Read a good book lately?

[Greg]

We had fun with this on the ol' Baloo, so...

Read a good book lately?

I just finished THE FORTRESS OF GLASS by David Hadless. Er, rather, that would be David Drake. It's another in his King of the Isles series, so I was hoping he'd spark some life into a series of tales that have tended to become very repititious of late.

To put it charitably, I'd say my impression of THE FORTRESS OF GLASS was that it was yet another a tedious potboiler.

[Miros1]

The Harlequin by Laurell K. Hamilton. Less smut, more plot development than her other recent Anita Blake books. Yes, a series can be pulled out of a rut!

[Greg]

That's the first I've heard of Laurell K. Hamilton. What kind of books does she write?

[Miros1]

Her very first book was a fantasy called Night Seer. The series she's known for are Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter and the Meredith Gentry Novels. I think she was a writer on the TSR line of D&D novels for a while as well.

The Anita Blake series is about a woman necromancer and vampire executioner in a modern US populated by humans, vampires, lycanthropes, and the odd fey. The last several books have been close to pornographic, to the point where fans have been complaining "more staking, less screwing." This one still has quite a bit of sex, but there's a lot of plot and character development happening!

The Meredith Gentry Novels are set in a slightly different world and focus on the fay. They were soft core pornographic from the get-go, but at least have the excuse that the main character, Merry Gentry, is trying to get pregnant in order to become queen. At this point, it's a forgone conclusion that she will become queen; it's just a matter of how many books the author can drag it out through. Since the last two books have taken 400 pages to get through 5 hours time (each), I don't really want to make any estimates.

[Greg]

*blink*

It sounds like Laurell K. Hamilton has a writing style that includes quite a bit about the sex lives of her characters. The part I don't understand is why readers would complain about it. I'd think that if they don't like it, they'd simply buy someone else's books.

[Miros1]

What the fans are complaining about is that the Anita Blake series didn't start that way. Even when Anita became involved with two of the male characters, the sexual aspects were still not graphically depicted and not the majority of the pages of the book. Due to a metaphysical plot development several books ago, the sexual content escalated until there was one book that was almost nothing but graphic sex. That particular book, I was to the point where I was thinking, "Put your pants back on and go do something else!" By the way, my friend, Tori, did quit reading when things got graphic.

In the earlier books, Laurell was known for what she herself describes as "no-sex sex." The first Merry Gentry book contains a scene which contains nothing that would be described as sexual contact -- but that scene curled my toes!

BTW, Nightseer was your basic conventional fantasy novel. Adequate, but nothing special...

[Miros1]

Next book topic: Jim Butcher's White Night, a Harry Dresden book.

Let's not discuss the glaring metaphysical errors in the SF Channel's version...

[homerette]

I need to get my sister on here. She reads Laurell K Hamilton and Jim Butcher, among many others of course. She loved to point out the mistakes while watching the Dresden Files.

[Greg]

I've enjoyed the Dresden Files television show. Would reading the Harry Dresden spoil that? There's one on my night stand at this very moment but I haven't read it yet.

[Miros1]

Hm, good question. My husband watches it and picks nits right and left, but he enjoys that! I watched it once and couldn't deal with the inconsistencies.

Since the tv show was apparently written from a list of characters and props without reading any of the books, I guess you could mentally compartmentalize them as two entirely different works and enjoy both.

[homerette]

My sister loves to pick nits as well and I just watch the show. I have yet to pick up a single book myself.

The only books I seem to read are the Uncle John's Bathroom Reader series, and no, not in the bathroom! They're full of usless and useful trivia, history and a host of other things.

[Miros1]

Hubby recommends not reading the books if you're enjoying the series...

[Greg]

There might be wisdom in that! For me, it's usually the other way around; I read the book first and then hate the movie.

On the other hand, the movies are usually abysmal regardless of their titles. Dune comes to mind. Starship Troopers would have been OK if it hadn't been a rip-off of Heinlein's novel.

I think the Dresden Files television series is pretty well done by itself, which makes it an exception.

[Miros1]

Well, I suppose the show is internally consistent, but it's not consistent with the books.... Like I said, they got the list of character names and Harry's magical toys, and never read the books!

After the show finally goes to the big Rerun in the Sky, you can read the books and we'll pick it to bits!

[shorty943]

Originally Posted by Greg

There might be wisdom in that! For me, it's usually the other way around; I read the book first and then hate the movie.

On the other hand, the movies are usually abysmal regardless of their titles. Dune comes to mind. Starship Troopers would have been OK if it hadn't been a rip-off of Heinlein's novel.

I think the Dresden Files television series is pretty well done by itself, which makes it an exception.

I feel the same way. Read the book, the movie is just plain wrong.
Never bothered with the movie Dune, the books where great.
Starship Troopers, I saw the movie first, but, Heinlein is a damned good tale spinner.
Another absolute mess Hollyweird made was with I Robot.
Asimov would be my favourite author. The Federation series was awesome.
And what a mountain of pure science, that man produced as well, in his spare time.

In general, these days, I am a bit like Homerette. Doesn't seem to be time enough for me to pick up a book these days. So I flick through, peruse a chapter or two, and if it doesn't get me in pretty well straight away, it has lost me. Ah, the good old Readers Digest, condensed novels. God bless their little cotton socks.

[Miros1]

Do not refer to that abomination as I, Robot! Its proper name is I, Will Smith, and will be refered to as such from this day forth, or Angelita will send imaginary goons to break your kneecaps. The Good Doctor had to be spinning in his grave. I'm sure Harlan Ellison was frothing at the mouth, since he wrote a wonderful script years ago that was rejected.

Yes, I boycotted that thing and threatened my husband with bodily harm if he even got it from Blockbuster as an employee-benefit-free-movie!

[Greg]

Hmmm... I, Will Smith... given that name, it's not such a bad flick!

B'b'but... if you've never seen it, how would you know how bad it was?

[Miros1]

I saw the trailer. When the car chase and the explosion happened, I knew it wasn't I, Robot! Since it was clearly false advertising, I knew I should vote with my money and not pay for drek.

You were even listening on the MOO Commons channel when I stated that it was likely to be drek and that I wasn't going to see it!

I hope enough other people did the same and I, Robot 2 will never happen. Or that Janet and Robin Asimov had moments of clarity and refused to sell the rights again.

I hope you at least waited until the Monday after release to go see it, or I won't respect you in the morning.

[Greg]

I think I watched it on television. Might have been a DVD. The basic plot line was a robot who becomes increasingly human and is finally declared to be human on the day he dies.

[Miros1]

Um, no, that's Bicentenial Man, another Asimov story. I think Robin Williams was in it.