Books, books, books...

[JonCole]

Finished Mass Effect: Retribution a couple days ago... pretty good game-related book, expands on the fiction pretty well and tells a bit more about Cerberus and the Reapers. A little hard to follow initially if you haven't read the earlier books, though I imagine it's still good either way.

[elmuerte]

Suh-weet. Any you recommend in particular?

Starship Troopers is a must read. But it's not really that marooned stuff you were looking form.

[Grufff]

Does anybody know of any books that any kind of information on the Nazi's fascination with the supernatural, particularly Die Glocke (or "The Bell") it's pretty interesting stuff.

Fiction or fact will do...

EDIT:

The 2009 version of Wolfenstein may be a good place to start actually.

Try: Bitter Seeds

It's a fiction book and it's not exactly what you were after but you might still be interested. I picked a copy up a while back but still haven't got round to reading it. I've seen generally good reviews of it.

[Chris]

I recently finished The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, the third of Stieg Larsson's three crime thrillers. I enjoyed them; the plotting was really sharp and compelling. The prose was nothing to write home about, though; it's just straight up popular fiction. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but considering how much time I spend with really average or sub-average fiction in video games, generally I like the books I read to be more interesting from a literary standpoint.

I'm now in the middle of No Country for Old Men, which Steve loaned me months ago but I hadn't gotten around to reading, and the level of artistry and craftsmanship is just sky-high by comparison. I'd only read one other Cormac McCarthy book prior to this. I did like that one quite a bit, but I'm enjoying this one WAY more and it makes me want to seek out more by him.

[Thyroid]

I'm almost done with Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment. I really like it; never tried anything similar before.

Today I received a batch of books as a present, put them on the shelf, and realized something: I may actually have 100 books I haven't read yet. It's not my fault, not really: people just keep giving me used books! So, I promised myself I wouldn't buy another one (unless it was really rare and was going for exceptionally cheap) until I'd read every single one. Going to be an endeavour of one or two years. I've got everything from Dickens to China Mieville to tackle, but I'm pretty stoked. Nothing like a good book.

The prose was nothing to write home about, though; it's just straight up popular fiction.

It's translated, so you can't really fault the author. I read Naguib Mahfouz's The Thief and the Dogs in Arabic, and then again in English. It was an interesting experience. The tone of it is there, but so much of the beauty - the way he used puns or clever Arabic wordplay - flies away in the translation. My Russian friend says the same thing about Dr. Zhivago. My point is that it's a little bit weird to highlight a writer's prose as being of a certain something when it's translated.

[miffy495]

I have another weird request (edited to remove the 4am-ism from the post).

Anyone know any science-fiction where a bunch of explorers descend on a planet or something? Or are trapped in an impossible situation and need to survive?

Anything with astronauts descending to meet some hungry horror, basically, or working together to survive.

As I said really early on in this thread, one of my favorite books is Rendevous With Rama by Arthur C. Clarke. It's about a group of astronauts working to explore a hollowed out asteroid which springs to life as an alien terrarium. Really interesting, and seems sort of like what you're looking for. No real horror waiting in the darkness or anything though.

I've finally gotten around to reading Leonard Cohen's Beautiful Losers. I'm about a third of the way through it now. It's really good, but also really challenging. It jumps back and forth from a regular narrative to poetry at a moment's notice and can get kind of hard to follow at times, but so far it's been really worth paying attention to. There was one chapter that had every single word capitalized and was read like a prayer, one that was only about 50 words long, and one that was a three page long stream-of-consciousness sentence full of sexual screaming and remorse. It's only about 250 pages, but I can see it taking me a while to get through. Very good read though, and recommended. Particularly for those of you who may already be Cohen fans (I booked a trip to California summer of '09 just for the chance to see him live, so I fall into that camp pretty hard).

[Chris]

It's translated, so you can't really fault the author. I read Naguib Mahfouz's The Thief and the Dogs in Arabic, and then again in English. It was an interesting experience. The tone of it is there, but so much of the beauty - the way he used puns or clever Arabic wordplay - flies away in the translation. My Russian friend says the same thing about Dr. Zhivago. My point is that it's a little bit weird to highlight a writer's prose as being of a certain something when it's translated.

Unless the translator is for some reason particularly poor, I disagree. I don't doubt that there are subtleties I might be missing, but based on the non-subtle aspects, I'd be surprised if there were lots of missing depth beyond little cultural references and things like that.

I've read four books by Umberto Eco in the last year, translated from Italian, and they're some of the most mindblowing experiences I've ever had with fiction. I've also read a few books by Haruki Murakami, translated from Japanese, and his style is extraordinarily distinctive.

Larsson has that very common style of writing his books as if they were screenplays. You can practically see the camera push up into the character's face as they let loose the zinger and then the scene cuts sharply. It's just a very, very conventional style. He also relies on a few particular character tricks--pretty much every single character in the books is either Good or Bad. The Good characters might do unsavory things, but they are always presented entirely sympathentically. Meanwhile, the Bad characters are constantly, without fail, ruefully referring to any woman they ever encounter as "bitch" or "whore" or "slut" or whatever. It gets to the point where you can pretty much identify every single aspect of a character as soon as he's engaged in one of a few key template actions.

Again I don't mean to imply these were bad books or I didn't enjoy them. They just obviously weren't written by any particular master of fiction. They were his first (and only) books, so who knows where he could have gone if he were alive. That said, his first books were a crime thriller trilogy. That seems to set a precedent for a career.

[Wrestlevania]

I'm just going to burst in here and add nothing of any real value, so feel free to skip it.

I met William Gibson on Wednesday! Went to a lecture by him at the local arts centre, where he read some of his new book to everyone and then candidly and openly answered a lot of question about his books and writing.

After that, he signed autographs and I got to chat with him for a few minutes about Inception ("I loved it! I thought it was one of the greatest films in the last 20 years") and the possibility of a Neuromancer film ever actually happening (sounds like it just might, at last).

Cheekily, I subsequently asked him when he was going to meet Christopher Nolan for a coffee then, to which he put his head in his hands and said, "If you know how to get hold of the man..!" Sounds like he's tried and had no luck.

But to be vaguely topical again, I've just started his new book, Zero History, and I'm really enjoying the refinement of his prose and sense of place.

[circadianwolf]

I am insanely jealous, Wrestlevania. Been a Gibson fan for a long time and working my way through Zero History right now.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I'm just going to burst in here and add nothing of any real value, so feel free to skip it.

I met William Gibson on Wednesday! Went to a lecture by him at the local arts centre, where he read some of his new book to everyone and then candidly and openly answered a lot of question about his books and writing.

After that, he signed autographs and I got to chat with him for a few minutes about Inception ("I loved it! I thought it was one of the greatest films in the last 20 years") and the possibility of a Neuromancer film ever actually happening (sounds like it just might, at last).

Cheekily, I subsequently asked him when he was going to meet Christopher Nolan for a coffee then, to which he put his head in his hands and said, "If you know how to get hold of the man..!" Sounds like he's tried and had no luck.

But to be vaguely topical again, I've just started his new book, Zero History, and I'm really enjoying the refinement of his prose and sense of place.

Whhhhaaaaaa That's amazing! I've read Neuromancer tons of times, I love that book! I even have that documentary he did: No Maps For These Territories. I've also read Virtual Light, Idoru, All Tomorrows Parties and Pattern Recognition... but only the latter is something I'd recommend, and even then, not if you know a lot about the technicalities of the internet.

For me, he's never reached the lofty heights of Neuromancer since then, but obviously I have holes in my reading list... What do other fans think? Is Neuromancer his best? Has he matched it since? (I did really enjoy Pattern Recognition, but I was frustrated that nobody ever did a WHOIS, lol.)

[Wrestlevania]

For me, he's never reached the lofty heights of Neuromancer since then, but obviously I have holes in my reading list... What do other fans think? Is Neuromancer his best? Has he matched it since? (I did really enjoy Pattern Recognition, but I was frustrated that nobody ever did a WHOIS, lol.)

Likewise. I think the only Gibsons I haven't read are Burning Chrome, Count Zero and Spook Country.

I liked Pattern Recognition a lot, too. It was interesting to hear him talk about how he's changed as a writer; how he now focusses more closely on crafting lives instead of people. "No-one in Neromancer had kids, or parents!"

His skill in place-making is noticeably better in PR, too. I didn't have that slightly frustrating alienation I experienced at times, whilst trying to understand the layout of some scenes, like I did with Neuromancer and some of his other earlier works. And I know very little of London either, so that didn't make any real difference either I think.

[circadianwolf]

I think Pattern Recognition is really, really good. Technical stuff aside, it's such a perfect encapsulation of post-9/11 disconnection (the whole "we have no future because our present is too volatile" business).

I haven't gotten around to reading the Bridge trilogy (Virtual Light, Idoru, All Tomorrow's Parties), though I own copies. Spook Country is okay; I'm regretting not rereading it before ZH, as I don't recall some of the relevant plot details, but on its own it's not particularly necessary.

[Orv]

I'll go ahead and throw Steve Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series out there again. Still loving it, after the fifth book (four to go.)

Also, in between I managed to catch up on my Conan some. I am both amused and appalled. The violence, yeah, alright, good stuff. The chauvinism? No likey. Ah well, 1930s, what do I expect.

[ThunderPeel2001]

It's really interesting to finally hear the thoughts of other Gibson fans. I can't say I was a huge fan of the Bridge Trilogy, in fact, it had many annoying things in it. The structure of all three books was the same, for example: Chapter one, be introduced to one character. Chapter two, be introduced to completely unrelated character. Alternate chapter focuses until these characters meet up two thirds of the way through and defeat a common problem.

There's some great moments and ideas, though, just not as many as Neuromancer. In that book, in my mind, he managed to cram so many interesting details and observations that made the world, and plot, come alive. Since then I know he's been hung up on creating "realistic" characters, but I just don't think that's his calling... In fact, apart from Cayse, I don't think he's ever done it - and even then I think he lost focus of her character towards the end. His desire to move in this direction, to me, is like Burroughs trying to write a period romance novel, and refusing to give up until he does.

According to Wikipedia he re-wrote the first two-thirds of Neuromancer 12 times... I bet he's not done that since (although I don't blame him -- I'm sure it was hell at the time).

All this talk has actually reminded me that the best thing he ever wrote, and the story most spiritually (and successfully) tied to Neuromancer was Burning Chrome. If you've not read this short story, you're really missing out. The tone feels just like the tone of NR; Very Beat and Chandler-esque, but also very lean.

Interesting that no-one has read the other Sprawl books. For me, although I've owned them at various points, I'm afraid of entering a lesser version of the world I enjoyed so much. (And I've always wondered if I was missing out.)

Anyone read The Difference Engine? I know Stirling prefers Neuromancer Gibson, too.

[juv3nal]

Interesting that no-one has read the other Sprawl books. For me, although I've owned them at various points, I'm afraid of entering a lesser version of the world I enjoyed so much. (And I've always wondered if I was missing out.)

I've read all the Gibson stuff (including Agrippa when it was put on the web) except for Zero History (waiting for paperback). The bridge stuff is likewise probably my least favorite. Of those, Virtual Light is the one I probably like the least.

I like the other sprawl stuff and Difference Engine, for whatever that's worth.

[Tanukitsune]

I just finished Poirot Investigates.... Poirot is vane egotistical bastard who I want to punch in the face!

Does Murder on The Orient Express get any better? Is Miss Marple a jerk too?

What really cheeses me off is the fact that he kinda keeps clues to himself, sure, he'll point them out, but he won't say why it's important until the end and he almost deliberately misleads the reader to think that the culprit is someone else...

I know I'm no genius, but in the ending everything seems a bit far fetched... Am I supposed to be able to solve the mystery or just marvel at Poirot flexing his brain cells like a guy flexes his muscles at the beach?

[Thyroid]

I just finished Poirot Investigates.... Poirot is vane egotistical bastard who I want to punch in the face!

Does Murder on The Orient Express get any better? Is Miss Marple a jerk too?

What really cheeses me off is the fact that he kinda keeps clues to himself, sure, he'll point them out, but he won't say why it's important until the end and he almost deliberately misleads the reader to think that the culprit is someone else...

I know I'm no genius, but in the ending everything seems a bit far fetched... Am I supposed to be able to solve the mystery or just marvel at Poirot flexing his brain cells like a guy flexes his muscles at the beach?

Here's what I wrote on Poirot Investigates so long ago: "Just bad. Plain old BAD. Some short stories that make no sense, that aren't any good, and that are just so goddam boring. Avoid."

You can get my opinions on other Christies from that list.

Orient Express is much better, by the way, but the whodunit crime novel has this tendency to point-out clues but not, you know, explain their significance. You see them, and so does Poirot; he makes the connections, whereas sometimes you don't. Christie occasionally has a mid-book revelation where Poirot explains all the clues thus far (used spectacularly in Roger Ackroyd), but can't make one or two elements fit.

Generally, she's a pretty good crime writer, a lousy any-other-thing writer, but she's pleasant to read and some of them are real page-turners.

And no, Miss Marple isn't as cocky, though she has very old-fashioned ideals that can sometimes annoy me (I remember Murder at the Vicarage having a "A women couldn't have done this; women aren't strong enough" moment that ticked me off).

[Squid Division]

Chris:

I presume the other McCarthy you read was The Road. If not, read that next. Otherwise, I'd suggest All the Pretty Horses or Blood Meridian. Blood Meridian is significantly tougher, but an amazingly gothic work. However, ATPH is REALLY good and gets downplayed a lot because of how deceptively straightforward it is.

[dibs]

I have another weird request (edited to remove the 4am-ism from the post).

Anyone know any science-fiction where a bunch of explorers descend on a planet or something? Or are trapped in an impossible situation and need to survive?

Anything with astronauts descending to meet some hungry horror, basically, or working together to survive.

Maybe Jem by Fredrick Pohl? Its about 3 teams from different ideologies colonising a planet. There are crab people.

[toblix]

After finishing House of Leaves, which I reviewed in my previous post, I gorged myself with The Walking Dead, which was fantastic. Then I consumed Jack Ketchum's The Lost in a couple of night, which is fast for me. It's so sweet when you're done with a book, and have to choose the next one to start reading. There are so many!

[Thyroid]

Maybe Jem by Fredrick Pohl? Its about 3 teams from different ideologies colonising a planet. There are crab people.

Product description: "The discovery of another habitable world might spell salvation to the three bitterly competing power blocs of the resource-starved 21st century; but when their representatives arrive on Jem, with its multiple intelligent species, they discover instead the perfect situation into which to export their rivalries."

This sounds pretty good. Thanks!

Then I consumed Jack Ketchum's The Lost in a couple of night, which is fast for me. It's so sweet when you're done with a book, and have to choose the next one to start reading. There are so many!

I like The Lost. I seem to remember it being my least favorite of the bunch of Ketchum books I've read, but I think it still has enough positives for me to recommend it to anyone looking for a fun, quick read, if one not exactly slathered with literary richness. I have Triage and The Girl Next Door; I think I should read those.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Kroms

[juv3nal]

I just finished Poirot Investigates.... Poirot is vane egotistical bastard who I want to punch in the face!

Does Murder on The Orient Express get any better? Is Miss Marple a jerk too?

What really cheeses me off is the fact that he kinda keeps clues to himself, sure, he'll point them out, but he won't say why it's important until the end and he almost deliberately misleads the reader to think that the culprit is someone else...

I know I'm no genius, but in the ending everything seems a bit far fetched... Am I supposed to be able to solve the mystery or just marvel at Poirot flexing his brain cells like a guy flexes his muscles at the beach?

I'm a pretty big Christie fan. It's worth noting that not all of the mysteries are intended to be "solve-able" by the reader, hence the notion of the the "fair play whodunnit" which, notably, the Christie mysteries, while they often adhere to the principle, do not ALWAYS do so.

[Rustymagus]

Does Murder on The Orient Express get any better? Is Miss Marple a jerk too?

What really cheeses me off is the fact that he kinda keeps clues to himself, sure, he'll point them out, but he won't say why it's important until the end and he almost deliberately misleads the reader to think that the culprit is someone else...

I know I'm no genius, but in the ending everything seems a bit far fetched... Am I supposed to be able to solve the mystery or just marvel at Poirot flexing his brain cells like a guy flexes his muscles at the beach?

The ending to Murder on The Orient Express pissed me off. Obviously, I won't spoil it, but it really felt like Poirot was pulling the entire solution out of his ass. Not only that, no resulotion comes from it. He explains who the murderer is, then it just ends, like it just cuts to black.

[Tanukitsune]

Hmmm... I think I'll just skip to Orient Express and then to Miss Marple.. it seems her stories are better and more "fair play"?

[Thyroid]

Not necessarily. Mysterious Affair at Styles and Murder of Roger Ackroyd were both Poirots with good endings; I'd even say the ending to Ackroyd was fantastic. I don't get why people here are expecting Poirot to explain the significance of everything you read about. That's the fun part: you can either ignore all clues together, suspect people and be surprised, or try and piece the clues together and come-up with your own theory. Poirot just happens to be doing the same, and may throw red herrings out on occasion.

That link from last page has my skim-of-the-surface opinions on most of the Christies I've read, and I can say that most of the Poirots are fair game. It's a shame you had to start with what is the absolute worst of the lot.