The Sword and Laser discussion

I am sure we have all experienced this, an author that is getting rave critical reviews or friends are urging you to read, and you go into it eagerly, WANTING to enjoy it, but . . . nothing. You just can't get into it. Both disappointing and a bit frustrating because people whose tastes you respect DO enjoy it, and you wonder if it is just you.

I had that experience recently with Gene Wolfe. I believed I would love it, since it is highly rated, a critical sucess, etc. But I had to literally drag my way through it.

What are the authors you really wanted or expected to like, but just didn't?

I really wanted to read all of JRR Tolkien's books, but they are so slow and plodding that it was hard to get into. Except for the Hobbit. That was a good book. While I really like Tolkien, I have a hard time getting wrapped up in his books. I'm more of a fast-paced reader that doesn't like it when authors get caught up the the vivid depiction and backstory of their unique characters and worlds.

Joshua, that is entirely understandable. Even as a HUGE fan of his work (listening to Silmarillion now), I could not sit down and read the books again. I can listen to them, for some reason, but for reading I also need faster pacing, action and dialogue. I do enjoy descriptive settings, but am less interested in detailed "world-building" anymore. I think I am getting less patient as I get older. :0)

Vance wrote: "Joshua, that is entirely understandable. Even as a HUGE fan of his work (listening to Silmarillion now), I could not sit down and read the books again. I can listen to them, for some reason, but ..."

Actually I think that is the human attention span shortening. And really, I think that is a good thing. Movies and books seems to be getting shorter and more fast paced as our attention span becomes less and less. This actually seems to force writers to create tighter, more solid stories instead of relying on meaningless (though interesting) backstory and description to carry a book/movie. Though some writers still ditch plot altogether in favor of smash-bang action un-plots, but they generally don't last long.

Joshua wrote: This actually seems to force writers to create tighter, more solid stories instead of relying on meaningless (though interesting) backstory and description to carry a book/movie.

Ahem. Did you SEE Avatar? ;)

terpkristin wrote: "Joshua wrote: This actually seems to force writers to create tighter, more solid stories instead of relying on meaningless (though interesting) backstory and description to carry a book/movie.

A..."

?? Please explain. And no I did not see Avatar. From what I've heard, it's as predicable as Apple.

Joshua wrote: "And no I did not see Avatar. From what I've heard, it's as predicable as Apple"

It was long, drawn-out, and boring with a plot that was not only predictable, but excruciatingly acted. Just saying that that didn't fit in with the more fast-paced movies of today or anything like a "solid, tight story."

terpkristin wrote: "Joshua wrote: "And no I did not see Avatar. From what I've heard, it's as predicable as Apple"

It was long, drawn-out, and boring with a plot that was not only predictable, but excruciatingly ac..."

Right. Enter, The Exception. One of many, for sure. I was just making a general observation based on all the new films and old classics that I have watched. More often than not, the classics run over two hours with more pointless fluff than a fried donut. The newer films, while not always heavy on plot, are usually more fast-paced with less "extra" stuff. (they save that for the over priced 'special edition')

Joshua wrote: "Enter, The Exception."

I know. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek smartass. ;) Though I'll say, I haven't seen many movies lately, and one big reason is that they don't keep me interested for the full 90-120 minutes.

terpkristin wrote: "Joshua wrote: "Enter, The Exception."

I know. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek smartass. ;) Though I'll say, I haven't seen many movies lately, and one big reason is that they don't keep m..."

What about TV shows? One advantage to those, is that they can create a long, in-depth plots with lots of deep characters but break it up into smaller, self-sustaining chunks for easy consumption.(man, that sounded like a food commercial) Some shows are really quite ingenious with this. (though I stress the 'some')

At least with the Lord of the Rings movies they had the good sense to cut out the Tom Bombadil section! :0)

The last time I listened to the books, I fast-forwarded to the Barrow Downs as well.

Vance wrote: "At least with the Lord of the Rings movies they had the good sense to cut out the Tom Bombadil section! :0)

The last time I listened to the books, I fast-forwarded to the Barrow Downs as well."

Aaww. I thought Tom was merry 'ol fellow. though it probably would've slowed the story. I can't say I'm a big fan of poetry and singing in books or movies.
Actually I think the best place I like Tom was in the LOTR BFME game. Having him skip around the battlefield singing "Tom Bombadilo! He's a merry fellow! Bright blue his jacket is!" while he tramples down the enemy troops is nothing short of hilarious.

I tried to read "The Dragonbone Chair" during March, and could not get through it. I'm not sure if it was because I had a busy month and could not read more than 10 pages at a time, or that after 300 pages I did not think that the actual story had really begun. I've heard good things about this book, though, so I will give it another try in the future when things are slower.

Todd wrote: "I tried to read "The Dragonbone Chair" during March, and could not get through it. I'm not sure if it was because I had a busy month and could not read more than 10 pages at a time, or that after ..."

I know, I hate it when authors take two-thirds of the book to start the plot and then only have ten pages to wrap everything up. Then you also have books that start the plot right away, but then half-way through you realize you've forgotten what the plot actually was.

terpkristin wrote: "I know. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek smartass. ;) Though I'll say, I haven't seen many movies lately, and one big reason is that they don't keep m..."

Ebert's Third Law: No good movie is ever too long; no bad movie is ever too short.

Some of the longest movies I've sat through have been under 90 minutes, while there've been three hour films that go by in a flash.

Since we are on the subject of pet peeves (hey, wherever the thread leads!), I have become entirely uninterested in books that start with the protagonist as a child. I always feel as if nothing of any real interest is going to happen until they grow up anyway! :0)

Vance wrote: "Since we are on the subject of pet peeves (hey, wherever the thread leads!), I have become entirely uninterested in books that start with the protagonist as a child. I always feel as if nothing of ..."

Ahh, the old "tragic incident as a child" then "dot, dot, dot: twenty years later...." Or are you talking the books that literally follow the character through their entire lives, ala David Copperfield? (Never read it, so don't jump on me)

Joshua wrote: "Right. Enter, The Exception. One of many, for sure. I was just making a general observation based on all the new films and old classics that I have watched. More often than not, the classics run over two hours with more pointless fluff than a fried donut. The newer films, while not always heavy on plot, are usually more fast-paced with less "extra" stuff. (they save that for the over priced 'special edition') "

Which classics? I know the David Lean/Stanley Kubrick type epics are insanely long, but there are lots of Westerns and films noir that clock in at 70-80 minutes.

Sean wrote: "Joshua wrote: "Right. Enter, The Exception. One of many, for sure. I was just making a general observation based on all the new films and old classics that I have watched. More often than not, the ..."

I've never watched many westerns, but the most recent example I've watched of a movie that could be cut in half is "You Can't Take it With You". "Happiest Millionaire" is also a culprit. there are more I just can't remember them.

Joshua, definitely the following the development bit. In fantasy, this most often takes the form of the child on the farm or as a servant or an urchin on the streets, who then is called upon to fulfill his destiny . . .

I don't mind so much the "childhood scene" whether at the beginning or elsewhere.

Joshua wrote: "What about TV shows? One advantage to those, is that they can create a long, in-depth plots with lots of deep characters but break it up into smaller, self-sustaining chunks for easy consumption.(man, that sounded like a food commercial) Some shows are really quite ingenious with this. (though I stress the 'some')"

I don't have a lot of time for TV, I have a few shows I watch regularly, but none of them are any of the "big" ones like 24 or Lost or anything. Lately, I've been a sitcom girl (How I Met Your Mother, Big Bang Theroy, The Office, 30 Rock, and the occasional South Park), mostly.

Joshua wrote: "Actually I think that is the human attention span shortening. And really, I think that is a good thing. Movies and books seems to be getting shorter and more fast paced as our attention span becomes less and less. This actually seems to force writers to create tighter, more solid stories instead of relying on meaningless (though interesting) backstory and description to carry a book/movie."

From what I've read, it's the other way around. Readers like giant door-stoppers because it feels like they're getting more for their money. The recent trend towards shorter books is because bookstores started complaining about how much shelf-space these massive bricks require. Think about it -- every Robert Jordan novel they stock is taking up as much space as three Terry Pratchett novels.

If attention spans were shrinking, you'd expect short stories to be making a comeback in popularity.

Sean wrote: "Joshua wrote: "Actually I think that is the human attention span shortening. And really, I think that is a good thing. Movies and books seems to be getting shorter and more fast paced as our attent..."

touche, there is likely truth in both. But then there's the third possibility: No one has the faintest idea what the heck is going on.

Joshua wrote: "I've never watched many westerns, but the most recent example I've watched of a movie that could be cut in half is "You Can't Take it With You"."

Try The Miracle of Morgan's Creek, another comedy from the same era, but much shorter, and much, much funnier.

Robert "fricken" Jordan - holy moly if you can't finish the stinking story in nine books (nine painfully long books) just don't bother. Actually I think I read the first four or five and enjoyed them but gave it up when I couldn't remember which ones I had read or not.

Kevin wrote: "Robert "fricken" Jordan - holy moly if you can't finish the stinking story in nine books (nine painfully long books) just don't bother. Actually I think I read the first four or five and enjoyed th..."

Wow, that's bad. Remind me not to bother with those books. Though maybe he's going for the "Never ending story" approach.

Joshua wrote: "Vance wrote: "Joshua, that is entirely understandable. Even as a HUGE fan of his work (listening to Silmarillion now), I could not sit down and read the books again. I can listen to them, for som..."

Fantasy books sure aren't getting shorter!

Joshua wrote: "Kevin wrote: "Robert "fricken" Jordan - holy moly if you can't finish the stinking story in nine books (nine painfully long books) just don't bother. Actually I think I read the first four or five ..."

Well RJ isn't going to finish these now :( RIP, but I believe Brandon Sanderson is - it 'think' there are 3 more planned to finish the story line.

I am enjoying these books but my interest did wane a little but mainly due to people saying how disappointing the middle books were. If you enjoy them keep reading is my advice.

Long books can make for value for money if they keep you interest throughout - a tough call.

For anybody who gave up on Jordan--the most recent book, The Gathering Storm, started by Jordan and finished by Sanderson, was quite good. I have high hopes for the final 2 books in the series.

http://www.encyclopaedia-wot.org/ has a lot of summaries, etc, of all the books in the series so far, so if you don't want to re-read (or read the ones you skipped) all of the books leading up to The Gathering Storm, you might go that route.

I also gave up on Jordan when the story lines seemed to go into "underdrive", as if he saw the money per book and adjusted accordingly. Besides, nearly every female character in the book was the same character, and I had had enough of "braid-pulling", angst, bullying the nearest man, etc. Jordan once admitted that he had a hard time writing female characters and they eventually all ended up modeled after his ex-wife. :0)

Vance wrote: "I also gave up on Jordan when the story lines seemed to go into "underdrive", as if he saw the money per book and adjusted accordingly. Besides, nearly every female character in the book was the s..."

His ex-wife? ouch. Though I've heard that writers almost always base their books on some element of their personal life.
Some writers also seem to have a hard time writing characters of the opposite sex.
I've actually been told I write female characters pretty well. But then the only siblings I have are girls, so...

Gene Wolfe. Samuel R. Delany (the jury's still out). Theodore Sturgeon. More Than Human has some really unpleasant scenes in the beginning.

I've had problems getting into Neil Gaiman. I've read several of his books and just couldn't really get into them. It IS frustrating for me because multiple people have recommended him to me, and all of these people are people who have very similar likes and dislikes to me. Sorry to any Neil Gaiman lovers out there! I am not totally against trying anything else that he's written, just the books I have tried by him left me feeling.....meh.

Jen wrote: "I've had problems getting into Neil Gaiman."

I found that I enjoy Neil Gaiman significantly more when I'm listening to his books, rather than reading them. Not sure exactly why, but he's one of the few authors where I have a significantly different experience reading in print vs. reading in audio. I've also found that I can't get into his short stories or his graphic novels, though I know a lot of people really like them.

Jen wrote: "I've had problems getting into Neil Gaiman."

I started with Stardust and loved it. Just loved it. I then tried American Gods and could not get into it at all. I tried the audio book and just could not get it. Then I read Coraline and loved that. Go figure.

I also could never read Dune until I tried the audio book.

American gods is one of my all time favourites. In fact neverwhere, stardust and this are all in the top of my re-read lists.

Todd wrote: "I tried to read "The Dragonbone Chair" during March, and could not get through it. I'm not sure if it was because I had a busy month and could not read more than 10 pages at a time, or that after ..."

Awww that hurts my heart!!! One of my first forays into epic fantasy.

Veronica wrote: "
Awww that hurts my heart!!! One of my first forays into epic fantasy."

Well, you know the old joke -- "The Golden Age of science fiction is thirteen"? There's lots of genre fiction that's great if you read it at the right age and when you haven't been exposed the tropes a billion times, but doesn't hold up if you come to it as an adult.

I want to love the Bestseller authors but I somehow cannot manage to digest them:

Stephen King, our 'contemporary Balzac': the early books are just pulp, but probably by todays (even lower) standards they must be good, right?

Terry Pratchett - of the view pages & chapters I could make myself read, he came across as just silly in a very adolescent way? Nothing wrong when you are of that age.

J. K. Rowling what is it with adults dwelling in these children books anyways? I like the movies somewhat (just as I can watch a ...

John Grisham movie adaptation but shiver when I have to read one of his books. Of course that was long before ...

Dan Brown came along - now, I have read through the Da Vinci Code in probably 15 minutes (what is the world record btw?) yet I had to go to the bathroom and wash my eyes with Drano® praying to my Gods that I will survive this torture (not the eye-washing).

and now there is the new Queen of Transylvania, Stephanie Meyer! I cannot summarize in short what is wrong with me not touching her books. I like garlic, as a starter. I admit, I am prejudice - I can get over Richard Wagners anti-semitism (still am able to enjoy Tristan or The Ring) but Stephanie freaking Meyer! Come on! Everybody must draw a line somewhere! Ok, being an old guy (fart) doesn't help neither I guess.

All novels could have really ended with James Joyce and Finnegans Wake for my taste ;)

etc etc - sorry for being so long (I could go on for hours though ;)

The only author I can remember wanting to get into and being unable to was Jorge Luis Borges. It's the only latin american writer that I just couldn't get through, even though, theoretically, I love his ideas...

Alfredo wrote: "The only author I can remember wanting to get into and being unable to was Jorge Luis Borges. It's the only latin american writer that I just couldn't get through, even though, theoretically, I lov..."

Ha! That is kind of funny, since his short stories can really be only a couple pages long (quick to read). Bummer.

He is one of my all-time favorites. He was also my role model (the blind man in the library, citing Milton etc) - I am getting there fast ;)

Alex wrote: "I want to love the Bestseller authors but I somehow cannot manage to digest them:..."

Wow what can anyone say to that :) I guess its good to have opinions.

Pratchett is a comedy writer and "silly" means different things to different people. I for one am not "of that age" (been a VERY long time since I was) but I have read all his book several times and enjoy them - sill lol'ing when on the bus!

Again Rowling - because the stories are child centred doesn't really make them childish. They are not hard core fantasy - they are purposely targeted at an age group that means lots of the harsh 'realities' are removed or ignored. however in themselves they are good reads with interesting characters and strong story lines. The biggest plot failure is the fact they are children who never tell the people they trust what they are up to - but if they did they would never end up saving the day :)

Paul
Child at heart, head and soul

Alex wrote: "Terry Pratchett - of the view pages & chapters I could make myself read, he came across as just silly in a very adolescent way? Nothing wrong when you are of that age. "
Oh, you need to revisit Terry Pratchett then. He's silly, but I think he's silly in an adult way. For example, Small Gods is a hilarious commentary on religion (I'm christian and he's an atheist so it doesn't matter which side of the belief divide you are on to enjoy the book).

Also, it might help to listen to the audiobook versions, especially those read by Nigel Planer. I think the Pratchett/Planer combo makes for audiobook perfection.

After reading a bunch of Pratchett, I find that going back to the earlier books are hard. His sophistication level has definitely increased over the years. I think the best approach is to choose one of his themes, like the Death series, or the Watch series, and read those together.

Thanks, Paul and Daniel, for the proposal, but I fear, my time with Pratchett and/or Rowling is over. I am sure, I don't do the writers I bash any justice. Many are probably more sophisticated (or become more sophisticated, as Vance said), than I like to admit.

I have a limited time window of interest for anything (including authors/books) - depending on their, but also my own (lack of) qualities. Today, I have a hard time justifying to read any book, that is not about Programming Languages.

Twitter, and fine groups like this one, steal the rest of my time. Reading forums, talking about books, instead reading books. We are so meta? :)

I also have a short leash for books these days. Limited time means limited patience. There are simply too many potential awesome books out there for me to spend too much time on one that is not "grabbing" me. The one Jack Vance book I started was another one for me. Great imagery, etc, but it was too surreal for me.

Vance wrote: "I also have a short leash for books these days. Limited time means limited patience. There are simply too many potential awesome books out there for me to spend too much time on one that is not "..."

Precisely why I get tired of a book that has too much description or monologue. I have limited time so I don't care as much how the author thinks everything should look so much as I do about what will happen next.

Vance wrote: "I also have a short leash for books these days. Limited time means limited patience. There are simply too many potential awesome books out there for me to spend too much time on one that is not "..."

Precisely why I get tired of a book that has too much description or monologue. I have limited time so I don't care as much how the author thinks everything should look so much as I do about what will happen next.

Alex wrote: "Reading forums, talking about books, instead reading books. We are so meta? :)
"

Love it :)

BTW what programming are you doing - I am a lazy amateur - always talk about doing it but never actually do so!

Alex wrote: "I want to love the Bestseller authors but I somehow cannot manage to digest them"

Regarding John Grisham, perhaps try one of his non-legal thrillers like A Painted House or Bleachers. The former may just be my favorite book of his.