Books, movies, tv shows,....
Which do you prefer ?
Printable View
Books, movies, tv shows,....
Which do you prefer ?
Gah!
The 16th-19th century owns all! Musketeers, cannons, dragoons, battleships, what more do you need?
I go back and forth on this one. Sometimes I feel futuristic, somtimes swords and spells seem like just the ticket.
I think it's a function of how long it's been since my last exposure to a Boris Vallejo illustration.
When I look at my personal library, I see tons of fantasy books: Raymond E. Feist, Weis & Hickman, Robert Jordan, Robin Hobb, Katharine Kerr, J.R.R. Tolkien, ...
So it should be obvious.
But then, I see Frank Herberts' Dune Saga. Only 6 books.
Gah!
Yup, I am obliged to vote "Gah!", because there isn't a "Fantasy and Frank Herbert" option...
Science Fiction.
Namely, Sir Arthur C. Clarke. I have about twenty-five of his books. Fantastic stuff. The Rendezvous with Rama series was stunning.
I'm with Don, its really either-or depending on what I'm craving.
What's the difference? Personally, I've got favourites in both genres. One which crosses genres that I have to mention is Lord of Light by Zelazny. Stunning one to read again and again, noticing different layers each time.
Sci-fi.
Don't get me started on fantasy...
Stupid elves, I hate them so much.
Gah! How can I choose one?
I think of Asimov and lean towards sci-fi, then I remember Tolkien and lean towards fantasy.
EDIT: Huh, exactly 6 votes for each option right now.
CR
I had to vote for GAH! While sci-fi outnumbers fantasy in both my book and movie collections, I still have sufficient quantities of the latter that I can't really say I prefer one over the other. (This is particularly true given that the vast majority of my sci-fi media is Star Trek.) The simple fact is that I enjoy both sub-genres too much to pick just one. :2thumbsup:
Exactly! I'm huge fans of both authors -- in fact, I have an entire shelf devoted just to those two men. (The Robot, Empire & Foundation super-series rules!) :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Go read Asimov's Foundation series :yes: vQuote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Fantasy. I never found science fiction interesting, to tell the truth.
Tolkien nerds of the world, UNITE!
Clarke is my favourite too. I counted 26 of his books on my shelf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Regarding Asimov, I loved the Foundation Trilogy. I eventually read his robot books and enjoyed them. What really blew me away about Asimov though was when I realized how many of his books create a galactic timeline of sorts. From I, Robot to the Galactic Empire series to the Robots and Empire series through the Foundation series (15 books), they all tell the history of the same galaxy. That is way cool. :2thumbsup:
Having said that, I almost voted "Gah!" because I couldn't decide. But upon further review, I voted "fantasy" as that is what I read the most of in the past decade or so. I read mostly science fiction when I was younger, then switched over to mostly fantasy later.
Close one. I went with Sci-fi.. though I really like the Wheel of Time, and have read some other fantasy books that I really liked too.
Why not the ultimate, Starwars vs Lord of the Rings.
I say Starwars.
Gah!
I prefer fantasy books, but I prefer Sci-Fi movies.
There's no option here for "don't care which, as long as it's well written". That probably sums up my position rather well. For example "Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell" by Susanna Clarke is definitely fantasy, but it's a very good read. Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon and its sequels are definitely hardcore SF, but equally good books.
So can we have a fence-sitting voting option next time? :laugh4:
Although agreeing with Captain Fishpants does make me question my sanity :grin2:, I'm going to have to do so in this case.
For me, the setting of a book isn't as important as how well written it is and how well it can hold my attention.
I've always liked fantasy books by authors such as Gemmell and a bunch of others whose names I can't remember offhand, but equally so with Sci-Fi books by a variety of authors and even ones set in the modern day.
I like Sci-fi.
Ben Bova, David Weber, Clarke.
Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars, Star Trek.
They all create really good books, and give something to look forward to.
I'm not dissing Fantasy (Hobbit, Bible) but I favor SciFi.
:hijacked:
Oh fine, one-up me. Be like that. ~:angry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
My favorites of his were the Rama series, of course, Fountains of paradise, A Fall of Moondust, and Imperial Earth.
I tend to re-read good books. I've read most of his at least twice. I think I read Imperial Earth and Fountains of Paradise three or four times each.
A side note: My buddy in Costa Rica was reading the Rama series. When the last book came out years ago, he asked me to mail it to him. The book, hardcover, was over the standard weight limit and postage was about $25. I cut the book in half and mailed it to him in pieces. I think I saved about ten dollars. He didn't mind at all.
I like both, but if I had to choose I'd pick fantasy.
Foundation is really good, but I thought it rather trailed off towards the last few books, with that whole wacky Gaia thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
Edit: oh, and I've seen a fair few mentions of Dune. May I suggest the Dosadi Experiment? That's a book I thoroughly enjoyed.
The reason I asked was because I traditionally kept away from sci-fi and have read quite a few fantasy books over the years (Hobb, Martin, Feist, ... don't care for Jordan much, but read three of the wheel of time books nonetheless, lots of pratchett, but he's more about comedy than fantasy ). But lately I feel like I've grown bored with them, I can only name a few books that i'd recommend to non-fantasy readers anyway (Feist Magician being one), most are formulaic and predictable. A lot of them are just badly written (imo) .
So I thought I'd give Sci-Fi another chance and picked up Dune, which is rather amazing.
My opinion at the moment is that good sci-fi is still leagues above good fantasy, in terms of character development and depth. Fantasy only really has LOTR as a true classic, and even that has it's obvious flaws (imo, it's still good of course). Sci-Fi has Dune, 1984, Brave New World, some of Asimov's and Arthur C Clarks works etc.
However, I think 'subtop' fantasy, the pulp which you read anyway because you like the genre, is probably better than pulp sci-fi, which can still be incredibly boring if the author decides to explain every damn tachyon-neutrino warp core...
Tolkien, nuff said,
doc, if you haven't already, give Orson Scott Card's Enders Game a read. Many people I've known have told me that it is the best or one of the best science fiction books they have ever read - and I agree with them.
Science fiction has had a couple of decades head start on fantasy. In the beginning it was viewed as juvenile before becoming "accepted". Fantasy will get there I'm sure. Books like Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series, Eddings' Belgariad and sequels and especially Rowlings Harry Potter in recent years have elevated the fantasy genre. Regardless of what one may think of Harry Potter, it has inspired millions of young readers. Maybe some of them will pick up the pen and elevate the fantasy genre.
I generally find science fiction far more satisfying than fantasy. While there is some good fantasy if you're willing to look for it, a lot of it is the standard dwarves and elves dross. SF just seems more conducive to thought provoking plots.
I voted Fantacy, due to its applicability. But that raises the question; how do you define the two?
By most definitions, setting Star Wars against The Lord of the Rings doesn't work, since Star Wars is fantacy: An epic story about the struggle between good and evil. Sci-fi, on the other hand, tries to tell us something about ourselves and the time we live in. Analogy, if you will.
*Edit: I should have voted Gah! I haven't read much of any of them, really.
I voted Gah!
It's just too difficult to pick one over the other. I've enjoyed too many good books in both genres to be able to absolutely say which trumps all.
However, that being said there does seem to be a surge recently of books that contain a fusion of both fantasy and science fiction. Two authors that can pull this off extremely well in my opinion are Neil Gaiman and China Meiville.
While Gaiman hasn't written a full length book that contains both genres, many of his short stories blend elements of sci-fi and fantasy wonderfully. Meiville is good. Really good. That man can describe snow in more ways than an eskimo. While the political messages in his books may leave something to be desired, I recommend all of his works to anyone who can appreciate deep novels where not everything is black and white.
Sci-fi, innit. Can't stand all that unrealistic fantasy tosh. Although i do enjoy Oblivion.
Conqueror - nice sig.
I voted science-fiction, but it's a close one. To be honest, it's quite some time now, since I last read some sf, last months, it was mostly fantasy.
But when I read fantasy, it's mostly relaxing, no brains needed literature. I've read most of Feist's work, the entire WoT series (which I love!), Tolkien (of course), one of William's trilogies, Goodkind, Weiss and Hickman, ... And though most of them are great entertaining books, WoT is the only series of books I'm going to read again. The others were mostly entertainment.
And when reading sf, I always have the feeling I have to do a little more effort to understand everything, to see some of the 'pseudophilosophical' hidden meanings and such, or only stand in awe at the scope of what the authors could imagine.
My favorite sf is the Dune series, by F. Herbert. Especially Dune Messiah and God-Emperor of Dune are books I keep rereading. The human part in these books attracts me alot. (Too bad Brian Herbert messes his father's legacy up.) The other books of F. Herbert are worth reading too, in particular the Pandora Chronicles and 'The White Plague'.
I've read Asimov's Foundation-books and some of his robottales and other short stories, but I can't name him one of my favorite authors because he lacks development in his characters. Most of the time, they don't matter. The recent extension of Asimov's Robotseries by a new author (forgot the name) resulting in books as Caliban and Inferno was rather well though.
Another mustread sf is R. Heinlein. His books are among the few who made me laugh out. Especially 666, the number of the beast, Friday and Job are fantastic novels.
Orwell's 1984 which I read recently was quite a discovery. Truly an epic book!
And one short story I keep rereading is 'The Trap' by Howard Fast, really makes you contemplate things.
Unfortunately I have never read any books of Clarke, or some books of Herbert such as the Dosadi experiment,..., my library's so small :shocked2:
Sci fi for sure. One word: cyberpunk.
No disrespect to fantasy [warning: extreme disrespect coming] but a genre whose most well known author's most well known work is a second rate mish mash of ideas he riped off from the sagas, is not saying "creative geniuses at work" to me.
George R.R. Martin
Terry Goodkind
Terry Brooks
Robert Jordan
Stephen King
Tad Williams
Weis & Hickman
Tolkien
'nuff said...
GAH!! how can you people decide??!?!
I like them both as genres it depends on what mood im in - i have a book shelf full of fantasy (ranging from the lord of the rings to the wheel of time to the Discworld) and a Video/dvd collection full of Scifi (ranging from Firefly to Babylon 5 to Alien to Star Ship trooper) so i like them both equally...
I like both as well. I'm glad I don't have to choose one or the other--each offers a different flavor of entertainment and food for thought.
One series that I enjoyed over and over again, which I rarely see mentioned in threads like these, has elements of of both genres. The author's name is Julian May, and the first set is referred to as the Saga of the Pliocene Epoch: The Many Coloured Land, The Golden Torc, The Nonborn King, and the Adversary. She wrote two additional sets that relate to the first: The Galactic Milieu Trilogy: Jack the Bodiless, Diamond Mask, and Magnificat; and The Intervention: Surveillence, and Metaconcert (there may have been a third in this one, but I can't remember and I found no quick reference via Google). While predominantly Sci Fi, the first set in particular has elements of Fantasy.
I think you'll find that most fiction works are based on old myth and legends, actual history, ancient cultures or a "mish mash" of these.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Tolkien's borrowing from the "die nibelungen" among others, is no different to more modern works borrowing from Tolkien and/or popular mythology. Sci-fi also tends to borrow heavily from previous works. All books have some kind of inspiration, and I believe it was Tolkien's intention to weave a story around those legends and at the same time give them some credibility. I would say that those old legends were an inspiration and Tolkien did not simply copy them. The main fault with Tolkien's work is that it is overly self indulgent and contains the repugnant and arrogant elves (warning this book may contain traces of elves). This is where the self indulgence comes across much more strongly as it appears as if Tolkien worships them.
Elves Arrogant? don't be silly. :angry:
I've tried to enjoy fantasy - really tried hard, because people whose opinion I respect in other areas tout it.
But
it puts me to sleep. Always has. Every time.
It must be a character flaw of mine, or a lack of sufficient imagination, or something. I just can't seem to suspend my disblief long enough to enjoy the story.
On the other hand, most sci-fi keeps, if not rivets, my attention. Once the author explains 'how' some different-from-current-reality thing works, I'm sold and dig in for the long haul.
So: sci-fi.
Dead Even.
I like David Drake
I'm surprised nobody jumped on my Boris Vallejo comment. I'll have to post some in the Babe Thread when I get home tonight to give you all a touch of what I'm talking about.
Anyway, Sci-Fi has one thing going for it that puts it slightly ahead in my book. Sci-Fi could potentially happen. We're guaranteed not to visit Middle Earth. We just might travel the stars one day.
This whole thread reminds me of a hysterical skit on Saturday Night Live a couple of years ago. They had phone-love for nerds, and instead of 'hot blonde', 'nympho redhead', they had "Galdriel", "Princess Leigha" and other sci-fi/fantasy females at the other end of the phone. Priceless. :laugh4:
Aha, a fellow sharer of a guilty secret ! Sure, I really like Sci fi because of its cutting edge exploration of current social problems....wait, FLT travel works HOW? Wow, tell me more.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Yup, hard sci fi, not an insult but a recommendation in my book.
No disrespect to Tolkien, different strokes for different folks. But if you like Tolkien you're going to LOVE the elder Edda, if you see what I mean ~;)
By the power of Google....yes, you have a definite point. :beam:Quote:
I'm surprised nobody jumped on my Boris Vallejo comment.
Don, are you talking about this kind of art;
https://img139.imageshack.us/img139/...thfmfftkl5.jpg
It does have an overweight guy in a wife beater.
Huh, all the options are still within one vote of each other, 17, 16, 17.
Closest poll ever.
CR
Keep looking, CR. ~;)
Good things come to those who... er, seek ?
Sorry, I just had to push GAH! up into the lead. I like both genres, as someone else said, so long as it's well written! There is genius and cack to be found in both camps.
And I can well endorse a lot of other people's favourites: Gaiman, Mieville, Orson Scott Card, Julian May, Tolkien...
(I quite agree with Masamune about Julian May - an excellent writer who straddles both categories -- the Pliocene Sagas are mostly based on Celtic mythology, btw. And Orson Scott Card I'd recommend to anyone -- he's a very human and humane writer, with great insight, and he's given me a lot of understanding and respect for Mormon history, too).
Both genres have the huge advantage that they make great grounds for experimentation with what-ifs and isolating philosophical questions from the constraints of reality. The sort of fantasy I like is that which has its roots in traditional mythologies, for it can often develop themes and shed some light on the traditions, and renew them for modern times. Mythology can contain a lot of truth that can be forgotten if it seems "outdated" by social and technological change. But the big issues of human identity, values, our place in the universe etc are pretty much timeless and the insights of preceding generations are no less worthwhile than our own, indeed can remind us of things we've overlooked or misplaced in our development. So power to fantasy writers for keeping that alive. In particular I like Charles de Lint and Terry Windling. Doc Bean mentions Hobb - is that Assassin's Apprentice series? Really enjoyed that one, too....
Sci-fi, however, helps us to examine what we are doing and where we are going. Arthur C Clarke is a classic example, envisioning geostationary satellites and a few other developments in literature before they occured in reality. (I also loved the Rama series :2thumbsup: ) Although I haven't revisitied Asimov for a couple of decades, I thought he got a lot of mileage out of the "Laws of Robotics". A E van Vogt was another who raised some interesting ideas (eg "The Weaponshops of Isher" should be read by anyone with an interest in the gun control debate). And Philip K Dick was a genius (if somewhat twisted at times :laugh4: )
And there's so much more to Allen Dean Foster than "Alien", as well... okay better stop there, before I rant on for the whole afternoon ~D
Yep, one of the few fanatasy writers I thought wrote something totally original. Also one of the best written fantasy series out there imo. I tend to find anything more than a trilogy overkill.Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
Very well said. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
George. R. R. Martin.
The guy is a genius. The A Song of Ice and Fire series is by far the single best series I have read, and it continues to be good.
Otherwise,I find a lot of fantasy bland. Sci-fi I'm iffy on as I haven't read enough.
Both.
sci-fi for movies, fantasy for books (disregarding a few obvious exceptions)
I was beginning to wonder if anybody else had read that book. I was feeling so lonely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants
Well-written is the key. And some books defy categorization, anyway. "The Book of the New Sun" by Gene Wolfe is either fantasy or science fiction or both, and nobody can give a definitive answer. It doesn't matter, 'cause it's a masterpiece.
I'll take well-written over a particular genre any day of the week. (Although, when I'm in the mood for relaxing, I'll tolerate more hard SF than anything else.)
The Ladies of Grace Adieu is the sequel - a set of truly excellent short stories that extend the world of Jonathan Strange and explain why he won't go near one group of young ladies in particular.
I read it too. Its top. God knows how she got it pitched to a publisher though "OK, its about 900 pages long, part comic part not, written in a sort of 1850's style, there's copious footnotes, oh, and did I mention the Fairies? Wait, where are you going?"Quote:
I was beginning to wonder if anybody else had read that book. I was feeling so lonely
I'll look out for the other one now the Captain has recommended it.
Does the Gormenghast trilogy count as fantasy do we think? If so I may have to reconsider my vote as that is my favourite set of books ever.
Here's a different way of looking at it: In which genre are you more tolerant of goofs and trash? Maybe that's the way to identify your true love.
It's like chick films with the wife -- I will happily watch a good chick film, but I have no tolerance for a mediocre or bad one. So the BBC Pride and Prejudice gets a pass, but nothing will compel me to watch Enchanted April. Whereas I have a high tolerance for absolute junk when it comes to SF films. Is Steel Dawn on? I might sit through it, just for laughs.
Likewise, I have tolerance for junk when it comes to written SF, and none when it comes to fantasy. LotR is fine, as is Johnathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, and I'll re-reach The Curse of Chalion many times. But don't try to get me to read those David Eddings monstrosities. (I hope I'm thinking of the right author ...)
So try that on for size: In which genre are you more tolerant and forgiving?
I think I'd have to resort to GAH!! again, even on that rephrasing, Lemur. Trash is trash whichever old hat it's wearing :laugh4: . But I will put up with trash on the occasion that I'm looking for escapism, and I can bitch about a trashy book in preference to dealing with other stuff I'm escaping from.Quote:
In which genre are you more tolerant and forgiving?
BTW "The Book of the New Sun" rings a bell, I'm thinking the torturer's guild and its "clients", green moon, a cloth blacker than black etc? If we're on the same book then I'm in full agreement, bit of a genre-bender and well imagined and executed.
DOH! Just saw your link and we are on the same book, excellent choice!
So now wouldn't be a good time to mention I've been thinking about re-reading Eddings' Belgariad series. :disappointed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
Huh? Oh, wait, I get what you're saying....something like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
https://img145.imageshack.us/img145/...vacatiozx4.jpg
I guess all you vallejo fans just like the skimpily clad guys. Well, whatever floats your boat.
Fantasy, I think. Or maybe that's just bad experience from reading some stupid Ben Bova book about exploring saturn, chocked full of every stereotypical character the author could think of. Heaven knows bad fantasy can be real bad. Well, gonna have to go with GAH! on that too.Quote:
In which genre are you more tolerant of goofs and trash?
Crazed Rabbit
The problem here is that sci-fi tries to convince you it's a plausible world, Fantasy already assumes you can put aside your disbelief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
BTW I think fantasy is currently to narrowly defined. I tshouldn't just involve swords&sorcery but also horror,mythology etc.
Hmmm, horror is sort of a grab-bag that includes just about every genre known to man. Even poetry can have horrific aspects. Wuthering Heights manages to be the ultimate romantic chick novel and still have horror elements. Alien is a hard SF movie, but it owes its structure to haunted house stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
In assassin's voice: "Sci-Fi or fantasy, a tough decision".
I've read plenty of both and can enjoy both genres. There's also a lot of crap in both genres but where do you not have that?
I've read my Asimov 20 years ago and took the Sci-Fi section of the local public library from there. I've also grown up playing with Star Wars (A new hope) action figures.
It took me ages to finally pick up LotR because I had read "The Hobbit" first when I was 14 and I was completely bored by all the descriptions of the hobbit lineage. Instead I loved reading action-packed Michael Moorcock epics about the eternal hero.
Today I enjoy contemporary authors like Neil Gaiman, William Gibson and Neal Stephenson. Gaiman's work is mostly fantasy but not of the classical type, he constructs his own worlds that aren't too far from our own. Gibson is best known for "inventing" cyberspace but his last novel is set in our time frame and so will be his next. Stephenson writes Sci-Fi and historical novels. His Baroque Cycle is one of the most amazing contemporary works I've read.
Recently I've picked up the Discworld novel-series by Terry Pratchett. I've just finished the third one and can highly recommend it.
R'as
I've read all the ones out in paperback format. Most of them are very good. Their tend to be 'bursts' of better and slightly less good books in the series imo, certainly between 20 and 30 he really developped his own style. The early books feel too much like the hitchhikers guide to fantasy to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
Good Omens, by gaiman& Pratchett is also very good :2thumbsup:
I agree with this sentiment on principle, but in reality it's somewhat more lop-sided for me. I tend to be a more forgiving of bad/mediocre fantasy than bad/mediocre sci-fi. As doc_bean pointed out, fantasy as the natural advantage in this regard, as it already assumes you're setting aside your disbelief.Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
That said, I can certainly name authors in both genres that I don't care for. Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy was so bad I didn't even make it halfway through the first book, and I simply don't understand how people can rave on about George R.R. Martin's A Song of Fire & Ice series when I had to force myself to read the first two books (out of a misplaced sense of obligation).
And of course, I'll never forgive Greg Bear for almost destroying Asimov's beloved Foundation series by writing Foundation's Fear (which was the first book of the "Second" Foundation Trilogy) -- it's one of the most ludicrously convoluted novels I've ever read. I thank the gods that Gregory Benford and David Brin were able to salvage something from the wreckage of that.... :furious3:
I feel your pain. I glance at the bookshelves containing my latest purchases and I see George R. R. Martin, R. Scott Bakker, Steven Erikson, Stephen R. Donaldson, Robert E. Howard, Weis & Hickman, and even Tolkien and Jordan (I stopped after WoT's second book, however, and LotR took me three years to complete; I'm never going through that again)... but Dune is also very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
I also hear that GRRM's old scifi books are as great as his A Song of Ice and Fire (kudos to Ser Clegane for getting me hooked on that baby), and I wouldn't mind checking out Starship Troopers, either.
GAH!
And then, of course, there's the awesome power of GAH! to consider. So... I voted GAH!
Is there a difference between sci-fi and fantasy?
To paraphrase a famous arthor...When technology becomes advanced enough it is indistinguishable to magic'.
And lets look at a common theme of alot of the stories:
Young (farm/poor) boy who is adopted (quite commonly by a close relative) or whose father dies very soon in the piece.
Frodo ... Lord of the Rings
Skywalker... Star Wars
Rand al'Thor... Wheel of Time
Joshua Calvert... Night's Dawn Triology
Who inherits an item of power or a really good sword, or has special powers
Frodo... The One ring.
Skywalker... Lightsaber
Rand al'Thor... Heron marked blade
Joshua Calvert... space ship + 'lucky' gene
And quite a lot of other similar themes.
From an interview I conducted years ago:
Q: What is the difference between science fiction and fantasy?
GW: Plausibility, really. Science fiction is what you can make people believe; fantasy is what people have to suspend disbelief for. Many physicists believe that there will never be a faster-than-light drive -- it's impossible. But you can make people believe in one, since they don't know much physics. If you talk about somebody genetically engineering unicorns, it's probably fantasy, because people don't believe in it. But it's so close that you can almost touch it; we're almost at the point where we can make a unicorn.
So it's all a matter of plausibility. Do people think, "The future might be like this?" If so, it's science fiction. If they think, "This could never happen," that's fantasy.
Q: Magic realism?
GW: Magic realism is fantasy written by people who speak Spanish.
Q: Horror?
GW: Horror is all over the map. It's one of those umbrella things, where you can write any type of material with "horrific" elements, call it horror and sell it as horror. Read the complete works of Stephen King, and you'll find fantasy written as horror, science fiction written as horror, horror written as horror, autobiography written as horror, and so forth.
And here is encapsulated into one single sentence the very characteristic which makes so very many "high fantasy" and "space opera" series fail so incredibly hard. Frodo? Skywalker? Rand? Screw them all. I'll take the ruthless, bloody, hard world of a Ned Stark, a Drusas Achamian or a Whiskeyjack any day of the week over that trash.Quote:
Young (farm/poor) boy who is adopted (quite commonly by a close relative) or whose father dies very soon in the piece.
I'll have to agree with you here, what Pape described is usually a "quest" novel, an ordinary character has to fulfill a special mission and turns into a hero. There are so many cliches in this genre that it's often painful to read/watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
BTW A song of Fire and Ice isn't totally innocent, it has Jon Snow (the boy of mysterious descent) and Rickon (The young kid with mysterious powers), a voyage to a mysterious place (Beyond the wall), an heir in exile with a mysterious 'birth right'/power (Daenarsys sp? and the dragons), a warrior race (those mongols, whatever they're really called) and a lot of other 'high' fantasy conventions. It odes also offer a whole lot more than that, of course.
I'm not the biggest fan of the series, still somewhere in the third book, I loved the first one, but the story starts feeling a bit dragged out imo.
When I found out about the Song of Ice and Fire series I decided to pick up the first book and see whether or not the rest were worth my time. Martin's text doesn't have the poetic quality that say, a Neil Gaiman story possesses, and the setting setting comes off as a little drab and unimaginative, BUT, I find myself drawn to Martin's characters moreso than nearly any other fictional cast.Quote:
BTW A song of Fire and Ice isn't totally innocent, it has Jon Snow (the boy of mysterious descent) and Rickon (The young kid with mysterious powers), a voyage to a mysterious place (Beyond the wall), an heir in exile with a mysterious 'birth right'/power (Daenarsys sp? and the dragons), a warrior race (those mongols, whatever they're really called) and a lot of other 'high' fantasy conventions. It odes also offer a whole lot more than that, of course.
I'm not the biggest fan of the series, still somewhere in the third book, I loved the first one, but the story starts feeling a bit dragged out imo.
As I read I began to care about Ned and Catelyn Stark, Tyrion Lannister and heck, even Jamie at times. I knew that I had to keep reading. And so I did. I finished about a book a week and am now left wanting more.
Hurry up Mr. Martin!
I'll have to disagree with you here. You see, Jon Snow never started off innocent; he was a bastard at court to begin with, hated by Catelyn and weighed down by the fact that he wasn't as full a child of his father's as, say, a Robb or a Bran (Bran's the kid with the powers of vision btw).
And that's really the key to what sets ASoIaF apart from, say, a Tolkien, a WoT, or even a Sword of Truth, and other such trash (yes, Tolkien's a killer making worlds, but breathing life into them? Don't bother): the fact that the world is far from innocent. You're a lowly woodsman's son caught in the wrong time in the wrong place? No, you don't rise to the opportunity and end up a king or messiah (the latter word being a bit too heavy for such cheese 'n' cheddar galores); you get cut down and die in a pool of your own piss and blood.
The series begins with a little view on the true, implacable, inhuman evil that threatens the world, true, but throughout it all you see is the evil and depradations that humans visit upon each other. No great hero facing off evil (which in a normal series like WoT would be far more human than the author would have you believe; see Shai'tan), black and white, yada yada etc, but a huge grey area into which everybody is chucked with no second thought about them.
And then, of course, there's this (about Ned Stark and Tywin Lannister; it spoils some stuff from book 1 and 3 so beware)...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I wouldn't call the Dothraki the world's prime warrior race, either. They aren't as hopelessly 1337 as some others I could think of (Rohan, dudes protecting Aes Sedai anyone?).
All in all, ASoIaF takes the good and cuts out the bad from most fantasy. The events you're made witness of, and the plots you're invited to unravel before they are revealed, go far above anything your average kiddo reading a Dragonlance or a Sword of Truth could ever fathom. Could've done with a little more fanaticism and religion for my tastes, but hey; it's good enough as it is for me. If only GRRM could write a bit faster...
EDIT: In fact, come to think of it, I'd say that the conventions that you mentioned and ASoIaF adheres to are very, very old, indeed, going back to the times when shamans and tribal wise men told the stories of old around the fire. Every story's been told before, after all. And that's exactly why those particular clichés work so well; they connect to something very old in our minds. Not to mention GRRM's particular skill at retelling a tale ~;)
He was the ugly stepdaughter, an old cliche, he's also (at least at first) one the most one dimensional characters around. Probably the only character made to be likeable from the start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
I still feel like GM is combining two stories, one is a rather simplistic 'quest' story, the other is an intricate political story, which is the meat of most of the books i've read. The problem it creates is similar to something LOTR suffers from: in the end the efforts of nations/people/kings/whoever will matter very little and the fate is decided by a few lone heroes. Though GM might have a few surprises up his sleeve yet.
I hope you're not implying that SoT is the best of those series, because, while I don't really care about any of them much (LOTR is saved by having the grace to end it after three books, and thus saying a little more focused) the first book of SoT might just be the worst book i've ever read. I gave up trying to enjoy the book for what it was halfway through (or earlier) and finished it for a laugh. It's extremely badly paced, is incredibly inconsistent in it's own mythology, has a forced happy ending the makes no sense (the kids...), employs *several* deus ex machinas and has laughable characterisation. I'm still wondering how Goodkind ever got that published...Quote:
And that's really the key to what sets ASoIaF apart from, say, a Tolkien, a WoT, or even a Sword of Truth,
Hah, I've read worse spoilers, but I hadn't gotten to that point in book 3 yet. Ned Stark is one of the least likable characters IMO. Yes, he's a traditional good guy, but he's also stubborn and acts dumb just to save his honour.Quote:
And then, of course, there's this (about Ned Stark and Tywin Lannister; it spoils some stuff from book 1 and 3 so beware)...
I don't hold these 'chilches' against it though. My problem with the series is the slow pacing, and the Catelyn, Sansa (and a few others) chapters, my breaks from the series always tend to happen before those :laugh4:
Another series which I do love, Dune, starts off with a book that closely follows the traditional hero story, the main character is even called a Messiah at some point. But the little details, the way the story is told, and not-everything -turns-out alright attitude elevate it far above most books of the 'genre'. It *is* an old story, but it takes a good writer to turn it into something worth reading.
As said, not a whole lot is turning out right for the initial characters; or would you argue with me that everything is going fine for House Stark (gauging where you're at, I'd tell you that it gets worse)? ~;) None of the main characters has, in any way, been spared anything. All of them have been physically, if not emotionally, mauled multiple times, and if I know GRRM's style it'll only get worse.
Don't worry. I'm not. One of the greatest wastes of trees in human memory if you ask me. Moral celery, bouncing spaghetti and lemmings of discord, indeed.Quote:
I hope you're not implying that SoT is the best of those series
Song of Fire and Ice has all the standard fare:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So the series is a cliche, just a better written one.
PS sorry for all name spelling mistakes, as I don't have the titles in front of me.
Pape, I think you should use some spoiler tags on your message. That information might be a little too much for those who haven't read the first book through.