(urth) Round 2 of NPR top 100 sci-fi books of all time

[Craig Brewer]

The Malazan books hit their stride for me around the end of the second book. And the third book was simply amazing. I kept at them because of some friends who swore by them, but I had the same reaction. I was a bit bored and bemused by the first book, and the second book seemed uneven and even just intentionally repulsive at points. And I know it sounds odd that if you just wait 2000 pages, it gets really good, but...it does. I never would have kept reading, though, if it hadn't been for other people pushing me (and for just wanting to know what they kept talking about). I actually think that Erikson's friend Ian Esselmont is a better writer, but his take on their world is decidedly less epic and much more personal...which is probably what that huge story needs.



________________________________
From: Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: (urth) Round 2 of NPR top 100 sci-fi books of all time

See, I've tried to read the Malazan books multiple times and just can't get into them. And I listened to Anathem as an audiobook, which may have helped. Stephenson's use of philosophy was surface-level at best, and I won't comment on the math, but it really "stuck with me" and had me thinking about universality and Platonism long after I finished. 

Really, in terms of pure prose, no one can hold a candle to Wolfe, LeGuin, Zelazny or Lieber (were the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser books on there?), but newcomers like Scott Lynch always get me excited to read their stuff. I think he and Jim Butcher display the greatest amount of potential among the new guard, so we will see how they develop. 

I also left off a lot of authors I enjoy but whom I haven't read enough of, like Delaney and Vinge. I need to fix it, but the time!

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:26 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> --- On Wed, 8/3/11, Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: (urth) Round 2 of NPR top 100 sci-fi books of all time
>> To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
>> Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2011, 7:09 PM
>> I went with
>> 
>> 1. Book of the New Sun
>> 2. Gentleman Bastards (Lies of Locke Lamora)
>> 3. Prince of Nothing
>> 4. Song of Ice and Fire
>> 5. Chronicles of Amber
>> 6. Conan
>> 7. Black Company
>> 8. Elric
>> 9. The Left Hand of Darkness
>> 10. Anathem
> 
> You know, I liked a lot of these but inexplicably I absolutely hated Anathem, i honestly thought it was one of the worst books I ever read, and I liked Snow Crash, Diamond Age, and Cryptonomicon. I was variously bored, apathetic, and just bothered by it.  Can anyone explain why it was so popular?  I don't find Stephenson a lyrical or memorable prose writer, I don't find his characters fleshed out in that one, I don't think a lot of the philosophy was applied correctly, mathetmatically or otherwise, and it was kind of a boring surface story.  did I miss something?  
> 
> I don't remember the order but I put New Sun, Amber, song of ice and fire, bridge of birds, elric (but I really think some of Moorcock's other stuff is better), Norstrilia,  more than human, malazan, martian chronicles, and lord of light (because its better than Amber but not as likely to win anything).  Could easily have chosen a lot of other stuff, too.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110803/f12529f0/attachment-0004.htm>