Favourite Books?

Remove all ads!

What are your favourite books?
My are
Harry Potter books and most of the John Grisham books.

 

I don't and won't get Harry Potter!

Ahhh, John Grisham, I like him.

But my favorite are Lois McMaster Bujold's adventures of Miles Vorkosigan books. It's SF.

Anyway, lately I've read some books from James Redfield (I would say they're fantasy but...), and I strongly wish you read them:
The Celestine Prophecy
The Tenth Insight
The Secret of Shambala

 

I'm beginning to lose count about how many posts about favourite books there have been. It would probably be a better idea to take a look before posting, although I'll admit I've screwed up before too. Anyway that's just my opinion which you can all agree to or not, it doesn't really matter.

So back to the topic. My favouritest (Is that even a word?) books ever have to be David Eddings' Belgaried and Mallorean. I've read that series so many times I've had to buy a number of books again as they've started falling apart. For any tips on some more books have a look further down the board. There is a post down there about books to read.

 

Silmarillion!!!!!

 

My favourite fantasy books are: (besides Tolkien eh Headbanger ) Katherine Kerr's Devery Saga. She has developed a world that is almost as believable as the master himself. Her system of magic is really impressive, regardless where she borrowed it from.

 

The Wheel of Time

 

And the saga about Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon.

[Mollusken check this out: http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/faq.html#doubles BTA]

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited May 14, 2001).]

 

A book by a norwegian writer called Ingvar Ambjørnsen, brothers in blood (brødre i blodet) Really great book about a pretty nevrotic guy.
If this is available wherever you guys come from, read it....

 

Tolkien for the greatest epic ever written, Robert Jordan for the most complex. It is hard for me to pick between these two authors.

 

So many good books...
Anyway, I like:
J.R.R. Tolkein - I'm reading LotR just now and it's amazing
Tom Clancy - Rainbow 6 was brilliant. If only they'd make a movie out of that...
Pretty much all of the Star Wars books
John Grisham
R.A. Salvatore's stuff (Except Vector Prime in the Star Wars series. HOW COULD HE KILL OFF CHEWBACCA??? )
And that's about it

 

"December" by Phil Rickman. Kinda creepy.

I'm currently reading a collection of short stories by Robert W. Chambers. Methinks that stuff is weird...

 

I love everything by Tolkien, Stephen King and Lovecraft.

Happy 100th post to me ... I didn't think I'd make it. Too bored some times.

 

currently the discworld series and as a tribute to adams i've been reading all his books over and over and over

 

Pr0n books

 

Neuromancer and the Planescape novel at the moment. Trying to get that horrible hunk of crap called "The Hobbit" out of my mind. Must have been aimed at the 2-9 year old crowd.

 

The Hobbit was made for both kids and adults. It's an essential backgrounder for anyone who wants to read the trilogy, and can be a "kid's bedtime story" if read alone. IF...the word is important here...IF...you read the Hobbit ONLY. But, once you start reading the trilogy, then everything that happens in the Hobbit (esp. the part about Bilbo finding the one ring) makes sense.

If you have indeed read the trilogy and found it as unimpressive as your description of the Hobbit, then I believe you are under what I describe as the "vicious-entropic-jadedness" syndrome that is now prevailing in the fantasy genre. The reason why readers of Jordan or say Anthony's books find Tolkiens work "simplistic" is very simple--he was a pioneer--the Wright Brothers certainly didn't have cool stuff like autothrottle and GPS to help fly their airplanes.

In short, modern-era fantasy-genre writers, especially the "mediocre" ones, try so hard at making so complex plots, because they believe people are tired of the "usual Trolls and Goblins stuff" and demand for more complexity in their works...but the general effect is, newcomers to the fantasy genre lose the magic of rediscovering classics such as those written by Tolkien and CS Lewis, because they feel if a plot is simplistic, it's a bad plot or a "for-a-child" kind of story.

Just my 2 cents.

-RODION

P.S. I read Tolkien, Lewis, Anthony, Clancy, Michener (ahh the detail), etc.

 

Oh and for the people that say Tolkien is too simplistic: Read the Silmarillion! And then talk again.

 

I know where you are coming from Rodenk, and I have nothing but respect for Tolkien and all his writings, but "The Hobbit" is so devoid of plot and progression, I don't understand why it's not part of the LotR series.

I have no problem with setting the stage for books to come, but at least make it interesting for the reader and uninsulting to their intelligence. Not everyone who reads "The Hobbit" are doing so in preparation for LotR.

[This message has been edited by Sintek (edited May 21, 2001).]

 

Hmmm, time for an attempt at an analogy.

Which do you prefer? BG2 or IWD? Or better yet, do you prefer computer-based AD&D or Pen-Paper AD&D? The reason I'm asking is this.

My brother hates to play Pen-and-Paper AD&D because he says there is no underlying "plot" or cohesiveness when we play it because the DM seems to be just intent on providing adventures and more adventures without some definite goal, unlike when he plays BG2, he sez. Which is true--P&P AD&Ders like that about AD&D--the absence of a "true" storyline and you play mainly just to "go-adventuring-around".

For me, the Hobbit is like Pen and Paper AD&D and TLoTRs Trilogy is like computer-based AD&D like BG2. Can you see where I'm getting at here? Just like the difference between BG2 and IWD...the latter seems to lack the "grand, epic" storyline of BG2 (just like the Hobbit lacks the grand, cohesive plot of TLoTR Trilogy)...

...my thoughts.

-RODION

 

Raised on Tolkien. and if you think it is simple then y're f***** inthe head. A lot is said without someting happening every 20 seconds. It is an epic. I also like Terry Goodkind. His stuff is good to and it pulls you along, but it is more like a movie or Tv show. Lots of dialogue. plenty of description, but you can get almost all you need from the dialague, after reading them before, that is almost all i read.

Tolkien onthe other hand you can go pages without dialague, this makes it dry for some. I could never bring myself to read more that parts of the silmarillion, because it is very dry history. This happens, followed by this, followed by this. and it goes on for hundreds of pages. good for reference tothe storys but not as everyday reading.

Edited fer The FAQ

[This message has been edited by Mendanbar (edited May 23, 2001).]