aweonao
To discuss your weekly readings of books, textbooks and papers.
I'm reading "Petersburg" as part of our book club, but because it's a one chapter per week basis I started "Brothers Karamazov" this week as I never read it before and I recently got a wonderful edition by Editora 34 (the only Dostoevsky book I had read was C&P).
So far I wonder if terrible fathers are just a recurrent theme on Dostoevsky's works.
@Aevann can you
pls
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I realized the other day that I haven't a fiction book for entertainment in a very long time.
All of my reading is non fiction and most of it is work related. The past three books I've tackled are computer networking related and thick enough to beat off a hobo with
Is pure non fiction, like, bad for your creativity or something?
Part of me wants to give a good fantasy novel a try but as we well know many fantasy authors just aren't good writers. A lot of these books have bad beginnings where the author will just jump into something without setting things up or giving the reader a reason to care. A long scene about a witch fleeing from the townspeople. A long scene about a hero's life as a street sweeper before the magic sword found him. A military officer listing off everything his fantasy army ever did in its history.
And no characterization to make me empathize yet. No reason to make me sit through an entire chapter of "Hailed at the battle of Szchiyn, where Orc King Assffgjklllj was felled"
Then you open up a thriller novel or something and the first line is, "That b-word did it, I'm certain"
Why are fantasy authors so BORING!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not sure if it is bad, but at least for me fiction is good for entertainment and occasionally getting fresh ideas.
Most modern genre writers are terrible, this isn't exclusive to fantasy authors. Sounds like you want something more character driven then?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I thought I was a pure neurodivergent who could appreciate lore and details above all else.
And I do like that stuff
But a setting and an author need to grab me I guess. I can't help but notice so many of these authors are bad at beginnings.
I think having something be character driven is almost always a good way to start it out, since well developed characters can draw anyone into any setting. Then, once your audience genuinely cares about your hero or whoever, you can introduce whatever lore driven fantasy you want, and the audience will sit through it because you already have their attention. You shouldn't reverse that order in my opinion.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I liked The First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie. It's follows a torturer and a warrior, and well it's a fun story. It mainly sticks to dialogue and moving the story along, and I like the British author's sense of humor.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Because they are writing for fantasy readers.
!bookworms
More charitably, the genre has the advantage that authors can presume the reader's trust. The book (if traditionally published) has made it through agents, publishers, and editors. It's vetted. There's an implicit promise that whatever choices the author makes with the beginning will be justified in the end, even if it takes a while to get all the pieces on the table.
"Why should I care?" Because this is a good, trusted storyteller who chose to begin a story this way. Maybe the worldbuilding, history, scene setting, random character POVs, the protagonist's childhood, etc. will make the reader more engaged in the long run. Fantasy readers seem willing to take this chance based on the legacy of stuff like LOTR.
Of course that's often abused by genuinely poor writers and their undiscerning readers. But in the sweep of history, lots of great literature takes a long time to really begin. I don't think Les Miserables or The Odyssey needed to start with "That b-word did it," particularly because they're epics that demand significant scene-setting. Historically, there was a greater trust in authors to deliver something good, and this allowed more good works to be written.
"The book must literally grab these ADHD r-slurs by the balls on sentence 1 and never let go!" is good risk adverse advice for appealing to a broad audience, but that's not necessarily the same as good writing. The more readers trust writers, the more artistically interesting cowtools writers will be able to use. But if readers get too trusting, authors might waste their time, or (in Neil Gaiman's case) r*pe them.
!writecel
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So the modern writers are just trying to be what they perceive the classics to have been like.
But they aren't classic writers. They are shitty modern writers.
Hmm
I suppose in the context of modern books written by new writers who are trying to prove themselves, their careers hardly vetted by the test of time, this sounds like what sequels are for. Of course I'm not going to trust them ahead of time
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
book of the new sun mogs all other fantasy if you haven't read that, just totally embarrasses the entire genre.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Have you read any of Wolfe's other stuff, and if so how does it compare?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
5th head of cerberus was okay, and I think that's all I've read
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Read Ted Chiang. 72 letters is a good start.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
no way
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context