-the-other anyway, but maybe most of us count many more genres we do NOT read than ones we do? :-)
OK, I'll bow out now....
r/Steve

Steven wrote: "@ Alice,
Firefly, starring that guy from Castle, was the first sci-fi series to combine Western trappings in a sci-fi context, as far as I know. Cowboys and Aliens was a movie along the same lines..."


Like 300, COWBOYS AND ALIENS was based on a graphic novel but 300, unlike C&A, was based on the real life Battle of Thermopylae where 300 Spartans under King Leonidas did indeed hold off the Persian army.

Kat: Using them as pooper scoopers is better than outright BURNING them like the Nazis did.

Jaime: You might also be interested in the biography of King Edward I that I am reading, too. A GREAT AND TERRIBLE KING: EDWARD I AND THE FORGING OF BRITAIN by Marc Morris.

Janet/E./Steven (again): Good points, but I thought that GR was ALSO for triggering discussions. Steven, were you referring to the phrase "Six of one, half a dozen of the other and pick 'em"?

@ Amber,
I didn't know that about C&A. Oblivion was another SF movie based on a graphic novel, I believe. I watched part of 300 the other night but was interrupted by telephone calls. I reviewed a hilarious graphic novel for Bookpleasures...probably not PC to go into it here, because it was political! New media for writers and artists certainly, but not my cup o' tea.
LOL about the "six..." because it's just an old cliche I screen for in my editing: "six of one and half-dozen of the other" = "it makes no difference" (even my grandfather used the phrase).
I'm interested in the Ed I book too--I'll check it out. The one whose body they just found was Ed III, right?
r/Steve

No. That was Richard III, Steven. The dynasty AFTER the Plantagenet family. Edward I's uncle was Richard the Lionheart and he was the GRANDSON of William the Conqueror, known in Normandy as "William the Bastard," which was the generic term for an illegitimate child of either gender.

@ Amber,
Thanks for clearing that up. I can never keep this stuff straight. My detective Castilblanco is the history buff. LOL. Lots of kings with the same names exacerbates my problem of retention of the history of the royal lineages in the British Isles.
I saw the PBS (or was it Nat Geo) special on finding Richard III's bones--fascinating.
r/Steve

@ Alice,
Actually Star Wars was more a plagiarism of Edgar Rice Burroughs' Martian novels (jedi warriors, ice caves, princesses, etc) and Asimov's Foundation series (evil Empire, senators, etc). I don't hold that against the franchise, but it's fantasy and not hard sci-fi, closer to Harry Potter and Maleficient than Blade Runner and Alien.
Just my opinions, of course. LOL.
r/Steve

Steven wrote: "@ Amber,
Thanks for clearing that up. I can never keep this stuff straight. My detective Castilblanco is the history buff. LOL. Lots of kings with the same names exacerbates my problem of reten..."

Could have been both PBS and the NatGeo Channel. Though that era isn't my special interest in history, I still have an interest in it, which is why I included the book about Edward I on my PIFM lists.

Steven wrote: "@ Alice,
Actually Star Wars was more a plagiarism of Edgar Rice Burroughs' Martian novels (jedi warriors, ice caves, princesses, etc) and Asimov's Foundation series (evil Empire, senators, etc). I..."

There was also bits of Egyptian folklore in STAR WARS. In ancient Egyptian theology, Nabu was the Goddess of Wisdom... .

Actually, the Jedi and their Sith counterparts are more closely related to the samurai and ninja. Remember that Akira Kurosawa WAS indeed one of Lucas' non-Western influences and you definitely spot the Samurai helmet elements in Vader's mask... .

@ Alice,
Asimov was prolific. The Foundation Trilogy didn't end the series. He masterfully united the robot stories (I, Robot, Caves of Steel, and The Naked Sun) and the time travel story (End of Eternity) with Foundation to make a greatly extended series of hard,cerebral, and exciting sci-fi. Of course, his popular science books aren't bad either!
Rice Burroughs' John Carter stories would be seen more as fantasy today rather than hard sci-fi, but they are great fun still...and ten-thousand times better than the movie. (BTW, the I, Robot movie's relationship to Asimov's book didn't go much beyond the title--it was enjoyable, compared to the John Carter movie, but I had to walk in telling myself, "Forget about the book!").
@ Amber, I didn't catch Star Wars' references to Egyptian theology, but I'm sure they borrowed from many sources. I disagree about your Jedi ref--that was straight out of Burroughs--but the light saber usage definitely had a samurai flavor and even I recognized the influences in Vader's mask...and cloak.
Bottom line: One often sees stuff in books that the general public writes off as Hollywood creativity. Then there are casting problems too--Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher?
r/Steve

Steven wrote: "@ Alice,
Asimov was prolific. The Foundation Trilogy didn't end the series. He masterfully united the robot stories (I, Robot, Caves of Steel, and The Naked Sun) and the time travel story (End of..."

In 2007, in honor of the 30th anniversary of STAR WARS, the History Channel did a bunch of stuff about the influences on and the technology of STAR WARS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOHdu... was one of them, I think.

I think this was the one that talked about the Egyptian theological stuff I mentioned in my previous post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btxIS...

@ Amber,
I'll check it out.
r/Steve

@ Alice,
I found the John Carter series more fun than Tarzan, but they'e both worth reading--lots of good hours of entertainment! The Tarzan series is more adventure; the John Carter series was the sci-fi of the day. Rice Burroughs did as good as job as any modern sci-fi writer in transporting his character to Mars, by the way. We can talk about going to Mars today, but in his day that was like going to 82 Eridani in today's sci-fi: how do you get there? At least the movie was true to his conception in that instance.
r/Steve

Steve, I wasn't able to watch the second one I posted because I only get three hours online at the public every day it's open.

@ Amber, That's a bummer. I generally only use library time for researching info in order to write my books--I get some real nuggets panning that way. I have trouble watching video on any computer, even my own laptop. I can do the short stuff, like many YouTube videos--the longer ones zap my eyes. I guess I need one of those new smart TVs.
Unrelated question (maybe appropriate for another thread): can you borrow INDIE ebooks at your library? Joe Konrath has started some kind of service for libraries so they can allow indie book borrowing without much hassle. (It's a bit exclusive right now in that not all indies qualify.) Our library here has to jump through all kinds of hoops and can only lend ebooks from the big publishers. Even worse, they have no mechanism for receiving donations. I keep donating my four pbooks (i.e. trade paperbacks) because they wear out in use, but I don't have anyway to donate the newer ebooks. (You've probably gathered I'm more interested in having readers than getting rich.)
r/Steve

Ebooks, indie or mainstream, can only be borrowed at the BPL if the patron in question ALREADY has an eBook reader.

@ Amber, That makes sense. Do they lend indies? Mine doesn't. I guess one can argue that lending indie ebooks doesn't make much sense with the price of most indies so low and the online borrowing sites available (Scribd, Oyster, etc). The times are a-changin'....
r/Steve

I don't know since I have no interest in EVER using an eBook reader due to the conflict minerals used to create the parts of a piece of tech I regard as a LUXURY rather than a necessity.

@ Amber, After seeing a documentary about Bangladesh kids sifting through piles of toxic waste left by old electronics and reading extensively on the subject, I've decided this is a real conundrum: do we save forests by not making paper or do we otherwise poison the planet? I, for one, don't know the answer.
I do know that I'd read a lot fewer books if I didn't use my Kindle, and my house would look like a hoarder's with stacks of pbooks. My Kindle was one of the first ones--never upgraded, and it works just fine. For me, it's a necessity, just like my laptop. That doesn't solve the problem you mention, though.
I suffer tremendously with the above conundrum because I'm a rabid environmentalist. Between books and newsprint alone, we're eliminating acres and acres of the world's forests every month; these are also habitats for wildlife and lungs for our planet. On the other hand, if we poison Gaia by not dealing correctly with toxic waste, we can be in big trouble too. That yellow river in Colorado is a reminder of that.
Again, maybe topics for another thread, although I can't imagine where.
r/Steve

I used to say I would never read a zombie book until I read I Am Legend, The Girl with All the Gifts and My Life as a White Trash Zombie. All different, all good.

I still say I don't read fantasy (with elves and faeries, wizards and "dragon kings in the dark forest" and such) but I do like fantasy/horror (The Talisman) or fantasy/sci-fi (14).
Also no romance. If there's some in the book I'm reading that's ok, but if the whole point of the book is a romance, no way.
"....but will Herbert be her one true love..?" Argh! Barf!

Kirsten *Dogs Welcome - People Tolerated" wrote: "Many times this question really irritates me. Ruling out a complete genre because of some innate prejudice or assumption just rankles.

For instance science fiction and mystery/thrillers. Many don..."

Kristen:

All branches of fiction and poetry have there share of bad literature out there and if people experience enough of these when first delving into a genre of fiction. What I like you may not and vice-versa. IMHO, this is especially true with Science Fiction, Vampires, futuristic, paranormal, and steampunk. It is so hard for me to find any authors beyond the obvious first few in Science Fiction that are not just rubbish. I have never seen a dystopian novel that appeals to me. The Hunger Games - forget it. Saw the first movie and thought what a waste of time. I hate to admit it because it rankles you so, but I automatically walk past the Sci-Fi section of the bookstore without a glance. Sorry.

I don't read science fiction, just not my cup of tea.

I have a Kindle and love it. So often, I am almost done with a book when I am traveling or jury duty! It is so nice to be able to just go to another book that I have downloaded instead of packing two or three or more. ;-)

Steven wrote: "@ Amber, After seeing a documentary about Bangladesh kids sifting through piles of toxic waste left by old electronics and reading extensively on the subject, I've decided this is a real conundrum:..."

Point well taken.

@ Cameron, I grew up reading dystopian sci-fi (among many other genres), so maybe some of the classics would serve you better: The Time Machine, Brave New World, Ape and Essence, Darkness at Noon, and 1984. More recently you have Fahrenheit 451, Not this August, and No Blade of Grass, and still more recently some of Margaret Atwood's books and McCarthy's The Road.
A problem modern readers might have with dystopian novels is that they're often depressing visions of the future. I have two dystopian/thriller series that mix in a wee bit of hope, but that's not uncommon either. No Blade of Grass, by John Christopher, is a "modern classic" in that sci-fi subgenre, but (spoiler alert) it ends with hope too.
I'm not trying to win converts here, only pointing out some books you might have missed...but maybe not. :-)
I'm not a fan of the Hunger Games either, starting with the premise, which is absurd. This isn't hard sci-fi either because it's closer to fantasy.
Re the Kindle discussion (any e-reader, for that matter): for an avid reader, it's an efficient way to save bookshelf space and keep track of books. Because I'm also a prolific reviewer, it's been a valuable tool. Moreover, I've reread a few old books because I see them in my list, which is more feasible than searching through all those bookshelves. I can't say that e-readers work well with textbooks and reference works, but maybe that will change.
Joe Konrath has proposed that the ebook should become more like an app that combines the text with graphics, fan clubs, discussion groups, and other social media functions. But what would we do without Goodreads then?
Sorry for the verbosity...
r/Steve

Steven wrote: "@ Amber, After seeing a documentary about Bangladesh kids sifting through piles of toxic waste left by old electronics and reading extensively on the subject, I've decided this is a real conundrum:..."

Yeah it IS a conundrum.

E.: LOL> Sounds like you've got 99.9999999999999999999999999999ad inifinitum% of romance novels pegged!

Angela: Are you able to delete duplicate copies of your posts? Just curious.

Steven (again) Re: dystopias: "Often?" Try "Always." Ok...actually the only exception I see in your list (that I've read all the way through) is the H.G. Wells book THE TIME MACHINE, but I'm not entirely sure it IS dystopian since the Time Traveller DOES return to his own time, even if only temporarily.

And you do pose an interesting question...for people who can AFFORD a cell phone with Internet access. For what I use my government subsidized phone for, Internet access (and other features like GPS, etc.) are as useless to me as "teats on a boar hog" or, if you want to be politer about it; "a screen door on a submarine." All I use it for is to make phone calls and as a portable clock.

E. (again): I AM LEGEND really ISN'T a zombie book. It's more of a 20th century version of DRACULA... .

That's weird, I wonder why that posted.twice!
If you know how to delete posts, let me know, I don't know how to do it. ;-)

You just click the link that says "delete." Can only be done by original person who made the post.

Ah, I don't see that on my phone, will use computer. Thanks!

You're welcome.

@ Amber, I guess that you recognize all those titles means something. Re The Time Machine: it's dystopian in the sense that it paints a bleak future for humanity, but that's pretty much true of the subgenre in general. A lot of the early books I mentioned were products of ennui from the First and Second World Wars and/or disillusion with Communism, but some like F 451 were more general pictures of tyranny and its atrocities.
And one person's luxury is another's necessity, I guess. I view a lot of modern gizmos as a necessity, but not TVs--I prefer reading a good book. :-) I do go to movies and review them too (I'm often disappointed with what Hollywood produces). Even widescreen TVs can't compete with those wide movie screens and great sound systems. Of course, that's a luxury...but I don't buy any concessions--that's not a luxury; it's a waste of money!
Any comments on Konrath's idea, anyone? That could be genre specific, but it's probably not appropriate for this thread either.
Let's all agree to get back to topic, genres we won't read.
r/Steve

Steven wrote: "@ Cameron, I grew up reading dystopian sci-fi (among many other genres), so maybe some of the classics would serve you better: The Time Machine, Brave New World, Ape and Essence, Darkness at Noon, ..."

@Steven
I hope that no one felt that I was too harsh, my point is that for everyone they have their preferential reading and the reading that they avoid. Life is too short. We cannot read it all. But, yes, I did point out the genres that I avoided, including dystopian sic-fi. However, that being said, long ago I did read 1984 by Orwell and Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury. I also have read McCarty's The Road. Have long considered Huxley's Brave New World, and I do want to read a few Atwood novels. I am not a big fan of Wells. I have not read the other authors. I tend to end that line in the sand with Pynchon and Stephenson.

@ Cameron, Looks like you're testing the waters, but I can understand anyone's hesitation: dystopian sci-fi can be very depressing unless there's some glimmer of hope.
My reading these novels as a kid might have been influenced by the many "safety drills" we had where we'd hide under our desks in case of nuclear attack. I received what kids today call a time-out in one class because I told the teacher that the drills were a waste of time if he was contemplating nuclear Armageddon. I've been watching that famous Doomsday Clock ever since then.
r/Steve

Steven wrote: "@ Amber, I guess that you recognize all those titles means something. Re The Time Machine: it's dystopian in the sense that it paints a bleak future for humanity, but that's pretty much true of th..."

For me, anything electronic other than a microwave, a fridge, a stove and an alarm clock/radio or my government subsidized cell phone is a luxury.

Cameron: If you're referring to the novel THE HANDMAID'S TALE, stick with the movie. Pace-wise it's better than the little I read of the original novel. Pace-wise my opinion of THE HANDMAID'S TALE is the same as Jim Butcher's GHOST STORY: "As slow as half frozen molasses in February." In other words, it's slow enough to cure you of insomnia if you should HAVE insomnia.

Steven (again): *snorts derisively @ your idiotic teacher* You had it right, the teacher was wrong.

That's why I don't read the dystopian crap, especially NOT the NA/YA subgenre of the dystopian subgenre. That crap's even WORSE than regular dystopian fiction! What hope? Every dystopian thing I've ever read, and I freely admit I have read very little; and even then I only read it if I was FORCED to by the curriculum, there's NO HOPE OFFERED WHATSOEVER...unless you count the really crappy "romance" junk in an NA/YA subgenre book... . Which I DON'T. I'd rather have a flaming case of piles on top of an EQUALLY flaming case of dental rot than read that genre!

@ Amber, LOL: I guess we know now that you don't like dystopian sci-fi!
Genres in general do readers a disservice, of course, in the sense that categorizing a book as a certain genre might keep us from reading something we might actually enjoy. With so many good books out there, that probably doesn't matter.
In fiction, however, the story's the thing. Saw an ad today for a novel that's a "good character study." Huh? Yep, that was the book blurb. Unless the plot interests me, I don't want anything to do with it. That's a stronger filter for me than any genre prejudices I might have.
r/Steve

Amber wrote: "Steven wrote: "@ Amber, I guess that you recognize all those titles means something. Re The Time Machine: it's dystopian in the sense that it paints a bleak future for humanity, but that's pretty ..."

Thanks Amber and too funny. Actually, I did want to read The Handmaids Tale, but what I was really talking about was the MadAdam trilogy that begins with Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood.

@ Cameron,
Atwood's Oryx and Crake is an example of dystopian sci-fi that's depressing all the way through...a few innocent, happy moments in a huge, bleak panorama. F 451 and 1984 are like that too. HS teachers force the latter down kids' throats as "medicine that's good for you"--not quite as bad as Jane Austen, and far superior to Hunger Games, but they're still depressing.
Maybe "not completely depressing" should be part of the definition of "good story"?
r/Steve

@Steven--

I feel kinda strange that I absolutely love all the examples you cite. Except Fahrenheit 451... but I haven't read that one ... maybe I should, I'd probably love it too.

By the way, I don't know if I'm at fault (or you), but I don't find them a "huge, bleak panorama" or "completely depressing". I reserve that for many domestic fictions.

@ Kirsten,
I'm playing the Devil's Advocate, explaining why some people don't like some dystopian sci-fi novels. By all means, read F 451. At the very least it will make you appreciate how good we have it, being able to read what we want. The movie Book of Eli was a poor take-off on the theme, with religious overtones thrown it--great acting by Denzel, though.
r/Steve