OT-Black Company

[Wrana]

Time to return to this dope...

HoneyBadger:
I can give you a very accurate list of the finest fantasy writers in the past 100 years, but I'm sad to say that not every one of them, at every given instance, is enormously readable. They're profound, deep, compelling, etc. but sometimes, yes, one just wants to escape, and not think all that terribly hard, while being taken on a tour of a world unlike our own ...
even enjoyed Jordan. They aren't they best thing that ever came down the pike, but on a given day they occupied my brain in ways beneficial.

Well, that's too bad. As I've said probably, I consider some books usually included in classics to be overrated - or having had their popularity based on situation in society at the time and not on their literary value...
And I also have read trash fantasy aplenty, but the 3 you mentioned are just too crappy for my palate. Maybe I'm spoiled for choice by having relatively much Russian trash fantasy at hand - many of which are of generally better quality, but unfortunately weren't (and won't be I think) translated into English. Also, there is always Robert Ervin Howard - and not only his fantasy, which I think isn't the best among his works...

And even if people are reading crappy fantasy, they're still reading, and it's still fantasy, and that's a good thing in my book.

I'm not so sure that it is much better than reading nothing - especially as you somehow consider a fantasy better in some obscure way than, say, SF. I don't know whether you have read "Silver Eggheads" by Fritz Leiber which was a warning against brain-munching reading, besides being a very funny and well-written book of its own. But if you didn't, look for it (if yes, just remember how he calls such products and how he descibes procedures used to craft and sell them).

Edi:
After the first book of Serpentwar, Feist's writing started to get seriously stale. I loved the original Riftwar saga and the Empire trilogy he cowrote with Janny Wurts (who is one of my favorite authors, though she can be pretty wordy sometimes).

I don't know, I've just seen very bland language, with any characters speaking the same. And it wasn't particularly original either... Don't remember which of the books this was - I just understood that he's generally not worth reading unless I have absolutely no other choice... Thank you for mentioning other authors - I'll probably make some sort of list from this discussion to look up those that might be interesting.

Xietor:
But I do take issue with your condemnation of Feist. Some of his work is not good(talonhawk stuff), but Jimmy the Hand was one of my favorite characters.

Maybe you take this issue further by arguing for him? Something like originality, quality of text-work, storyline-work... It would be appreciated. Understand, I'm not completely against "dice-rolling" fantasy - there are times when my brain won't absorb much , but even among these, Feist doesn't look particularly good.

Endoperez:
Tolkien helped make fantasy popular. He was one of the first. That means he made many mistakes that he would have been critized about had he not been one of the first popular ones. I think LotR could be written much better.

Agree. I also dislike his attitude on some questions. And you will probably agree that even in his times, many elements could be made better... actually I think that as a writer R.E. Howard was better - or would be if he lived to Prof. Tolkien's years.

It could be written worse, as well. Unfortunately, someone decided to prove it true and wrote LotR, worse. Warning: bad fantasy ahead!

Another example is Terry Brooks. He's not quite so obnoxious at it as he uses less copy-paste... but it remains copy-paste nonetheless, though he didn't repeat it all.

HoneyBadger : I like to call it "fantasy accounting"

Well, there is virtue in such. Just remember Asprin's MYTH Inc. series - though I prefer earlier ones which are more conventional fantasy... Another example is Lawrence Watt-Evans. It's just that Feist can't make it interesting...

Aezeal:
seriously in most your post I only see things you don't like except the black company and hobb and tolkien it seems..

You are wrong. I don't particularly like Tolkien.

I don't see why hobb is so much better than most writers you don't like.. I don't even see why it his books are "for those who like fantasy dark".

Well, what you don't see isn't my problem, is it? And Robin Hobb is a woman, by the way.

I can see why you'd like Tolkien better than some writers that where mentioned (Martin) but I just disagree.. on so many points Martin is better.

Such as?

and if you dont'read the books I recommended it's your loss not mine..

Well, actually it's my gain - I see who recommends which books and choose to not spend my time on those. I should probably thank you!

nordlys :
Kate Novak. Along with Jeff Grubb.

Thank you. Though I probably won't seek it out now anyways, but still thank you. Do you remember someone else from those T$R slaves actually worth some time?

Most people mistakenly treat gaming fiction as literature. It was never supposed to be one. Gaming fiction = in-character gaming accessory. Embrace this fact, and TSR novels become highly enjoyable, no matter how boring the stories, bland the characters and mediocre the writing are.

Well, it actually depends on what your palate can stand. And I personally am not interested in descriptions of the world badly thought out (read: Forgotten Realms ). And what interest can they really have? If they have all those "merits" you mentioned, the only thing which can be interesting are fantasy countries/cultures. But by the virtue of his/her talent (or lack thereof) your average storyhack just can't do juistice for them too! Also, a quality of "in-character gaming accessory" can also vary widely. Just compare those of T$R authors with, say, short stitches in WarHammer Army books (wholly resulting from Games Workshop having enough sense to pay real writers!) - or flavor texts in Dominions units/countries/spells!

[nordlys]

Wrana said:
Thank you. Though I probably won't seek it out now anyways, but still thank you. Do you remember someone else from those T$R slaves actually worth some time?

I found Prince of Lies and Crucible: Trial of Cyric the Mad very good. Generally, James Lowder and some Ravenloft authors are better than the rest.

Well, it actually depends on what your palate can stand. And I personally am not interested in descriptions of the world badly thought out (read: Forgotten Realms ). And what interest can they really have?

Places, events, people.. In novels they are displayed more vividly than in rules-filled proper accessories, so I read them just for that. Exploring the development of gaming universes (many ones) is sort of a hobby of mine, and novels do fill a lot of gaps the dry rulebooks leave behind. They don't have to be talented, they only have to be canon!

Also, a quality of "in-character gaming accessory" can also vary widely. Just compare those of T$R authors with, say, short stitches in WarHammer Army books (wholly resulting from Games Workshop having enough sense to pay real writers!) - or flavor texts in Dominions

I've read some WH40k novels, and didn't found them any better than typical D&D fiction. I guess there is a reason half of those real writers used pseudonyms while writing for GW As for Dominions fluff, it is fascinating enough, but a single paragraph copypasted between related units hardly describes an universe in detail in space and time... as a matter of fact, it could use a solid shelf of Dominions fiction to fill the rest in!

[Wrana]

And the last one, probably - thought to do it on Sunday, but wasn't up to it, sorry to all...

nordlys:
Places, events, people.. In novels they are displayed more vividly than in rules-filled proper accessories, so I read them just for that. Exploring the development of gaming universes (many ones) is sort of a hobby of mine, and novels do fill a lot of gaps the dry rulebooks leave behind. They don't have to be talented, they only have to be canon!

Unfortunately, T$R didn't give a damn about what is canon and what is not. Which caused many contradictions between authors describing their worlds. And I don't mean fiction only - there were quite a few contradictions in their accessories!

I've read some WH40k novels, and didn't found them any better than typical D&D fiction. I guess there is a reason half of those real writers used pseudonyms while writing for GW

I didn't mean those - just because I don't play 40K and so wasn't interested in those books. Maybe they are quite bad - I'd only read one which wasn't bad for trash literature... I believe I named authors I meant - Jack Yeovil in particular and he never written in 40K series. He was reprinted some time ago, though...

As for Dominions fluff, it is fascinating enough, but a single paragraph copypasted between related units hardly describes an universe in detail in space and time... as a matter of fact, it could use a solid shelf of Dominions fiction to fill the rest in!

Can only agree at the latter! But unfortunately it seems the only way to have it is to write them ourselves! aNd yes, copypaste isn't very tasteful, but general quality of texts is high - especially when it's not about low-end units.

HoneyBadger:
I'm actually agreeing with you, Wrana, in case you missed that part.
I'm just explaining that first of all, getting people interested in reading is probably a good thing.

And I also agree with most you've said! However, what I don't agree with is that reading *something* is necessarily better than reading nothing. Some reading can quite surely deaden the reader's brain just as TV can. And he remains thinking that he's (or she, as the case often is) a "man of books". Which can be quite pityful...
Considering earlier and later reading I think we agree of - though I think that to recommend some reading should be done with caution as trash can either make the person in question drop reading completely or make him/her trash reader only - a pity in both cases.

...if you could recommend some works that have been translated, or better yet, translated, and made freely available on the internet (it's great advertizement, especially for relatively unfamiliar authors, and testing shows that it increases, rather than reducing, sales of hard copies), then I'd happily spend time seeking them out. Until then, it does little to *say* that the Russians have a better space-program, er novel, until it can be quantified with proof

Generally can only agree. But I wasn't interested about who was translated into English. I'll try to find out. Considering Nightwatch mentioned here - its author is popular in the way J Rowling is. What can be said for him is that he writes really a lot. Also, he had some school (meaning both specialized education and writers' seminars) so his language is smooth and he doesn't make many stupid mistakes. What I HATE him for is that he doesn't have one fresh idea in all his books! Nightwatch in particular wasn't fresh even when Polotta had written his Bureau 13. Polotta didn't pose as great writer, though - unlike the guy in question.
Generally, if you find one of the following names: V.Sverzhin, M. & S. Dyachenko, M. Uspensky, G.L. Oldi (or Gromov and Ladyzhensky), S. Vartanov, E. Ratkevitch, O.Gromuko - they are generally worth reading. There are others, too... And when I find whether any of them were translated into English, I'll notify you.
Considering translations - well, I generally agree with what JimMorrison said. But this fortunately doesn't stop people from making translations of what they want their countrymates to read. Sometimes it's quite successful - I've read a really good translation of Jasper Fforde (!) in Russian not very long ago. It takes time and effort, of course - but is hardly impossible.
Considering Pierce Anthony - his afterwords to Avatars series I consider to be actually the best things I've read from him. They were quite interesting material and I'm thankful for them. And generally I see him as better SF than fantasy writer. Though, of course, series become stale quite soon in any case.
There is one more thing I would like to mention considering quite common drop of quality which was discussed here - the so-called "gritty realism". This means naturalistic descriptions and general "weary-of-the-world cynicism" approach - quite laughable from people who generally live very sheltered lives in wealthy civilized countries. Of course, this isn't the cause of bad writing, but merely one of its symptoms. I don't mean that naturalism is bad in and of itself, but it's often used to mascuerade total lack of knowledge on the subject of writing...

[Aezeal]

still... Jordan was doing a great job , so is martin btw... and Erikson.

Erikson has a nice gritty realism series.

PS locke lamora > grey mouser and I said con-man not criminal

[Renojustin]

Aezeal said:
still... Jordan was doing a great job

Apparently you have the attention span of a god if you got past the fourth or fifth book in the monstrosity that it became.

[JimMorrison]

So, you are relating the writed of Nightwatch to..... Harry Potter? Ouch man, just ouch.

There were some interesting things portrayed in those films. Not immensely thought provoking for someone who likes to spend much time deep in thought, but still not mindless, either. Though I do have to say, I mostly just found it very weird. But again, most of that comes from translation. I can only imagine that typically the people hired to subtitle movies, are a level of skill lower than those people who translate entire novels, who are generally a level of skill lower than they need to be in order to accurately portray the beauty of the original writing.

It's a tricky equation, where generally the way a book is written, is as important as what it is about. One is incomplete without the other, and in the process of translation, it's as if taking an oil painting, and redoing it as a water color. The brushstrokes are different, the colors are different, and the overall feel is going to simply be different, even if what it portays is still the same.

Ultimately, I think this is what is so great about foreign movies, games, music, etc. The only part that needs good translating is the dialogue, as long as the content is portrayed accurately in the more visual and/or interactive form, then it sidesteps the issues of language.

[Ballbarian]

Wrana said:
However, what I don't agree with is that reading *something* is necessarily better than reading nothing. Some reading can quite surely deaden the reader's brain just as TV can. And he remains thinking that he's (or she, as the case often is) a "man of books". Which can be quite pityful...
Considering earlier and later reading I think we agree of - though I think that to recommend some reading should be done with caution as trash can either make the person in question drop reading completely or make him/her trash reader only - a pity in both cases.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

If considering oneself a "man of books" means limiting one's reading to works of literary art (however you might define art) and belittling the work of others, then I will never be more than the common, dead brained, pitiful fool that you have described.

Sorry if that comes across sounding flamey as that is not my intention. It has just always struck me as incredibly wrong when someone puts down a different style as being trashy and those who appreciate that style as pitiful or otherwise deserving only sympathetic dismissal as poor ignorant fools.

All of that said, I wanted to point out that I really appreciate all of the great suggestions for reading in this thread from Wrana and others. Many of the books that I have enjoyed through the years were suggested by friends and family.

[nordlys]

Wrana said:
Unfortunately, T$R didn't give a damn about what is canon and what is not. Which caused many contradictions between authors describing their worlds. And I don't mean fiction only - there were quite a few contradictions in their accessories!

Well, [censored] happens. Not a single "shared world"-type work of fiction is guaranteed to be contradiction-free. Hell, even single-author series occasionally slip. I remembed having a huge flame with some Tolkien fan over the issue of orcs' intelligence, as he referred to some obscure late letters where Tolkien decided orcs are some kind of mindless beings, thus assumedly "overriding" their obvious sentience of published novels.

At least TSR didn't have to retcon whole accessories as insane ravings, like White Wolf had to do with "Dirty secrets of black hand" and some other 2ed stuff, essentially "replacing" it with another accessory and erasing most traces of its lore in 3ed. I only remember them to officially rule non-canon the "Lord of the Necropolis" Ravenloft novel, dissing its revelations on Dark Powers as Azalin's hallucinations. They also removed the references to Soth from Ravenloft by the end of 2ed, and various Forgotten Realms references in 3ed, when Ravenloft was licensed to Swords&Sorcery, but that was for legal reasons, and they just changed names to generic crap like "Dark Knight" or "Morninglord".

...Not to mention that finding bugs and contradictions in such works is an entertainment in itself

I didn't mean those - just because I don't play 40K and so wasn't interested in those books. Maybe they are quite bad - I'd only read one which wasn't bad for trash literature... I believe I named authors I meant - Jack Yeovil in particular and he never written in 40K series. He was reprinted some time ago, though...

I haven't read the Genevieve novels if that's what you mean. Yeovil is a pseudonym, I saw him/her mentioned in an article by some other early GW writer I've recently read as one of those who used pseudonyms as to keep their reputation untarnished by gaming fiction

[MaxWilson]

nordlys said:
Well, [censored] happens. Not a single "shared world"-type work of fiction is guaranteed to be contradiction-free. H***, even single-author series occasionally slip.

And some (Steven Brust comes to mind) seem to insert contradictions deliberately, just to mess with readers' heads. This is the same author who, knowing that some fans like to read the Vlad series in chronological order, admits that he deliberately wrote /Dragon/ to take place both before AFTER after /Yendi/.

The fiend! [shakes fist at heavens]

-Max

[HoneyBadger]

I'm actually agreeing with you, Wrana, in case you missed that part.

I'm just explaining that first of all, getting people interested in reading is probably a good thing.

And bad sci fi (or future fantasy) isn't necessarily any better, or any more realistic or accurate, than bad fantasy.

Once again from the top: I'm NOT a fan of Robert Jordan, George Martin, Raymond Feist, Terry Brooks, Terry Goodkind, or David Eddings. I am familiar with their works, however, because I read them probably 10 years ago or more, and they do have their good qualities, generally concerning their earlier works, and in their attempt to recreate/reinvigorate the fantasy genre, by infusing it with as much creativity as they're capable of. I no longer bother reading them, because their works have become bloated, unimaginative, uninspired, and stale, and in some cases graphically violent and pornographic, in such a ham-handed way, vulgar way, that it's actually a turn-off. I simply find that I have better things to read.

I'm also not a real big fan of Tolkien or Piers Anthony, but I'll still re-read The Hobbit every few years, and once in a great while I'll read one of Anthony's more bizarre non-Xanth novels, if only because of how truly kooky they can get.

As far as Russian novelists go, I realize that Russia has a long and impressive tradition, and we are starting to see more translations over here in the 'States. I sadly have almost 0 background in the Russian language, although my mother did take Russian language courses when she was in highschool.

If you could recommend some works that have been translated, or better yet, translated, and made freely available on the internet (it's great advertizement, especially for relatively unfamiliar authors, and testing shows that it increases, rather than reducing, sales of hard copies), then I'd happily spend time seeking them out. Until then, it does little to *say* that the Russians have a better space-program, er novel, until it can be quantified with proof