NationStates Jolt Archive

I have just finished the Kite Runner, and the Picture of Dorian Gray. I am reading the Iliad and Dante's Divine Comedies (translations, naturally) and have read a few different books such as The Secret History, Crimes against Humanity and Love in the Time of Cholera. I want some advice from you Generalites, whose taste is beyond reproach on some books I should read. I am bored with my current library and wish to expand it.

Any recommendations or advice?

The Malazan series by Steven Erikson.
The Thrawn trilogy by Timothy Zahn.
Some of the New Jedi Order Books.
History books are always fun. Read Empire of the Steppes by Renne Grousset. Its a history of central Asia. I'm about halfway through- and its awesome.

well I just finished The Forgotten Soldier which was really quite an enthralling read (yes I'm sure a bajillion people are thinking "LOL BOOK N00B")

other than that I'm not really sure if your OP is all the books you have read? I mean we all love a good episode of spot the dog and such :p

I don't know if you have any other books by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but all of his stuff is good, especially One-Hundred Years of Solitude.

well I just finished The Forgotten Soldier which was really quite an enthralling read (yes I'm sure a bajillion people are thinking "LOL BOOK N00B")

other than that I'm not really sure if your OP is all the books you have read? I mean we all love a good episode of spot the dog and such :p

I gave a recent history to give an idea of the types of things I usually read. I read quite widely and am always open to new things, but have quite definite tastes at the same time (Maeve Binchy or Barbara Taylor Bradford are not for me :tongue:).

I don't know if you have any other books by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but all of his stuff is good, especially One-Hundred Years of Solitude.

I've been thinking about reading some other books of his since I enjoyed Love in the Time of Cholera so much.

I've been told Anna Karenin is a good book, and is next on my list after I finish a Picture of Dorian Gray or We Need to Talk About Kevin (which ever I finish first).

I just finished (re)reading The Trees, The Fields and The Town, a trilogy, by Conrad Richter, about the settlement of Ohio in the early 1800s.

I also read Tacy Cromwell, also by Richter. It's the story of a gambler, his brother, a prostitute and an orphaned girl in the Southwest at the turn of the last century.

They're pretty good reads. Richter did his homework and knows, not just the history of the times, but the psychology.

The Malazan series by Steven Erikson.
The Thrawn trilogy by Timothy Zahn.
Some of the New Jedi Order Books.
History books are always fun. Read Empire of the Steppes by Renne Grousset. Its a history of central Asia. I'm about halfway through- and its awesome.

Timothy Zahn sucks balls. Or at least, Manta's Gift sucked balls. And from what I've heard from other people, if his books aren't already set in a universe that someone else came up with, they suck. To be fair, though, I hear his Star Wars books are pretty good. Oh, and The Icarus Hunt was mediocre at best.

Sean McMullen: Greatwinter Trilogy
John C. Wright: The Golden Age (Trilogy?)
Karl Schroder: Virga (Trilogy? There's at least two); Lady of Mazes
Roger Zelazny: Donnerjack

I just finished (re)reading The Trees, The Fields and The Town, a trilogy, by Conrad Richter, about the settlement of Ohio in the early 1800s.

I also read Tacy Cromwell, also by Richter. It's the story of a gambler, his brother, a prostitute and an orphaned girl in the Southwest at the turn of the last century.

They're pretty good reads. Richter did his homework and knows, not just the history of the times, but the psychology.

sounds like stuff I would enjoy! I'll look them up.

I've been told Anna Karenin is a good book, and is next on my list after I finish a Picture of Dorian Gray or We Need to Talk About Kevin (which ever I finish first).

I want to read the classics so I might look into Anna Karenina.

I want to read the classics so I might look into Anna Karenina.

Try to find a good translation, it can be tedious stuff if you don't.

Try to find a good translation, it can be tedious stuff if you don't.Do you know of any translations that are good? Apparently version is the translation by Rosemary Edmonds... :confused:

The Descent by Jeff Long is really good, although disturbing and squirm inducing at times. The topic of the book seems a little silly (humans exploring Hell, the hunt for a historical Satan), but it is carried out exceptionally with well-developed, likable protagonists, great atmosphere and a really horrible, devious chief baddy (the aforementioned Satan). I've read it three times by now, and it has never taken more than a few days to complete (it's just that hard to put down).
The sequel (Deeper) isn't so good as the first, mainly because it focuses too much on the very annoying and very stupid Rebecca Coltrane and doesn't include nearly enough Ike Crockett. Deeper is also a lot gorier than The Descent, so you can expect to learn the proper method for impaling your enemies upon spears, among other things.

I primarily read historical non-fiction... Mostly primary sources. As a military historian, one of my personal favorites is The Art of War by Sun Tzu.

Do you know of any translations that are good? Apparently version is the translation by Rosemary Edmonds... :confused:

This, even if Oprah does like it. Of course, the fact that she recommends it means it should be easy to get.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/06-01-2004/0002184463&EDATE

A few more that I liked:

The Great Gatsby
The Stranger by Albert Camus
The Hobbit

I primarily read historical non-fiction... Mostly primary sources. As a military historian, one of my personal favorites is The Art of War by Sun Tzu.

As a military historian, you might like The Winds of War and War and Remembrance by Herman Wouk. Of course, they are fiction, but he does some pretty decent research, and, if nothing else, you could try to find inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

If you want to read science fiction, you should read the original Dune series. All six books. God Emperor is my favourite. Orson Scott Card and Iain M. Banks are also very good for sci-fi. The latter's literary novels, written as Iain Banks are also good.

I also enjoy Jane Austen. And Anais Nin and Henry Miller and Joseph Heller and Neal Stephenson and Umberto Eco.

If you like history stories, The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara is an excellent Civil war novel about the battle of Gettysburg. Sci-fi wise, I'd recommend the Dune series (Books 1-6 by Frank Herbert, starting with Dune, 7 and 8 by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson, plus 2 companion series by Brian and Kevin starting with Dune: The Butlarian Jihad and Dune: House Atredies.) I'd also recommend books by James Patterson, a very talented writer.

As a military historian, you might like The Winds of War and War and Remembrance by Herman Wouk. Of course, they are fiction, but he does some pretty decent research, and, if nothing else, you could try to find inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

I'll write down the names and I'll look into them when I finally get my Ph.D... Since I'm just now starting to wrap up my M.A. (complete course work this semester and write my thesis the next) it might be a while. With the massive reading lists I receive from my professors, I don't really have the luxury of choice.

Sci-fi wise, I'd recommend the Dune series (Books 1-6 by Frank Herbert, starting with Dune, 7 and 8 by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson, plus 2 companion series by Brian and Kevin starting with Dune: The Butlarian Jihad and Dune: House Atredies.)

The Dune books written by Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson suck. They are awful. And I am being generous with my criticism.

I have just finished the Kite Runner, and the Picture of Dorian Gray. I am reading the Iliad and Dante's Divine Comedies (translations, naturally) and have read a few different books such as The Secret History, Crimes against Humanity and Love in the Time of Cholera. I want some advice from you Generalites, whose taste is beyond reproach on some books I should read. I am bored with my current library and wish to expand it.

Any recommendations or advice?

Which translation of the Divine Comedy do you have? I really love this (http://www.amazon.com/Inferno-Dante/dp/0385496982/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220405095&sr=8-4) translation, a side-by-side published only a few years ago. If you can read French or Spanish, a lot of the Italian is quite decodable, and it really enriches the experience.

Oh, I also want to read We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. It was recommend in the last book thread I read, but I keep forgetting to look out for it in the bookshop (I like browsing in bookshops too much to buy a book online).

And thanks for the recommendation, ASD.

If you like history stories, The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara is an excellent Civil war novel about the battle of Gettysburg.

Seconded.

My two favorites are Lord Of The Rings and Nineteen Eighty-four.

We have some taste in common, so I'll copy an old list with a few of my favorites (hopefully the links are still good):

Jeremy Lethem, Motherless Brooklyn (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375724834/103-0345811-1703011?v=glance)

Colson Whitehead, The Intuitionist (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385493002/qid=1118473483/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-0345811-1703011?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Kurt Vonnegut, Player Piano (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385333781/qid=1118473516/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-0345811-1703011)

Sherman Alexie, Reservation Blues (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0446672351/qid=1118473546/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-0345811-1703011?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Iain Banks, The Wasp Factory (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684853159/qid=1118473573/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-0345811-1703011?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060740450/qid=1118473600/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-0345811-1703011?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671746723/qid=1118473640/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-0345811-1703011?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age : Or, a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553380966/qid=1118473672/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-0345811-1703011?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) (anything else by Stephenson is recommended as well, especially the System of the World series)

Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus : And Other Essays (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679733736/qid=1118473724/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-0345811-1703011?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

I'm afraid I could go on and on and on. Books are my greatest passion.

But I'll spare you all. ;)

I will add a recommendation for F. Paul Wilson's Repairman Jack (http://www.repairmanjack.com/works.htm#rjseries) series, anything by Neil Gaiman, any of the "Newford" Novels by Charles De Lint (http://www.sfsite.com/charlesdelint/newbook.htm), Jim Butcher's The Dresden Files (http://www.jim-butcher.com/books/dresden/), and any of the Burke novels (http://vachss.com/av_novels/burke_novels.html) by Andrew Vachss (download free samples here! (http://vachss.com/av_books/samples.html)).

EDIT: I'll second the recommendation of the Steven Erikson, Malazan Book of the Fallen series.

A few more that I liked:

The Great Gatsby
The Stranger by Albert Camus
The Hobbit

Wow. That last one was great, but seriously, how can you demean Tolkien by even suggesting a comparison between him and the other two by including them all in the same category, "Books that you like".

I primarily read historical non-fiction... Mostly primary sources. As a military historian, one of my personal favorites is The Art of War by Sun Tzu.

Art of War FTW.

Wow. That last one was great, but seriously, how can you demean Tolkien by even suggesting a comparison between him and the other two by including them all in the same category, "Books that you like".

I never read The Stranger, but The Great Gatsby was wonderful.
Looks like there's only one way (http://images.broadwayworld.com/upload/18134/Nerd%20fight.jpg) to settle a literary dispute such as this...

If you want classics read (if you haven't already (and if you have, do it again ;))):

Dickens (anything)
Melville (the unabridged Moby Dick)
Hawthorne (yes, The Scarlet Letter, but go for his short stories, too)
Jane Austen (will teach you manners you didn't know existed ;))
Robert Lewis Stevenson (yes, Treasure Island is supposed to be a kid's book, but it's really good, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is not for kids)
and of course, James Joyce (note: I happen to know that Finnegan's Wake makes sense if read aloud)

If you really, really, really like to read -- I mean if you just like the act and activity of reading, physically -- and you're in no hurry, and you're not one of those "but what's the plot about?" people, read:

The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, by Lawrence Sterne (my all-time, all-genres favorite book ever).

Warning: 18th century English = highly idiosyncratic grammar, but in my opinion, any book that opens with the words: "I wish either my mother or my father, or both of them as they were both in duty bound to it, had minded what they were about when they begot me" (from memory; may not be exact) is worth the effort.

Also read A Sentimental Journey by Sterne. It's shorter (mostly because he died before he finished it; it leaves off in midsentence (but at the end of a chapter) -- don't worry, just read it).

If you don't mind translations, there are my favorite Czech authors:

Jiri Grusa, The Questionnaire
Ivan Klima, My First Loves
and of course, Karel Capek (anything)

And my favorite Japanese authors:

Edogawa Rampo (say it 5 times fast), Japanese Tales of Mystery and Imagination
Izumi Kyoka, Japanese Gothic Tales

If you like genres, try:

Death of a Nationalist, by Rebecca Pawel (first of a series of crime novels set in immediately post-civil-war Spain; I'm planning to read the rest, too.)
Dashiell Hammet (anything)
J. Sheridan LeFanu, one of the best horror writers EVER; see especially Carmilla and "Squire Toby's Will"
M.R. James, another of the best horror writers EVER; read all of his stories, especially "Oh, Whistle and I'll Come to You, My Lad," "Count Magnus," and "Number 13"
Algernon Blackwood, third of the best horror writers EVER; see especially "The Wendigo" and "The Willows"
And of course, Edgar Allen Poe (say it 5 times fast)

And odd as it may seem, Frankenstein really is a very good novel, for its period.

As you can tell, I could go on forever... ;) *gazes lovingly at the 100s of books around my living room*

Oops! I forgot Neil Gaiman! (Thanks, Cat-Tribes.) My fave of his is American Gods.

Wow. That last one was great, but seriously, how can you demean Tolkien by even suggesting a comparison between him and the other two by including them all in the same category, "Books that you like".Do not like Tolkien. Maybe the OP will agree with me, but I find that Tolkien reads like Chapter XI in 'A Picture of Dorian Gray' -- just endless descriptions with no real point to it. And having just glanced at the introduction to Anna Karenina, the translator might agree with me.
One day in March 1873 Tolstoy picked up a book which was one of his children had left lying about and started reading aloud to his wife. 'The guests arrived at the country house,' began the fragmentary tale of Pushkin.

'That is the way to begin,' observed Tolstoy. 'Pushkin plunges his readers right into the middle of the action. Others would describe the guests , the rooms, but Pushkin at once gets down to business.'Sorry, I really do find Tolkien quite dull to read.

<snip>Argh! So many books. And now I feel compelled to read them, because the poster claims to be a book buff. But I can't read them all at once, oh what to do?! *breaks down and cries*

Wow. That last one was great, but seriously, how can you demean Tolkien by even suggesting a comparison between him and the other two by including them all in the same category, "Books that you like".
*beats RhynoD with a modern literature textbook while laughing at his/her brilliant joke* Haha, good one, RhynoD.

here are some classic books that you have heard of that i can recommend:

Great Expectation--my favorite book by charles dickens.

Lord of the Rings--skip the poems and songs, they add nothing to the storyline. if you love the tolkien universe you can go back and read them later

The Caine Mutiny--Herman Wouk

Dracula -- Bram Stoker (recommended by my son who also recommends Moby Dick)

The Grapes of Wrath-- John Steinbeck

The Last of the Mohicans--John Fennimore Cooper

The Counte of Monte Cristo -- Alexandre Dumas

the short stories of Edgar Allen Poe

Wuthering Heights--Emily Bronte

its always good to start with classic books that are actually readable. all of these books (even moby dick??) are great reads.

and if you are going to bother with the picture of dorian grey you should read "the importance of being earnest" or get a film version to watch. its by far my favorite oscar wilde work.

Did I miss something in that post? *hides in shame*

Do not like Tolkien. Maybe the OP will agree with me, but I find that Tolkien reads like Chapter XI in 'A Picture of Dorian Gray' -- just endless descriptions with no real point to it. And having just glanced at the introduction to Anna Karenina, the translator might agree with me.
Sorry, I really do find Tolkien quite dull to read.

You know, as much as I like Tolkien, I can't disagree with that. Lord of the Rings is incredibly wordy. If you can get through it, it's well worth it, though. And the first chapters are much much worse than the rest of it.

You have to remember, Tolkien's intention when he wrote it was to create a system of mythology that rivaled Greek mythology, as he thought Europe (and Britain, especially) was lacking a rich background like that for other authors to use and be inspired by. That's a tall order. Personally, I think he succeeded, but I can't deny that the end result is voluminous (and necessarily so, given its goal).

*beats RhynoD with a modern literature textbook while laughing at his/her brilliant joke* Haha, good one, RhynoD.

I was joking?

Do not like Tolkien. Maybe the OP will agree with me, but I find that Tolkien reads like Chapter XI in 'A Picture of Dorian Gray' -- just endless descriptions with no real point to it. And having just glanced at the introduction to Anna Karenina, the translator might agree with me.
Sorry, I really do find Tolkien quite dull to read.
I am also not a fan of Tolkien. You are not alone. :D

Argh! So many books. And now I feel compelled to read them, because the poster claims to be a book buff. But I can't read them all at once, oh what to do?! *breaks down and cries*
Print out the list and carry it in your wallet for reference while book shopping. Print my list too -- you won't regret it. ;)

I was joking?
Yes, you were. You didn't know it, but trust me, you killed. Hilarious.

Right now I'm reading a David Sedaris book, something with dungarees, hang on...

*googles*

Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim.

I'm enjoying it a lot.

Right now I'm reading a David Sedaris book, something with dungarees, hang on...

*googles*

Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim.

I'm enjoying it a lot.
I actually like hearing Sedaris read his stuff even more than reading it myself. I fell in love with his NPR reading of "Santaland Diaries". That's actually a very personal story to me, as I grew up with the Herald Square Macy's and I knew an elf once.

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/lists/sedaris/

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/lists/sedaris/

Thanks, when I find an author I like I tend to run through their books,

That's actually a very personal story to me, as I grew up with the Herald Square Macy's and I knew an elf once.

Of course you did, a lovely little elf, I know people don't believe you but he did exist, he did.

Now, back on the couch and let's continue the therapy shall we?

I am also not a fan of Tolkien. You are not alone. :D


Print out the list and carry it in your wallet for reference while book shopping. Print my list too -- you won't regret it. ;)But then I would just end up buying all of the books on the list. And unlike Putin I do not have the body to carry around a tonne of paper with only my god-given arms.

You know, as much as I like Tolkien, I can't disagree with that. Lord of the Rings is incredibly wordy. If you can get through it, it's well worth it, though. And the first chapters are much much worse than the rest of it.

You have to remember, Tolkien's intention when he wrote it was to create a system of mythology that rivaled Greek mythology, as he thought Europe (and Britain, especially) was lacking a rich background like that for other authors to use and be inspired by. That's a tall order. Personally, I think he succeeded, but I can't deny that the end result is voluminous (and necessarily so, given its goal).Ah that might have been my problem I don't think I persisted past chapter two. Flicked forward to see what the rest was like and got a poem...

Indeed, we have a whole genre of books, games, videogames and films that was popularised into the mainstream because of Tolkien. Though I might equally say in spite of ;)

Thanks, when I find an author I like I tend to run through their books,



Of course you did, a lovely little elf, I know people don't believe you but he did exist, he did.

Now, back on the couch and let's continue the therapy shall we?
No, seriously -- I went to high school with this guy who was -- well, imagine the LEAST Christmas-y person you can possibly imagine in the whole wide world, and then make him bi and way over-dressed and over-mannered and drunk.

And then, one year, a couple of years after high school, I'm walking through Macy's Santaland to get to the lady's room when "what to my wondering eyes should appear" -- yep, elf costume and all -- and I was, like, "OH...MY...GAWD!!!" And he was like, "Ah, shit."

It was holiday magic. :D

EDIT: I'm not sure which came first, but my friend could easily have been the model for Sedaris's Snowball character.

No, seriously -- I went to high school with this guy who was -- well, imagine the LEAST Christmas-y person you can possibly imagine in the whole wide world, and then make him bi and way over-dressed and over-mannered and drunk.

And then, one year, a couple of years after high school, I'm walking through Macy's Santaland to get to the lady's room when "what to my wondering eyes should appear" -- yep, elf costume and all -- and I was, like, "OH...MY...GAWD!!!" And he was like, "Ah, shit."

It was holiday magic. :D

EDIT: I'm not sure which came first, but my friend could easily have been the model for Sedaris's Snowball character.

Alright then, it's next on my list, I have trouble focusing attention on audio books whereas I can get lost in reading for hours - I always thought audio books would be great if I drove, but I don't.

Go to the website www.goodreads.com. See if you can guess my name. I have read all the best books.

anything else by Stephenson is recommended as well, especially the System of the World series

fuck yeah, i just started rereading that

Alright then, it's next on my list, I have trouble focusing attention on audio books whereas I can get lost in reading for hours - I always thought audio books would be great if I drove, but I don't.
It's in print, too, but I recommend the audio because at one point he describes singing "Away in a Manger" in Billie Holiday's voice, and in the audio, he actually does the impression. It's immortal. You need to hear it, at least once. :D

EDIT: I actually don't like audio books at all. Sedaris is one of only two exceptions. The other is Seamus Heaney reading his own new translation of Beowulf, which is supposed to be recited, bard-style, anyway, and Heaney is amazing.

Currently reading:

How The Irish Saved Civilization, by Thomas Cahill.

Anything by G.A. Henty (historical fiction adventure novels) or Pat McManus (Outdoorsman's humor). In non-fiction, I suggest The Code Book by Simon Singh, a very interesting history of codes and cyphers, the mathematics involved in breaking codes, and the future of encryption tech. His book Fermat's Last Theorem is also worth a look.

*edit* anyone here ever heard of http://www.bookcrossing.com/? I'm not involved, but I am acquainted with one of the creators.

In non-fiction, I suggest The Code Book by Simon Singh, a very interesting history of codes and cyphers, the mathematics involved in breaking codes, and the future of encryption tech. His book Fermat's Last Theorem is also worth a look.

Bravo.


Excellent and interesting read.

Currently reading:

How The Irish Saved Civilization, by Thomas Cahill.

Also excellent.


Nanatsu, pretty much anything by him is worth a read.

Douglas Adams. Anything really.

I haven't read much fiction in the last 4 years, but if you want some good non-fiction I can supply you with a list.

Oh, if you like history, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes is excellent and its also fucking epic.


And no, its not a Christian hate fest, just in case anyone was worried.


I cant recommend this book enough.

A little curious no one (I saw) mentioned some of these:

Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie
The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie (not as good as the above, but I liked it)
Cancer Ward by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (his recent death reminded me of some works)
The First Circle by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The Plague by Albert Camus

The Oxford Prehistory of Europe recently replaced Guns, Germs, and Steel as my favourite non-fiction book; I recommend both. The Lord of the Rings remains my favourite fiction book, because I was raised on that thing. Other very good fantasy novels are Lois McMaster Bujold's The Curse of Chalion, China Miéville's The Scar, and Neil Gaiman's American Gods.

Also excellent.


Nanatsu, pretty much anything by him is worth a read.

It seems that way. I was reading some Cahill critics, and it seems they too agree with you. Thomas Cahill is worth reading. I´m interested in reading Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea (why the Greeks matter) and The Gift of the Jews. His prose seems very compelling, and what I´ve read so far of the book I got, awesome.

I have some really great ideas! I think I will be happily diverted for many weeks now! I figured here was the place to come, considering the high levels of taste and class among most NSGers :P

Starship troopers. ALWAYS!

Maybe not to everyone's tastes but I would recommend anything by the following authors

Gunther Grass
Kurt Vonnegut
Michael Ondaatje
Neal Stephenson
Iain Banks
Albert Camus
Doris Lessing
Thomas Pynchon

I have just finished the Kite Runner, and the Picture of Dorian Gray. I am reading the Iliad and Dante's Divine Comedies (translations, naturally) and have read a few different books such as The Secret History, Crimes against Humanity and Love in the Time of Cholera. I want some advice from you Generalites, whose taste is beyond reproach on some books I should read. I am bored with my current library and wish to expand it.

Any recommendations or advice?

If you enjoy The Iliad I would recommend The Odyssey as well, I enjoyed The Odyssey a lot more than The Iliad, though you may have already read it.

I would also recommend Utopia by Thomas Moore, and Monkey by Wu Chen-en (I am sure someone will correct me if the spelling is wrong).

I recently read a book recently released called Edward Trencom's Nose by Giles Milton, it is about a cheese seller in London but his family history goes deep down into the Royal family of the Byzantine Empire and he is brought into a conflict which has been going on for hundreds of years. A rather good read and an interesting book.

The First Casualty by Ben Elton is also a good read, it is set in the trenches in WWI and is about how the truth is easily lost in war and a man who sets out to find the murderer of a single killing.

A lot of stories by the likes of Washington Irving, Bram Stoker and R.L Stevenson are good, if you enjoy their genre.

And anything by Charles Dickens and Jules Verne are excellent.

I like the Lattimore translations of the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Yes, you were. You didn't know it, but trust me, you killed. Hilarious.

No, I'm fairly certain that I meant to say that The Great Gatsby and The Stranger are awful and that Lord of the Rings far outshines any potential that the other two might possibly have.

Ah that might have been my problem I don't think I persisted past chapter two. Flicked forward to see what the rest was like and got a poem...

Indeed, we have a whole genre of books, games, videogames and films that was popularised into the mainstream because of Tolkien. Though I might equally say in spite of ;)

Try it again, see how far you can get past the first chapter or two. I can't guarantee anything, but it might be worth a shot.

Do not like Tolkien. Maybe the OP will agree with me, but I find that Tolkien reads like Chapter XI in 'A Picture of Dorian Gray' -- just endless descriptions with no real point to it. And having just glanced at the introduction to Anna Karenina, the translator might agree with me.
Sorry, I really do find Tolkien quite dull to read.

Argh! So many books. And now I feel compelled to read them, because the poster claims to be a book buff. But I can't read them all at once, oh what to do?! *breaks down and cries*

Totally agree, Tolkein is awful to try and read.

I'm going back to reading books again. Most of what I've read is mainstream (1984, Brave New World, Catch 22), others not so much:

If This Is A Man/The Truce - Primo Levi
Next - Michael Crichton

However I heard much hype about the following so I decided to pick it up...

My Booky Wook - Russell Brand. I'm a big fan of his stand up comedy so I want to see what this turns out like. I've also started writing a book, today in fact. If anyone wants to see the first page TG me.

No, I'm fairly certain that I meant to say that The Great Gatsby and The Stranger are awful and that Lord of the Rings far outshines any potential that the other two might possibly have.

Yeah, yeah, I got it. It was so funny, I'm still smiling over it. :D

One of my favorite books that nobody seems to have read is I, Lucifer by Glen Duncan

Totally agree, Tolkein is awful to try and read.
I won't say Tolkien is a bad writer.

I'll say I think he sucks crap, but that's really just my opinion and could be based on a difference of personal tastes and preferences. If others enjoy that sort of thing, then I'm glad they have it.

Of course, to suggest, as one person has, that Tolkein is better than Camus or Fitzgerald is simply silly and shows a failure to read comparatively. One can legitimately like Tolkein more than them (I suppose), but he is not a better writer than them, and that's just all there is to it.

One of my favorite books that nobody seems to have read is I, Lucifer by Glen Duncan

I've read it. It has my recommendation as well. Such an excellent book, although I though it was just missing something important somewhere. I also recommend Catch-22, as my favourite book and The brief and terrifying reign of Phil, as the book I've read and liked most recently.

Oh, oh, oh, I forgot to mention one of my all time favorites: The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. It has something meaningful for every stage in life. :wink:

Yeah, yeah, I got it. It was so funny, I'm still smiling over it. :D

I'm glad my aversion to certain authors can bring you amusement.

Another vote for Tolkien sucking rocks.

Really now. It takes a phenomenally bad writer to take an epic tale of good versus evil involving various races, armies, mages, madnesses and prophecies and turn it into a boring, long-winded trilogy.

Camus, on the other hand, wrote one of the most profound novellas ever, and the entire plot is about a man who shoots someone and gets executed.

Oh, and Graham Greene is also awesome.

Oh, oh, oh, I forgot to mention one of my all time favorites: The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. It has something meaningful for every stage in life. :wink:Whoops, I thought you wrote Happy instead of Little. And I was wondering about poor Oscar Wilde. Heh, even the 'The Happy Prince' wiki page says 'Not to be confused with The Little Prince, by Saint-Exupéry.'. Whenever I read those short stories I cry. I'm such a wuss.

I shall have to get myself a copy of the Little Prince. It looks quite interesting. Especially all the different characters.

Whoops, I thought you wrote Happy instead of Little. And I was wondering about poor Oscar Wilde. Heh, even the 'The Happy Prince' wiki page says 'Not to be confused with The Little Prince, by Saint-Exupéry.'. Whenever I read those short stories I cry. I'm such a wuss.

I shall have to get myself a copy of the Little Prince. It looks quite interesting. Especially all the different characters.

Yes, the book is adorable. But I like it mainly because it doesn't matter how old you are when you read and re-read it, it will always speak to you. The Little Prince has something to teach at every stage of life. I think books like that are the real treasures and should always be cherished.

And indeed, that book, the particular story of the relation between the Prince and the fox, and the Prince and his rose always choke me up. Perhaps I'm a sentimental wuzz.:wink:

Hadji Murad, by Leo Tolstoy. Makes me cry, but in a good way. Profound stuff about war & humanity. A classic. And it's short! You can boast that you're reading Tolstoy without carting around a doorstop. There are various translations out there, I think the Modern Library Classics one is the most readable.

*snip all the horrid books Ryadn was forced to read by evil professors*

Oops! I forgot Neil Gaiman! (Thanks, Cat-Tribes.) My fave of his is American Gods.

Seriously... Dickens? Dickens? The Scarlet Effing Letter? I didn't know people actually ENJOYED that kind of torture.

And then you add Neil Gaiman and I am so totally perplexed. I mean, I know even Hitler liked dogs, but jesus. ;)

If you've not got round to the Brontë's yet then I recomend: Charlotte Brontë's Villette. There's quite a good range in the sugestions here; but are you really going to read all three parts of the divine comedy and not just the Inferno?

If you've not got round to the Brontë's yet then I recomend: Charlotte Brontë's Villette. There's quite a good range in the sugestions here; but are you really going to read all three parts of the divine comedy and not just the Inferno?

I'm on the waitlist at my library for purgatorio and paradiso so, yes.

Sounds great! I can feel smart and pander to my weaklingness.

Totally agree, Tolkein is awful to try and read.

The Lord of the Rings takes a long time to get going. Like, two thirds of the first book. But its worth it to have a little patience.

Of course, those raised soley on cheap modern fantassy may be confused by an author who chooses not to stuff their book full of gratuitous sex and violence.

Starship troopers. ALWAYS!

The book is infinitely better than the movie. I know this is what all book snobs say, but this is a case of undeniable truth. The movie was made as if someone condensed the book to a list of characters and a one-sheet bullet point plot summary and gave it to a script writer. It was even more of a story massacre than Eragon

Have Spacesuit, Will Travel was good, too.

Ah that might have been my problem I don't think I persisted past chapter two. Flicked forward to see what the rest was like and got a poem...

Indeed, we have a whole genre of books, games, videogames and films that was popularised into the mainstream because of Tolkien. Though I might equally say in spite of ;)

IMO, actually, Tolkien was much better in the various legends of the first age. Try buying a copy of The Children of Hurin and reading that. In my opinion, his more legendary pieces are much nicer to read. However, I was raised to a reasonable degree on a diet of various mythologies, so that may have coloured my perception.

Oh, oh, oh, I forgot to mention one of my all time favorites: The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. It has something meaningful for every stage in life. :wink:

Wonderful little book. Also fun, although quite different, is Three Men in a Boat, about a trio of young English gentlemen, and their misadventures in boating down the Thames.

The Lord of the Rings takes a long time to get going. Like, two thirds of the first book. But its worth it to have a little patience.

Of course, those raised soley on cheap modern fantassy may be confused by an author who chooses not to stuff their book full of gratuitous sex and violence.

Aye, that it does. It's not quite as good as the Children of Hurin, or Beren and Luthien, or the tales of Gondolin, but overall it's definitely a cut above most modern 'epic fantasy'.

Another vote for Tolkien sucking rocks.

Really now. It takes a phenomenally bad writer to take an epic tale of good versus evil involving various races, armies, mages, madnesses and prophecies and turn it into a boring, long-winded trilogy.

Camus, on the other hand, wrote one of the most profound novellas ever, and the entire plot is about a man who shoots someone and gets executed.

Oh, and Graham Greene is also awesome.

Hm. Again, Tolkien's work is (IMO) a lot better with his more epic legends, his legendarium. Try The Children of Hurin.

The Lord of the Rings takes a long time to get going. Like, two thirds of the first book. But its worth it to have a little patience.

Of course, those raised soley on cheap modern fantassy may be confused by an author who chooses not to stuff their book full of gratuitous sex and violence.

I agree wholeheartedly. I can sympathize with those that choose not to read it because it's voluminous. But calling something bad because you don't have the patience to actually read it is stupid.

I agree wholeheartedly. I can sympathize with those that choose not to read it because it's voluminous. But calling something bad because you don't have the patience to actually read it is stupid.
especially given that we are responding to a poster who claims to want to read good books.

i read LOTR when i was 12. it captured me from page one.

if you skip the songs and poems the first time you read it. its a very good read.

The Lord of the Rings takes a long time to get going. Like, two thirds of the first book. But its worth it to have a little patience.

Of course, those raised soley on cheap modern fantassy may be confused by an author who chooses not to stuff their book full of gratuitous sex and violence.
*gasp*

Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow!
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.:D

The book is infinitely better than the movie. I know this is what all book snobs say, but this is a case of undeniable truth. The movie was made as if someone condensed the book to a list of characters and a one-sheet bullet point plot summary and gave it to a script writer. It was even more of a story massacre than Eragon

Have Spacesuit, Will Travel was good, too.
Story massacre? The movies picked the following:

The name of the book. The name of several characters. The fact that it was in space.

That's about it. It's not a massacre, it's more of book-genocide!

especially given that we are responding to a poster who claims to want to read good books.

i read LOTR when i was 12. it captured me from page one.

if you skip the songs and poems the first time you read it. its a very good read.
You didn't like the songs and poems?:(

I agree wholeheartedly. I can sympathize with those that choose not to read it because it's voluminous. But calling something bad because you don't have the patience to actually read it is stupid.I'm not sure about there this. Certainly you have to have at least something that resembles an attention span to read a book, but at what point does it become the author's fault for a poor writing style as opposed to the reader's short attention span. I think also the reader must be careful to choose a book that will suit their expectations. For instance, if you're looking for a character driven book then you'll almost certainly think Harry Potter is one of the poorest books ever written.

You didn't like the songs and poems?:(
im not much on songs and poems in general.

but the point is that they dont contribute to the storyline that is going on at the time. they are JUST songs and poems.

if you love the tolkien universe and want to know more about the extensive background that tolkien gave it, its worth going BACK and reading the poems.

and, i suppose, if you love to have a break from the actual narrative to read a bit of poetry, its always right there for you.

Yes, the book is adorable. But I like it mainly because it doesn't matter how old you are when you read and re-read it, it will always speak to you. The Little Prince has something to teach at every stage of life. I think books like that are the real treasures and should always be cherished.

And indeed, that book, the particular story of the relation between the Prince and the fox, and the Prince and his rose always choke me up. Perhaps I'm a sentimental wuzz.:wink:
I find The Little Prince depressing.

Seriously... Dickens? Dickens? The Scarlet Effing Letter? I didn't know people actually ENJOYED that kind of torture.

And then you add Neil Gaiman and I am so totally perplexed. I mean, I know even Hitler liked dogs, but jesus. ;)
Yeah, well, some books require a grown-up taste... :tongue: :wink:

I agree wholeheartedly. I can sympathize with those that choose not to read it because it's voluminous. But calling something bad because you don't have the patience to actually read it is stupid.
Regardless of whether it's long or short, a book that doesn't grab and hold the reader's attention is not a good book.

Now, it could just be not-good to THAT reader, but so what? This thread has presented the OP with a huge reading list. Everyone who has suggested a book, likes that book and thinks it's great. But that in no way guarantees that the OP will enjoy them all, or that he won't end up tossing some aside before he's halfway through them. And that's his prerogative.

Do you expect that someone should keep reading a book they are not enjoying? Why? To see how it turns out? But if they are not enjoying the process of getting to the end because the author's style is turning them off, then what makes you think they care how it turns out? Or what makes you think that getting to the end, and spending more time reading a style that annoys or bores them is suddenly going to make them start liking it by the time they get to the last page?

I'm not turned off the LOTR trilogy because it's long. Hell, you want to see voluminous, check Tristram Shandy, my favorite book, which I've read several times. What turns me off LOTR is Tolkien's style, just like what turns me on about Shandy is Sterne's style. That doesn't mean that Sterne will be everyone's cup of tea, though.

especially given that we are responding to a poster who claims to want to read good books.

i read LOTR when i was 12. it captured me from page one.

if you skip the songs and poems the first time you read it. its a very good read.
When rating good books, I tend to rank books that don't have content I want to skip over above books that do.

I'm not sure about there this. Certainly you have to have at least something that resembles an attention span to read a book, but at what point does it become the author's fault for a poor writing style as opposed to the reader's short attention span. I think also the reader must be careful to choose a book that will suit their expectations. For instance, if you're looking for a character driven book then you'll almost certainly think Harry Potter is one of the poorest books ever written.
Quoted for truth.

Regardless of whether it's long or short, a book that doesn't grab and hold the reader's attention is not a good book.

Now, it could just be not-good to THAT reader, but so what? This thread has presented the OP with a huge reading list. Everyone who has suggested a book, likes that book and thinks it's great. But that in no way guarantees that the OP will enjoy them all, or that he won't end up tossing some aside before he's halfway through them. And that's his prerogative.

Do you expect that someone should keep reading a book they are not enjoying? Why? To see how it turns out? But if they are not enjoying the process of getting to the end because the author's style is turning them off, then what makes you think they care how it turns out? Or what makes you think that getting to the end, and spending more time reading a style that annoys or bores them is suddenly going to make them start liking it by the time they get to the last page?

I'm not turned off the LOTR trilogy because it's long. Hell, you want to see voluminous, check Tristram Shandy, my favorite book, which I've read several times. What turns me off LOTR is Tolkien's style, just like what turns me on about Shandy is Sterne's style. That doesn't mean that Sterne will be everyone's cup of tea, though.


When rating good books, I tend to rank books that don't have content I want to skip over above books that do.


Quoted for truth.
yeah i know what you mean

but LOTR is an exception. leave out the poems and songs and its a damned good book.

its like a lesson in "the author isnt the boss of you". you are free to read ANY book in any order you want and skip any part you arent interested in. most dont hold up well that way but its up to you.

Might I add War of the Worlds? It's more or less the original alien invasion story, and its one of very few works of science fiction which has stood the test of time well.

Regardless of whether it's long or short, a book that doesn't grab and hold the reader's attention is not a good book.

Now, it could just be not-good to THAT reader, but so what? This thread has presented the OP with a huge reading list. Everyone who has suggested a book, likes that book and thinks it's great. But that in no way guarantees that the OP will enjoy them all, or that he won't end up tossing some aside before he's halfway through them. And that's his prerogative.

Do you expect that someone should keep reading a book they are not enjoying? Why? To see how it turns out? But if they are not enjoying the process of getting to the end because the author's style is turning them off, then what makes you think they care how it turns out? Or what makes you think that getting to the end, and spending more time reading a style that annoys or bores them is suddenly going to make them start liking it by the time they get to the last page?

I'm not turned off the LOTR trilogy because it's long. Hell, you want to see voluminous, check Tristram Shandy, my favorite book, which I've read several times. What turns me off LOTR is Tolkien's style, just like what turns me on about Shandy is Sterne's style. That doesn't mean that Sterne will be everyone's cup of tea, though.

I never once suggested that someone should continue reading a book that they dislike. I only suggested that he try once again and suggest that if he continues reading, it is very possible that he may end up liking it in the end. An author is not responsible for trying to hold your attention if you're too ADD and immature to keep your attention fixed on what is otherwise a good book.

I never once suggested that someone should continue reading a book that they dislike. I only suggested that he try once again and suggest that if he continues reading, it is very possible that he may end up liking it in the end. An author is not responsible for trying to hold your attention if you're too ADD and immature to keep your attention fixed on what is otherwise a good book.

Well, I can sympathize with those who don't have the patience for JRRT. I can't seem to get interested in The Old Curiosity Shop by Dickens. I bought it because it's a classic, but the story just never captures my interest long enough to read much.

I very much prefer G.A. Henty, Robert Louis Stevenson, Rudyard Kipling, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Tolkien when I read British literature.

Well, I can sympathize with those who don't have the patience for JRRT. I can't seem to get interested in The Old Curiosity Shop by Dickens. I bought it because it's a classic, but the story just never captures my interest long enough to read much.

I very much prefer G.A. Henty, Robert Louis Stevenson, Rudyard Kipling, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Tolkien when I read British literature.
i had the same problem with a tale of two cities. my mom told me that if i could get past that godawful first chapter --it was the best of times it was the worst of times, on and on--that it was a very good book.

so i forced my way through that ...stuff.. but the book never grabbed me. i dropped it after a few chapters.

I never once suggested that someone should continue reading a book that they dislike. I only suggested that he try once again and suggest that if he continues reading, it is very possible that he may end up liking it in the end. An author is not responsible for trying to hold your attention if you're too ADD and immature to keep your attention fixed on what is otherwise a good book.
So, despite your disclaimer, you're still saying that if someone can't get into the book, there's something wrong with them?

You didn't like the songs and poems?:(

I don't like the songs, well I should say I didn't like the idea of having them in there, I usually skipped past those bits because I felt that it was important for the storyline.

I never thought my little thread would get so heated!

For the record, I have read some of LOTR but prefer the movies (since they are not quite so longwinded).

Jane Austen is my favourite author. I love her books, particularly Mansfield Park and Pride and Prejudice.

I guess I should have expected nothing less than a hearty debate from the masters of argument at NSG though. :tongue:

I find The Little Prince depressing.

I happen to find it very inspiring. But I guess everyone has a certain taste. That's that.

I never thought my little thread would get so heated!

For the record, I have read some of LOTR but prefer the movies (since they are not quite so longwinded).

Jane Austen is my favourite author. I love her books, particularly Mansfield Park and Pride and Prejudice.

I guess I should have expected nothing less than a hearty debate from the masters of argument at NSG though. :tongue:
i was going to recommend pride and prejudice but i decided it was too girly.

The Unknown Soldier by Väinö Linna.might be hard to find outside of Finland but good book about the Continuation War
nonetheless.

The reason that people skip over Tolkiens poetry and songs is because they are badly written. No one ever skips Hamlet's soliliquies, even though they don't move the storyline forward. And that's because Shakespeare was a good writer. It takes someone who actually has good wordcraft and a mastery of the language to write poetry that people want to read. Tolkien apparently did not have that ability.

I happen to find it very inspiring. But I guess everyone has a certain taste. That's that.
It's a very emotional story, and it hits a lot of emotions. For me, it hits all the sad ones most strongly. It leaves me very down. But it's still a good book.

It's a very emotional story, and it hits a lot of emotions. For me, it hits all the sad ones most strongly. It leaves me very down. But it's still a good book.

I do agree with that, but with The Little Prince, and this is all me, I have also learned to let go and accept from reading those very sad parts. And there's no other part I take more to heart than the time the Prince spends with the fox. It has taught me to create relations, even if they're brief. It has taught me that no matter how long you know a person, it can be the person siting next to you on a flight, this person will touch your life...

*cue sad violin music*

:p

I have just finished the Kite Runner, and the Picture of Dorian Gray. I am reading the Iliad and Dante's Divine Comedies (translations, naturally) and have read a few different books such as The Secret History, Crimes against Humanity and Love in the Time of Cholera. I want some advice from you Generalites, whose taste is beyond reproach on some books I should read. I am bored with my current library and wish to expand it.

Any recommendations or advice?

There are thousands of good books man, I would say read anything you get your grubby little mits on! :D

Still a small list of the best that I have read, in no particular order.

Frankenstien - Mary Shelly
Bliss - Peter Carey
A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole
Slaugterhouse Five - Kurt Vonnegut
The Third Policeman - Brian O'Nolan(Flann O'Brien)

Umm theres more, but fuck it that'll do for now huh!

The reason that people skip over Tolkiens poetry and songs is because they are badly written. No one ever skips Hamlet's soliliquies, even though they don't move the storyline forward. And that's because Shakespeare was a good writer. It takes someone who actually has good wordcraft and a mastery of the language to write poetry that people want to read. Tolkien apparently did not have that ability.

Utter rubbish, to put it bluntly. There is some truly excellent poetry out there by Tolkien --- find and read "Errantry" for one such example. A wonderful piece, flows very well, a pleasure to read.

I never thought my little thread would get so heated!

For the record, I have read some of LOTR but prefer the movies (since they are not quite so longwinded).

Jane Austen is my favourite author. I love her books, particularly Mansfield Park and Pride and Prejudice.

I guess I should have expected nothing less than a hearty debate from the masters of argument at NSG though. :tongue:

Again, LOTR is probably not Tolkien's best work, and it's unfortunate it's become synonymous with his writing. If reasonably epic fantasy is your thing, look for a copy of "The Children of Hurin", while for a quite lighthearted taste, I highly recommend "The Tolkien Reader", which has some of his shorter works and better poetry in it.

Most of his other works are either not so longwinded, somewhat more lighthearted, or better suited to the epic scale. That's the real problem with LOTR --- he was writing his epic fantasy, but the story chosen doesn't quite work with it. Something like COH is both shorter, and a more interesting story, IMO.

Quick question: How many people ragging on Tolkien have read more than LOTR?

Utter rubbish, to put it bluntly. There is some truly excellent poetry out there by Tolkien --- find and read "Errantry" for one such example. A wonderful piece, flows very well, a pleasure to read.



Again, LOTR is probably not Tolkien's best work, and it's unfortunate it's become synonymous with his writing. If reasonably epic fantasy is your thing, look for a copy of "The Children of Hurin", while for a quite lighthearted taste, I highly recommend "The Tolkien Reader", which has some of his shorter works and better poetry in it.

Most of his other works are either not so longwinded, somewhat more lighthearted, or better suited to the epic scale. That's the real problem with LOTR --- he was writing his epic fantasy, but the story chosen doesn't quite work with it. Something like COH is both shorter, and a more interesting story, IMO.

Quick question: How many people ragging on Tolkien have read more than LOTR?
I tried to read The Hobbit first. Hated it. :)

I do agree with that, but with The Little Prince, and this is all me, I have also learned to let go and accept from reading those very sad parts. And there's no other part I take more to heart than the time the Prince spends with the fox. It has taught me to create relations, even if they're brief. It has taught me that no matter how long you know a person, it can be the person siting next to you on a flight, this person will touch your life...

*cue sad violin music*

:p
Thanks, now I'm depressed. :tongue:

I tried to read The Hobbit first. Hated it. :)

Hmhm. Then it's probably just different tastes --- I loved The Hobbit when I read it about age 8. And LOTR when I read that. But as I said, I was brought up on quite a bit of mythology, which is where Tolkien drew much of his inspiration (and style) from.

Thanks, now I'm depressed. :tongue:

Oh my...:tongue:

Hmhm. Then it's probably just different tastes --- I loved The Hobbit when I read it about age 8. And LOTR when I read that. But as I said, I was brought up on quite a bit of mythology, which is where Tolkien drew much of his inspiration (and style) from.
I was also brought up on world mythologies. I read mythology (and horror literature) instead of fairy tales when I was a child. Like I said before, I just don't like Tolkein's style of writing, the way he crafts sentences, builds characters, the characters he chooses to build, etc. No way to get around that.

EDIT: If it makes it feel any better, I don't like Hemingway either, and for the same reasons -- and I get denounced as a heretic for that a shitload more often than for not liking Tolkein. But hey, I'm not saying they are bad writers, craftwise. I'm not going to say they are the best writers in the world, craftwise, but I'm not going to say they're the worst, either. I just don't like the way they use their craft.

Utter rubbish, to put it bluntly. There is some truly excellent poetry out there by Tolkien --- find and read "Errantry" for one such example. A wonderful piece, flows very well, a pleasure to read.

I read it. It does not flow well, unless you find words like stalactite to come tripping off the tongue. Dr. Seuss is far better.

You should read The Wild Party by Joseph Moncure March for some good narrative poetry.

I read it. It does not flow well, unless you find words like stalactite to come tripping off the tongue. Dr. Seuss is far better.

You should read The Wild Party by Joseph Moncure March for some good narrative poetry.

Actually, I do find stalactite to come tripping off the tongue, especially given how it's used:


His javelins were of malachite
and stalactite - he brandished them,


Fits both the rhyme pattern and the flow of the poem. So there we have to disagree.

Dr. Seuss is very good though, I will happily admit that.

Melville (the unabridged Moby Dick)

YES.

and of course, James Joyce

YES.

Oops! I forgot Neil Gaiman!

YES.

I am also not a fan of Tolkien. You are not alone.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Your taste seemed so impeccable for a bit there!

I'm puzzled, too, because the main criticism I've heard of Tolkien is that he's too dense, too descriptive, too prone to Romantic-style digressions - but looking at your favorite books, I have a hard time believing those qualities upset you. :tongue:

(Also, given your list of favorite authors, if you haven't read Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell yet, you almost certainly should.)

Actually, I do find stalactite to come tripping off the tongue, especially given how it's used:



Fits both the rhyme pattern and the flow of the poem. So there we have to disagree.

Dr. Seuss is very good though, I will happily admit that.

Except that he puts in a pause right after that word, which interrupts the rhythm, unless he's meaning the reader to pronounce stalactite with a different rhythm so that one can put the pause in, which is tortured and awful.

Or the way he changes rhythm and rhyme slightly in each stanza. Enough that you notice something doesn't quite fit, but not enough to make it a striking and dramatic choice.

Not to mention the near complete lack of other poetic devices.

Except that he puts in a pause right after that word, which interrupts the rhythm, unless he's meaning the reader to pronounce stalactite with a different rhythm so that one can put the pause in, which is tortured and awful.

Or the way he changes rhythm and rhyme slightly in each stanza. Enough that you notice something doesn't quite fit, but not enough to make it a striking and dramatic choice.

Not to mention the near complete lack of other poetic devices.

I think we must have different pronunciations there --- it fits with exactly how I would normally pronounce stalactite. Where does your accent hail from?

As for poetic devices. There's heavy alliteration all through the poem. There's a consistent rhythm running through it. There's the same rhyme pattern through it, with only a few very minor exceptions. It's not some huge technical monstrosity, but it's got enough to keep it interesting as a poem, while the content also makes it interesting to read.

(Link for others: http://www.fluidmagic.com/tolkien-poetry.htm )

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this case, as with the rest of Tolkien's work, apparently.

Anyone here familiar with James Fenimore Cooper? I have several of his books that I bought recently, and I think I read The Deerslayer way back when. I have The Pioneers, Last of the Mohichans and The Pathfinder awaiting winter reading time.

YES.



YES.



YES.



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Your taste seemed so impeccable for a bit there!

I'm puzzled, too, because the main criticism I've heard of Tolkien is that he's too dense, too descriptive, too prone to Romantic-style digressions - but looking at your favorite books, I have a hard time believing those qualities upset you. :tongue:
That's true, but my problem with Tolkien is that, for all his dense, descriptive, digressive wordiness, I find him rather shallow. A whole lot of words, a ton of story, casts of thousands, but...just not much "there" there. Rather than getting absorbed into his fictional reality, I find myself thinking, "Why is he telling me all this?"

One of my measures for a "successful" book, story, movie or play -- and by "sucessful" I mean in terms of whether it achieves the effect it set out to -- is that it should not leave me wondering why the story is being told in the first place. That question should not even pop into my head, and if it does -- especially if it occurs to me while I'm reading or viewing the story -- that is a problem.

(Also, given your list of favorite authors, if you haven't read Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell yet, you almost certainly should.)
I have read it. It was quite good. Seemed to lose its pacing through the middle part, or maybe the 3rd act of the story, but overall I'd recommend it.

That's true, but my problem with Tolkien is that, for all his dense, descriptive, digressive wordiness, I find him rather shallow. A whole lot of words, a ton of story, casts of thousands, but...just not much "there" there. Rather than getting absorbed into his fictional reality, I find myself thinking, "Why is he telling me all this?"

One of my measures for a "successful" book, story, movie or play -- and by "sucessful" I mean in terms of whether it achieves the effect it set out to -- is that it should not leave me wondering why the story is being told in the first place. That question should not even pop into my head, and if it does -- especially if it occurs to me while I'm reading or viewing the story -- that is a problem.

Heh, well, that was definitely not my experience with Tolkien. I do believe that you may be the first person I've encountered who likes dense, descriptive literature and high fantasy but dislikes Tolkien, though. To me, that's kinda like saying, "Oh, I love chocolate, and I love strawberries, but chocolate-covered strawberries? EW!" :tongue:


I have read it. It was quite good. Seemed to lose its pacing through the middle part, or maybe the 3rd act of the story, but overall I'd recommend it.

Agreed. I just remember reading it and thinking that it was sort of like what would happen if someone threw the complete works of Dickens, Austen, Poe, and Gaiman in a blender and reconstituted the result into a single book, so it seemed like it might be your style. ;)

That's true, but my problem with Tolkien is that, for all his dense, descriptive, digressive wordiness, I find him rather shallow. A whole lot of words, a ton of story, casts of thousands, but...just not much "there" there. Rather than getting absorbed into his fictional reality, I find myself thinking, "Why is he telling me all this?"

One of my measures for a "successful" book, story, movie or play -- and by "sucessful" I mean in terms of whether it achieves the effect it set out to -- is that it should not leave me wondering why the story is being told in the first place. That question should not even pop into my head, and if it does -- especially if it occurs to me while I'm reading or viewing the story -- that is a problem.


I have read it. It was quite good. Seemed to lose its pacing through the middle part, or maybe the 3rd act of the story, but overall I'd recommend it.

I was under the impression that LOTR was supposed to be some sort of Christian metaphor, like the Chronicles of Narnia, but for adults. I know that he and C.S. Lewis were supposed to be friends and that they were supposed to have exchanged ideas.

Fits both the rhyme pattern and the flow of the poem. So there we have to disagree.

Dr. Seuss is very good though, I will happily admit that.


Are you actually unfavorably comparing Tolkien to Doctor Seus? 'Cause that's just trolling.:D

As for the quoted line of bad Tolkien poetry, I have not read the work in question and so cannot comment on its suckiness or lack thereof, but I would just like to note that by quoting certain individual lines out of context, you can probably make almost anything sound lame.

I was under the impression that LOTR was supposed to be some sort of Christian metaphor, like the Chronicles of Narnia, but for adults. I know that he and C.S. Lewis were supposed to be friends and that they were supposed to have exchanged ideas.

He is known to have described it as Catholic. He also, however, explicitely denied any allegorical meaning behind the story. Perhaps it would be acurate to say that while his Catholisicm shaped his veiw of the World (inevitably), Tolkien had no specific overriding message or meaning in mind when he wrote LOTR.

He is known to have described it as Catholic. He also, however, explicitely denied any allegorical meaning behind the story. Perhaps it would be acurate to say that while his Catholisicm shaped his veiw of the World (inevitably), Tolkien had no specific overriding message or meaning in mind when he wrote LOTR.
LOTR actually seems more pagan than Catholic, actually. The main hero is the Everyman, who succeeds despite humble origins, but look at everyone else: Aragorn is good because he's a king, Theoden is not as good because he's from a lesser lineage, and the orcs are evil because they're...well, orcs. There's sort of a heaven, but it's more just a summer home for the elves. Plus all the names, creatures, etc. are from Northern European mythology.

Heh, well, that was definitely not my experience with Tolkien. I do believe that you may be the first person I've encountered who likes dense, descriptive literature and high fantasy but dislikes Tolkien, though. To me, that's kinda like saying, "Oh, I love chocolate, and I love strawberries, but chocolate-covered strawberries? EW!" :tongue:
Not all dense, descriptive literature and high fantasy writers are the same. The dense and descriptive parts and the high fantasy parts are not the beginning and end of the writer's style.

I was under the impression that LOTR was supposed to be some sort of Christian metaphor, like the Chronicles of Narnia, but for adults. I know that he and C.S. Lewis were supposed to be friends and that they were supposed to have exchanged ideas.
Yes... and...?

LOTR actually seems more pagan than Catholic, actually. The main hero is the Everyman, who succeeds despite humble origins, but look at everyone else: Aragorn is good because he's a king, Theoden is not as good because he's from a lesser lineage, and the orcs are evil because they're...well, orcs. There's sort of a heaven, but it's more just a summer home for the elves. Plus all the names, creatures, etc. are from Northern European mythology.
In pagan mythologies, there are plenty of bad kings and good guys from "lesser lineages" (whatever that means). There are also even some monsters that are not evil.

In pagan mythologies, there are plenty of bad kings and good guys from "lesser lineages" (whatever that means). There are also even some monsters that are not evil.
Pagan's a really broad term. What I should have said was Germanic or maybe Anglo-Saxon mythology, the sort of stuff that Tolkien would have been reading his entire professional life.

LOTR actually seems more pagan than Catholic, actually. The main hero is the Everyman, who succeeds despite humble origins, but look at everyone else: Aragorn is good because he's a king, Theoden is not as good because he's from a lesser lineage, and the orcs are evil because they're...well, orcs. There's sort of a heaven, but it's more just a summer home for the elves. Plus all the names, creatures, etc. are from Northern European mythology.

Well the idea of the divine right of kings is a Christian Medieval one as is the concept of a ladder or scale, with certain beings and social classes inherently superior to others, is it not? Though a lot of the creatures and names are pagan in origin. It would seem that to some extent LOTR is Christian morality in a pagan setting.

Well the idea of the divine right of kings is a Christian Medieval one as is the concept of a ladder or scale, with certain beings and social classes inherently superior to others, is it not? Though a lot of the creatures and names are pagan in origin. It would seem that to some extent LOTR is Christian morality in a pagan setting.
The Christian idea is that all people are equal. (I don't know where things like orcs would fall.) The idea of divine right is that some people are appointed by God to rule, and therefore have God's backing. I don't know if that means they themselves are superior or can just do more because God's on their side; it's more theology than I know and it's obsolete, anyway.
The biggest reason I didn't think LOTR was very Catholic, though, was because at no point in the book do the characters even think, "Well, at least Gandalf went to heaven" or "I can only hope the afterlife is better than this." That idea, very much a part of medieval Christian life, doesn't exist in Middle-Earth.

Of course, probably the most accurate assessment is LOTR is a story written by a Catholic about a pagan world. It's got some of both, even if Tolkien didn't plan it that way.

Pagan's a really broad term. What I should have said was Germanic or maybe Anglo-Saxon mythology, the sort of stuff that Tolkien would have been reading his entire professional life.
Even in Nordic mythology, in which the giants were the main bad guys, there were still some good giants. Loki, the god of evil was the blood brother of Odin, and Loki was a frequent problem-solver for Odin and Thor, so that relationship was not a simplistic "bright line" between good guy and bad guy. And it was the "good" Aesir who broke their word, violated their code of honor time and time again out of greed and pride, and ended up setting up their own downfall. Lesser myths are also full of tales of honorable kings versus vainglorious kings, so being a king doesn't make a character automatically good. Traditional tales are also full of stories about a so-called "lesser lineage" -- a poor family, a defeated family, or no family at all (in orphan tales) -- producing great heroes.

What I'm saying is that the way Tolkein built his characters was his own. He may have been inspired by mythology, but in my opinion, he could have swiped more from the myths, because compared to his, their stories were far deeper and more interesting.

Actually, maybe my big block against Tolkein and a lot of "high fantasy" "ren faire" mock-medieval style writers is that, after trying and failing to get into The Hobbit and LOTR, the next "high fantasy" I read was Orlando Furioso, the sequel (I think) to Orlando Inamorato (sp?), which someone else already mentioned.

Now THAT is high fantasy, let me tell you. Written during the early Renaissance (the real one), it's all about knights, and saracen warriors, and kings, and warrior maidens, and princess maidens, and other kinds of maidens, and old hags who haven't been maidens for a long time, and magic swords, and haunted armors, and magic horses, and wizards, and giants, and it even has orcs -- though in that time "orc" meant dragon. And there's swordfighting galore, and jousting, and spellcasting, and monster fighting, and the hero goes insane, and one of his friends tames a griffin and flies to the moon to look for the hero's wits and doesn't find them but does find some other cool shit, and it's just fabulous, and it's all in verse.

And the driving "thing" of the story, like the ring in LOTR, the thing that motivates everyone either directly or indirectly, is that, apparently, the majority of all the knights and kings of both Europe and Asia are out-of-control horny for this one princess who is so freakin' hot it's not even to be laughed at, only she's not interested in any of them because she already has a lover (who isn't the king she's supposed to marry). (I'd give anything to see a movie of it.)

The Orlando "romances" (as they used to be called) are chockablock with action and adventure, and they have all the kinds of stock characters and monsters that modern fantasy audiences have come to love. The difference is that they tell their stories with a humor and a sense of realism and a feet-on-the-ground earthiness that Tolkien and his immitators just miss. The old Orlando is just so much fun, that I find it hard to put up with later writers' plonking earnestness.

*snip*
True, Nordic myths aren't a single block. But I think the ideas in LOTR are more in tune with common pre-Christian beliefs than Christian, or more specifically, Catholic ones. The first post was a response to the idea LOTR was like the Chronicles of Narnia, which is most definitely Christian, and I don't think that was what Tolkien was going for at all.

I would have snipped your second post anyway so I'll just respond to it here:
The Lord of the Rings trilogy certainly could use a few laughs. I don't think Tolkien was incapable of humor--there are some funny parts in The Hobbit--but LOTR was his attempt to create an entirely new world with entirely new languages. (He was after all an Anglo-Saxon professor.) It's that world, I think, which fans love so much. The characters are nice enough but nothing special, and the story is pretty archetypal. Middle-Earth seems great, though. When I finished Return of the King for the first time in fifth grade, I was sad not because Frodo & Company left, but because I didn't live there.
Orlando Furioso sounds exciting, though. I'll have to give that a look.

Actually, maybe my big block against Tolkein and a lot of "high fantasy" "ren faire" mock-medieval style writers is that, after trying and failing to get into The Hobbit and LOTR, the next "high fantasy" I read was Orlando Furioso, the sequel (I think) to Orlando Inamorato (sp?), which someone else already mentioned.

Now THAT is high fantasy, let me tell you. Written during the early Renaissance (the real one), it's all about knights, and saracen warriors, and kings, and warrior maidens, and princess maidens, and other kinds of maidens, and old hags who haven't been maidens for a long time, and magic swords, and haunted armors, and magic horses, and wizards, and giants, and it even has orcs -- though in that time "orc" meant dragon. And there's swordfighting galore, and jousting, and spellcasting, and monster fighting, and the hero goes insane, and one of his friends tames a griffin and flies to the moon to look for the hero's wits and doesn't find them but does find some other cool shit, and it's just fabulous, and it's all in verse.

And the driving "thing" of the story, like the ring in LOTR, the thing that motivates everyone either directly or indirectly, is that, apparently, the majority of all the knights and kings of both Europe and Asia are out-of-control horny for this one princess who is so freakin' hot it's not even to be laughed at, only she's not interested in any of them because she already has a lover (who isn't the king she's supposed to marry). (I'd give anything to see a movie of it.)

The Orlando "romances" (as they used to be called) are chockablock with action and adventure, and they have all the kinds of stock characters and monsters that modern fantasy audiences have come to love. The difference is that they tell their stories with a humor and a sense of realism and a feet-on-the-ground earthiness that Tolkien and his immitators just miss. The old Orlando is just so much fun, that I find it hard to put up with later writers' plonking earnestness.

Ok. More high fantasy from the Dark Ages, Middle Ages and Renaissance - Le Morte d'Arthur by Spenser, the Song of Roland (12th century, much earlier than Orlando, but the story on which Orlando was based) and Beowulf.

There's also a beautiful little book by Poul Anderson, called Three Hearts and Three Lions about a medieval hero named Holger the Dane (Ogier du Danske) who's mentioned in conjunction with Arthur, Charlemagne and Roland.

Not all dense, descriptive literature and high fantasy writers are the same. The dense and descriptive parts and the high fantasy parts are not the beginning and end of the writer's style.

Oh, indeed. Those are just always the things I hear criticized about Tolkien, so it's startling to find someone who likes those but still dislikes the whole.

(Also, I'm rather proud of how not-defensive I'm being about this, given that my actual first name is in High Elvish and my brother is named after a hobbit. LOTR was kinda like the Bible in my family. :tongue: )

He is known to have described it as Catholic. He also, however, explicitely denied any allegorical meaning behind the story. Perhaps it would be acurate to say that while his Catholisicm shaped his veiw of the World (inevitably), Tolkien had no specific overriding message or meaning in mind when he wrote LOTR.

He was a strong Christian (The Silmarillian is basically Genesis), and while he denied writing his christianity into LOTR, most scholars would agree that he did anyways, even if it was subconscious. And yes, Tolkien actually introduced C. S. Lewis to christanity, but even Tolkien told Lewis that Narnia was just a smidge too obvious.

Oh, indeed. Those are just always the things I hear criticized about Tolkien, so it's startling to find someone who likes those but still dislikes the whole.

(Also, I'm rather proud of how not-defensive I'm being about this, given that my actual first name is in High Elvish and my brother is named after a hobbit. LOTR was kinda like the Bible in my family. :tongue: )
Holy shit! :eek2: Wow. That's hardcore. :D

I have to disagree on the "Silmarillion = Genesis" bit - certainly the Ainulindalë and the Valaquenta more or less correspond to the same role that Genesis plays in the Bible, but the whole Quenta Silmarillion and Akallabêth don't really correspond to Genesis at all. The Silmarillion is the whole big thing Tolkien was writing pretty much all his life, whereas the Hobbit was (originally) mostly disconnected from the Silmarillion, and got back-inserted into it when he wrote LOTR as a sort of sequel to the Silmarillion. Rather than Genesis, the Silmarillion is probably better equated to the Old Testament.

While Tolkien famously avoided allegory (much unlike C.S. Lewis, whose works are so allegorical that to a non-Christian they're nigh unreadable), I think it's fair to say that Christian themes crept in there nonetheless; things like nobility, and self-sacrifice, and the nature of good and evil have a very Christian treatment.

(Also, I'm rather proud of how not-defensive I'm being about this, given that my actual first name is in High Elvish and my brother is named after a hobbit. LOTR was kinda like the Bible in my family. :tongue: )

... As someone who will probably perpetrate Elvish names upon my offspring should I ever spawn, I heartily approve of this.

Orlando Furioso sounds exciting, though. I'll have to give that a look.
It's just mad. Total madness. :D For instance, one of the big characters is this Saracen knight who's this mighty warrior and this amazingly noble and chivalrous person with this legendary reputation, and the first we see of him is in the opening section, which starts with the Christian forces getting their asses WHUPPED by the Saracens and retreating in chaos, and everybody's running all over in disarray -- and this Saracen warrior is splashing around in a stream with a stick and cursing and muttering because he had stopped to get a drink of water, but forgot to take off his shiny beautiful war-helm, and when he bent down, it fell into the stream and now he can't find it. While he's doing that, the princess everyone's in love with goes riding by (because she's damned if she's going to hang around a battlefeild in such confusion and wait to get raped by someone), and he's like, "Hey, it's that girl!" and he decides to go after her. So he jumps on his horse, but hers is faster, so he soon loses her in the woods, and he figures, "Ah, fuck it," and he goes back to the stream to keep fishing for his helmet. This is one of our heroes. Tolkien could have learned something from this story. ;)

Ok. More high fantasy from the Dark Ages, Middle Ages and Renaissance - Le Morte d'Arthur by Spenser, the Song of Roland (12th century, much earlier than Orlando, but the story on which Orlando was based) and Beowulf.

There's also a beautiful little book by Poul Anderson, called Three Hearts and Three Lions about a medieval hero named Holger the Dane (Ogier du Danske) who's mentioned in conjunction with Arthur, Charlemagne and Roland.
All very good stories. Not comedy-adventures, but still.

Holy shit! :eek2: Wow. That's hardcore. :D

Yup. My mother was a wee bit obsessed. ;)

Basically, when you grow up with an Elvish name and parents that quote Tolkien at every possible opportunity, you have two choices - (1) hate your family's inescapable geekitude, become bitter and resentful, and change your name the moment you turn 18 or (2) embrace the geekitude, and develop a extensive knowledge of and devotion to the imaginary universe from whence you were named. I went with the second option, and now speak a smattering of every language of Middle Earth, know LOTR backwards, forwards, and upside-down, and am idly working on a project in my spare time to create real-life versions of every food mentioned in Tolkien's works. (My lembas are delicious, by the way, and conform as closely to the literary versions as any non-magical food could. I am quite proud of them.) :tongue:

Well, I've got a ton of good books about the Soviet Union, but unless Andaras happens to stop by the thread I doubt I'd have a listener.

... As someone who will probably perpetrate Elvish names upon my offspring should I ever spawn, I heartily approve of this.

Hehe. I rather suspect my first daughter, should I have one, is going to end up with an Elvish middle name derived from my own first name.

Also, a tip - don't name your future daughter Galadriel. My parents considered it for me, and I am thoroughly glad they rejected it. It's a nice name and all, but how do you shorten it for a nickname? Gal-gal? Driel? Laddie? :tongue:

Andaras remains delete-on-sight, and I think he's given up trying to sneak under our radar now. Your books would probably be heretic nonsense to him in any case.

Given the discussion of Tolkien's Christianity, I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, which is ... sorta Christian, at least if you're a Gnostic. It certainly deals with Christianity as a theme!

Um ... damnit, you have a point. You have thrust it through my heart, and now I must die! :P I'm not really fond of nicknames or shortening names, probably because my own real name shortens horribly. And is fairly clunky and un-euphonious as a whole. I note that Galadriel's original name was Artanis, which is pretty enough, but her nickname was Nerwen, which is awful. So what do you suggest, then?

Yup. My mother was a wee bit obsessed. ;)

Basically, when you grow up with an Elvish name and parents that quote Tolkien at every possible opportunity, you have two choices - (1) hate your family's inescapable geekitude, become bitter and resentful, and change your name the moment you turn 18 or (2) embrace the geekitude, and develop a extensive knowledge of and devotion to the imaginary universe from whence you were named. I went with the second option, and now speak a smattering of every language of Middle Earth, know LOTR backwards, forwards, and upside-down, and am idly working on a project in my spare time to create real-life versions of every food mentioned in Tolkien's works. (My lembas are delicious, by the way, and conform as closely to the literary versions as any non-magical food could. I am quite proud of them.) :tongue:
Egad. :D

I can understand that level of geekitude. I just finished nearly 150 pages of notes answering an exhaustively comprehensive "world building" questionnaire as part of creating a fictional reality for a story I'd like to write, maybe next year -- everything from how magic works to how often the garbage gets picked up. Really, everything. It took over three weeks. And I'm still doing the visual designs for costumes and buildings, etc.

And I'm wasting time on NSG now instead of answering some of the same questions for another story I'm trying to write right now. Hopefully it will come out to fewer pages, because that story is set in the real world so I don't have to invent a calendar or political factions or a garbage hauling schedule. I just have to work out the functional differences between a shamanist magic system and a Lovecraft-style ceremonial magic system and how they'd both fit into the real world of now.

Obsessiveness is fun! :D

Let me guess, that's the Patricia Wrede questionnaire? It's a good place to start from, but I don't think you need to answer every bit of it.

Let me guess, that's the Patricia Wrede questionnaire? It's a good place to start from, but I don't think you need to answer every bit of it.
Oh, NOW you tell me. :tongue:

I know that, but as I mentioned, I'm obsessive. Once I started, I couldn't stop. In any event, I like having all that info for the future, just in case. At least I'll never have to do it again.

EDIT: Hey, at least I'm not cooking lembas. :p

Um ... damnit, you have a point. You have thrust it through my heart, and now I must die! :P I'm not really fond of nicknames or shortening names, probably because my own real name shortens horribly. And is fairly clunky and un-euphonious as a whole. I note that Galadriel's original name was Artanis, which is pretty enough, but her nickname was Nerwen, which is awful. So what do you suggest, then?

Heh. I think most of the best names are in the Silmarillion, actually. And, of course, there's Luthien, which is rather obvious but still pretty. (Plus, you can always go the obscenely geeky route and learn enough Quenya and/or Sindarin to be able to create your own names from root words!)

I wish Eowyn was a more practical name, since, really, can you imagine a more kickass namesake? I don't care if her most famous scene is a total ripoff of Macbeth; it's still awesome. :D

EDIT: Hey, at least I'm not cooking lembas. :p

They're tasty, dammit! :p



Also nutritious, filling, quite dense, a bit unusually-flavored, with a sweet, faintly floral scent, scored diagonally, and served neatly folded inside lettuce leaves because I am just that much of a perfectionist. Shut up.

Heh. I think most of the best names are in the Silmarillion, actually. And, of course, there's Luthien, which is rather obvious but still pretty. (Plus, you can always go the obscenely geeky route and learn enough Quenya and/or Sindarin to be able to create your own names from root words!)

I wish Eowyn was a more practical name, since, really, can you imagine a more kickass namesake? I don't care if her most famous scene is a total ripoff of Macbeth; it's still awesome. :D

The wonderful thing about the Internet is that other people can be obscenely geeky for you. See this (http://www.elvish.org/elm/names.html) for evidence. And yeah, Eówyn is a beautiful name. Plus Eówyn is probably my favourite character in the books and the movies.

Regarding the Macbeth ripoff, I read somewhere (can't recall where, alas) that Eówyn is Tolkien's rebuttal of Macbeth; instead of Duncan killing Macbeth through a legalistic loophole, we have the Witch-King killed by a woman. If Theoden had sliced off the Witch-King's head by virtue of being born by caesarian section, that would be a ripoff. And sucky.

Likewise, instead of the soldiers chopping up bits of Birnam Wood as camouflage, we have the Huorns of Fangorn actually walking about and kicking ass, which is much cooler.

The wonderful thing about the Internet is that other people can be obscenely geeky for you. See this (http://www.elvish.org/elm/names.html) for evidence. And yeah, Eówyn is a beautiful name. Plus Eówyn is probably my favourite character in the books and the movies.

Regarding the Macbeth ripoff, I read somewhere (can't recall where, alas) that Eówyn is Tolkien's rebuttal of Macbeth; instead of Duncan killing Macbeth through a legalistic loophole, we have the Witch-King killed by a woman. If Theoden had sliced off the Witch-King's head by virtue of being born by caesarian section, that would be a ripoff. And sucky.

Likewise, instead of the soldiers chopping up bits of Birnam Wood as camouflage, we have the Huorns of Fangorn actually walking about and kicking ass, which is much cooler.

Hehe, indeed. Tolkien's versions are decidedly more awesome. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love Macbeth, but soldiers carrying branches < insane feral trees eating bad guys alive.

(And I think Eowyn is pretty much every female reader's favorite character, especially among those of us who read about her when we were six or so and immediately started begging our parents for swords and shields of our own.... :wink: )

(And I think Eowyn is pretty much every female reader's favorite character, especially among those of us who read about her when we were six or so and immediately started begging our parents for swords and shields of our own.... :wink: )

That makes sense ... but have I been mistaken for female again? I don't know why this keeps happening to me on the Internet.

Well the idea of the divine right of kings is a Christian Medieval one as is the concept of a ladder or scale, with certain beings and social classes inherently superior to others, is it not? Though a lot of the creatures and names are pagan in origin. It would seem that to some extent LOTR is Christian morality in a pagan setting.

Yeah they was no such thing as rulers having some form of divine right before Christianity or places where Christianity wasn't a major religion.

And frankly why does it really matter if it has some Christian morality or similarities in it? If a underlying theme in a book said treat those others as you would like to be treated would it matter, even if the author got the idea from his or hers Christian upbringing?

It is just a story people!

They're tasty, dammit! :p



Also nutritious, filling, quite dense, a bit unusually-flavored, with a sweet, faintly floral scent, scored diagonally, and served neatly folded inside lettuce leaves because I am just that much of a perfectionist. Shut up.

(Hey, has the multi-quote button disappeared, or is it just me?)

Would you be willing to give out the recipe? Also, how well does it keep?

Hehe, indeed. Tolkien's versions are decidedly more awesome. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love Macbeth, but soldiers carrying branches < insane feral trees eating bad guys alive.

(And I think Eowyn is pretty much every female reader's favorite character, especially among those of us who read about her when we were six or so and immediately started begging our parents for swords and shields of our own.... :wink: )
Yeah, except, of course, that the insane feral trees eating bad guys alive is basically just a monster effect, whereas the army using the trees for camoflage to approach the castle is a clever plot development that shows how fate plays out inexorably and inescapably, showing to Macbeth that his doom is sealed. Remember, Macbeth laughed off the prophecy about the woods coming to the castle because he was imagining insane feral trees marching up to his doorstep and he knew there was no such thing as a walking tree. With his short-sighted egotism, he forgot that the world isn't magical and what trees can't do, soldiers can. He was so busy defying witches and ghosts, that he forgot to be afraid of all the regular enemies that were surrounding him.

When Macbeth looks out and sees those bushes shuffling towards his castle, it is an extremely personal and internalized moment of realizing his mistake and knowing there is no way out for him now. The impact of that is not lessened by the fact that there's no magic or monsters involved.

While the walking trees make for a good monster and an exciting action scene, they do not make for a better story.

(Hey, has the multi-quote button disappeared, or is it just me?)
Yeah, it's gone, and that's annoying.

Would you be willing to give out the recipe? Also, how well does it keep?
She seems secretive. :tongue: But I found these:

http://greenbooks.theonering.net/moonletters/recipes/files/r060102_01.html
http://greenbooks.theonering.net/moonletters/recipes/files/053005_01.html
http://www.tolkiensociety.org/ed/recipes.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/food/20020919middleearth0919fnp3.asp

That makes sense ... but have I been mistaken for female again? I don't know why this keeps happening to me on the Internet.

I think I vaguely assumed it since you're representing yourself with a female whatever-the-hell-Zimmy-is-supposed-to-be. :)

She seems secretive. :tongue: But I found these:

http://greenbooks.theonering.net/moonletters/recipes/files/r060102_01.html
http://greenbooks.theonering.net/moonletters/recipes/files/053005_01.html
http://www.tolkiensociety.org/ed/recipes.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/food/20020919middleearth0919fnp3.asp

Ha. I actually wouldn't mind giving out my lembas recipe, but I'm not sure where it is at the moment and am too lazy to spend my Saturday hunting it down. That first recipe is not dissimilar, though - I also use honey, oranges, and almonds in mine. Great minds think alike, I guess. :)

Ha. I actually wouldn't mind giving out my lembas recipe, but I'm not sure where it is at the moment and am too lazy to spend my Saturday hunting it down. That first recipe is not dissimilar, though - I also use honey, oranges, and almonds in mine. Great minds think alike, I guess. :)

I'll keep it in mind to try sometime. How well does it keep?

I would certainly recommend The Historian, by Elizabeth Kostova. Very, very good book.

Yeah they was no such thing as rulers having some form of divine right before Christianity or places where Christianity wasn't a major religion.

And frankly why does it really matter if it has some Christian morality or similarities in it? If a underlying theme in a book said treat those others as you would like to be treated would it matter, even if the author got the idea from his or hers Christian upbringing?

It is just a story people!

Yes, I am aware that other cultures had similar beleifs. Yes, Christianity used ideas in other faiths. In fact, you'd probably be hard pressed to find a "Christian" idea which didn't apear somewhere else before. Same goes for pleanty of other religions as well. Doesn't mean LOTR isn't Christian in its themes and worldview. It just means Christianity has a lot in common with other sets of beleifs.

Yes, I am aware that other cultures had similar beleifs. Yes, Christianity used ideas in other faiths. In fact, you'd probably be hard pressed to find a "Christian" idea which didn't apear somewhere else before. Same goes for pleanty of other religions as well. Doesn't mean LOTR isn't Christian in its themes and worldview. It just means Christianity has a lot in common with other sets of beleifs.

Apart from the first sentence which was to show that the "divine right of kings" concept was not purely Christian as your previous post suggested.

My point was why does it matter if it has Christian themes in it or not, it is after all just a story.

I was pleasantly surprised by "High Fidelity". I found it "tunefully" illuminating to the human condition. Though a little nihilistic, I guess.

Controversy time! Yay!

The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul is a very worthwhile read if you want a better understanding of basic libertarian philosophy. Many of the anarchists on this forum will object because he doesn't advocate the abolition of all government, and the socialists hate him because he does seek to drastically decentralize government and place power close to the people through the lowest level of government possible. Anything by Murray N. Rothbard is also worth a look.

In the fantasy/mythology genre, I enjoyed Stephen R. Lawhead's retelling of the Arthur legend in the five books of The Pendragon Cycle

I would certainly recommend The Historian, by Elizabeth Kostova. Very, very good book.

I tried to read it, I just couldn't get into it.