The only character that still seems fresh is Dany, and she's probably the reason I'll eventually finish reading the books.
This just goes to show there's no accounting for taste. Dany is by far the least interesting character to me, as her characterization is one of the least compelling and least consistent, while her narrative is the most dominated by deus ex machina.
IronSlayer and Kyrsimys argue fruitlessly about the nature of science fiction and various books' classifications
There is a fundamental flaw in your understanding of Suvin's definition that renders much of your discussion moot. It doesn't help that Swirski (assuming Kyrsimys has represented his position accurately) also misunderstands Suvin's definition.
As an example, is The Time Machine science fiction or fantasy? It is undeniably science fiction according to Suvin, despite Swirski's erroneous objections, because H.G. Wells' empirical framework differed from our own! (One would think this point would be painfully obvious, but alas.)
The "model reader" of The Time Machine would be a contemporary of H.G. Wells, who would not have the benefit of the 115 years of scientific endeavor we've experienced since the book was written. We know that scientific consensus agrees time travel of a sort resembling that in The Time Machine is "fantasy," but H.G. Wells certainly didn't know that. In 1895, the fantastic conceit that H. G. Wells asked his readers to accept as the foundation of his novel (this is known as "suspension of disbelief") was plausible for his time. He established a conceivable premise, then followed the logical implications of that premise in a world that was otherwise indistinguishable from that of his model readers. Ergo, science fiction.
Authors can also ask readers to suspend disbelief for a premise that is known to be impossible, and/or takes place in a setting that is clearly distinguishable from the model reader's universe. Such stories are known as fantasy. Note that fantasy authors still have the responsibility of following the logical implications of their premises and settings, and failure to do by any author of any genre is just the sign of a bad writer. (See J.K. Rowling, Stieg Larsson, Dan Brown, Dan Simmons, among countless others.)
The "model reader" of The Time Machine would be a contemporary of H.G. Wells, who would not have the benefit of the 115 years of scientific endeavor we've experienced since the book was written. We know that scientific consensus agrees time travel of a sort resembling that in The Time Machine is "fantasy," but H.G. Wells certainly didn't know that. In 1895, the fantastic conceit that H. G. Wells asked his readers to accept as the foundation of his novel (this is known as "suspension of disbelief") was plausible for his time. He established a conceivable premise, then followed the logical implications of that premise in a world that was otherwise indistinguishable from that of his model readers. Ergo, science fiction.
H.G. Wells did this when he wrote The War of the Worlds too, which I just read (and I recommend it). There was still a general belief that life on Mars could exist, due to what the public believed were "canals" on Mars. Wells wanted to use this belief to show that intelligent life could exist on Mars, possibly with intelligence and weaponry superior to that of the earth's inhabitants in 1898.
The "model reader" of The Time Machine would be a contemporary of H.G. Wells, who would not have the benefit of the 115 years of scientific endeavor we've experienced since the book was written.
Speaking of which, one novel that's often praised as one of the best pieces of sci-fi literature but which has always bothered me a lot due to its blatant physical inaccuracies is Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon, even taking into account it was written in 1865.
Even back then one should have understood that you can't simply shoot a projectile from a giant cannon at a significantly larger velocity than Earth's escape velocity (which is needed due to atmospheric drag) and expect people inside to not to be squashed to goo, or that you would be able to safely open a window in outer space for a few seconds, or that the projectile would somehow drag objects behind it in vacuum. This is probably also the original source of the misconception that in vacuum things that are in shadows are completely black (ie. completely disregarding that the vast majority of light reaching shadows is being reflected from other surfaces, eg. the ground, and that air as extremely minimal effect on this).
One could argue that the novel is intended to be humorous, not to be taken seriously, but I'm not so sure that's a good excuse.
Joined: 5/13/2009
Posts: 700
Location: suffern, ny
Warp, Then they turned it into the movie, From here to the moon was regarded as the first movie with a plot. Also, at the time, Anything seemed possible, In Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas, there is also some inaccurate science. Well, maybe accurate for the time, lets remember how long ago these books were written.
[19:16] <scrimpy> silly portuguese
[19:16] <scrimpy> it's like spanish, only less cool
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
I read a lot of non-fiction and could recommend a ton of books, but one I'd particularly want to recommend is Defeat: Why They Lost Iraq by Jonathan Steele. It's an extremely well-written, meticulously researched account of Iraq during the invasion and subsequent occupation and explains the complex internal sectarian politics and their historical context.
Basically, the book's central thesis is that the failure of the war wasn't just a matter of bad planning, but that Bush and Blair "were defeated from the day they decided to occupy the country". In the introduction, he writes "This book is not a narrative or chronology of the American and British occupation of Iraq. It is an explanation of why George W. Bush and Tony Blair lost their war, and were bound to do so." Aside from that, it also has a very good discussion of the neoconservative ideological basis for the invasion.
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
Pointless Boy wrote:
This just goes to show there's no accounting for taste. Dany is by far the least interesting character to me, as her characterization is one of the least compelling and least consistent, while her narrative is the most dominated by deus ex machina.
In retrospect, I may have just found her setting a refreshing change to Westeros. I was basically referring to the fact that many of the characters stories dragged throughout the middle of the book, whereas Danaerys' moved right along.
I feel that Martin should be allowed a little deus ex machina, considering the nature of the gods in the book. It seems they are not above using characters and the natural world and visions to get their way.
I have to say though, I have been reading some shitty fantasy novels and I really don't notice the divine intervention stuff in Martin's novels having come recently from these other books.
Some great recommendations in here. I have two to add, pretty sure they haven't been mentioned yet:
The Spy Who Came In From the Cold by John Le Carre
-Written with such a masterful command of the English language and such style you'll enjoy it even if grim spy novels aren't your thing. Just try a chapter or even a page. You'll keep reading just to see this man work magic with words. Seriously.
Farewell, My Lovely by Raymond Chandler
-To me, the epitome of hard-boiled, private-eye detective writing -- if that's your bag you'll love this. It's a classic of the genre and it's got all the staples, deadly dames and crooked cops and a complex mystery plot, etc etc. It's also done with a hell of a lot of panache. Check it out!
Thought I would add to the list here.
For fantasy, I enjoy anything by Brandon Sanderson. Might start with the Mistborn series.
For sci-fi, I liked John Scalzi's Old Man's War, and anything by Phillip K Dick. Probably my favorite in sci-fi are Isaac Asimov's robot stories.
I also enjoy Napoleanic War historical fiction. If you like ships, I recommend C.S. Forrester's Hornblower series, and Dudley Pope's Ramage series. If you like the army, I recommend Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series.
Cornwell also wrote the Warlord Trilogy, which tells the tale of King Arthur as though it actually occurred, although it can be somewhat dry. I am also reading Jack Whyte's Camulod chronicles, which is also about the Arthurian legend, but tells the story from a somewhat different timeline. It starts one or two generations before Arthur's birth, and is mainly from the perspective of a (former) Roman soldier. It tells a story that is very different from most Arthurian books, but has elements that could have morphed into the legend we know today.
Thinking about Arthur, another fantasy series I really enjoyed was Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionavar Tapestry, which is somewhat about King Arthur, but also similar to Narnia where the characters are pulled into another world (except the main characters are college-aged IIRC).
If you can tolerate adolescent fantasy (i.e., Harry Potter), the Nicholas Flamel series by Michael Scott was a good read.
Agatha Christie was mentioned, and anything with the Poirot character is a great read.
For the classics, two of my favorites are The Brother's Karamazov (did you like it Dromiceius?) as well as, The Picture of Dorian Gray.
Hmm someone mentioned manga. I would recommend Planetes and Pluto to sci-fi fans. Bokurano was good too. I don't know about any good fantasy manga (does Berserk count?). Jojo's Bizarre Adventure is a guilty favorite.
Sorry for the long post, I started thinking "nobody mentioned Brandon Sanderson" and it turned into this. Well, I hope there's a recommendation in here for someone.
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True
by Richard Dawkins
This book would have blown my mind when I was a kid. It might be a nice Christmas/birthday present to somebody you know.
Dafuq? 0_o
