books

[Kenneth R.]

I guess I'll have to pick it up for the summer, then. As long as it's not too Eddings-like. I dislike 50000 character introductions per page...

Oh no, it's not like that. There are probably 20 principal characters total. In the whole thing. He's not going to slam you with a huge cast of supporting roles. He slams you with his way with words.

Something to keep in mind when reading Wolfe: He never makes up words. Ever. Not that kind of fantasy.

 

[Phanto]

Is there anyone who likes Clive Barker ? I think he's a horror genius,even better
than King,unfortunately it's been many years since he doesn't write o makes a movie.Other books I like is the entire Conan's saga, Michael Moorcock's Elric the necromancer, Osho books

I've read the Books of Blood. Some of Barker's stories are very good, but a few are also quite bad...

My favorite horror writer is probably Lovecraft, but that's largely due to the weirdness of his language and themes. Cosmic, ancient, long-forgotten horrors

Oh no, it's not like that. There are probably 20 principal characters total. In the whole thing. He's not going to slam you with a huge cast of supporting roles. He slams you with his way with words.

Something to keep in mind when reading Wolfe: He never makes up words. Ever. Not that kind of fantasy.

Sounds good. I'll order the first book right away.

 

[EyeballKid]

My favorite horror writer is probably Lovecraft, but that's largely due to the weirdness of his language and themes. Cosmic, ancient, long-forgotten horrors

I recently did a comprehensive (and exhausting) read of Lovecraft's stories. Definitely worth it, if you have the time and the patience. Though he was an author of many shortcomings, his ability to capture absolute horror and darkness is unparalleled.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Lovecraft was a genius. He was able to directly target the primal fear of the human psyche - the weird and the unknown. Not googly monsters (though he has them too!) his monsters are as alien as can be. He never fell into the pit of copying archetypes like vampires and werewolves.

I especially loved At The Mountains of Madness & Shadow over Innismouth.

 

[EyeballKid]

Lovecraft was a genius. He was able to directly target the primal fear of the human psyche - the weird and the unknown. Not googly monsters (though he has them too!) his monsters are as alien as can be. He never fell into the pit of copying archetypes like vampires and werewolves.

I especially loved At The Mountains of Madness & Shadow over Innismouth.

Well said and both classic Lovecraft stories.

I'm also a big fan of The Statement of Randolph Carter and The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. Also, I find Herbert West - Reanimator to be a wonderful guilty pleasure.

 

[Sauna]

I recently did a comprehensive (and exhausting) read of Lovecraft's stories. Definitely worth it, if you have the time and the patience.

This is exactly what I'm doing right now. Just finished The Shunned House, next up is The Dunwich Horror by way of The Silver Key. So far I'm loving every syllable of his stuff.

 

[Kenneth R.]

He's the man.

I love that even the media is slamming Dan Brown for his latest offering. Apparently it's his worst book yet - and the funniest part - it's his worst because this time he actually tried. And failed, because it reads more like a Fodor's guide to Europe than a mystery novel. I've only read one of his books - Digital Fortress - which many say was his best. It was a decent story and a 'page turner' but completely devoid of any depth.

I've decided I will create my own personal audiobook version of Book of the New Sun, complete with original soundtrack and sfx. Obviously I can't distribute it without a publishing/licensing deal but as a fun project I think I'll enjoy it.

 

[monoxide_child]

is anyone here going to see the hunger games movie?

anyone going to see the catching fire movie??

 

[Kenneth R.]

'course not.

 

[Phanto]

absolutely not watching it.

I watched the first movie because I had read the book. Neither book nor film were good (watched film after book "just because") and there's 0 reason to see the sequel to such garbage.

 

[monoxide_child]

the reason i asked is cuz i end up reading a lot of book titles AFTER they've already been made into movies

when i read "kiss the girls" it had morgan freeman's face on the cover, when i read "twilight" it had rob and kristen's faces on the cover etc etc etc

this guy used to be my roommate

 

[zbadd]

the reason i asked is cuz i end up reading a lot of book titles AFTER they've already been made into movies

when i read "kiss the girls" it had morgan freeman's face on the cover, when i read "twilight" it had rob and kristen's faces on the cover etc etc etc

this guy used to be my roommate

Wait you had a roommate, and now you are homeless? You must really be an idiot

 

[Kenneth R.]

I hate movie-tie in editions of books. It's a sacrilege against tradition. It's insidious. It's like plastering fucking ipod earbuds on the goddamn mona lisa. It just isn't done. Not on the original anyway - and for books, which themselves are just copies of a manuscript - each and every one is "the original" unless it becomes a shitty film knockoff.

“We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges. When soldiers take their oath they are given a coin, an asimi stamped with the profile of the Autarch. Their acceptance of that coin is their acceptance of the special duties and burdens of military life—they are soldiers from that moment, though they may know nothing of the management of arms. I did not know that then, but it is a profound mistake to believe that we must know of such things to be influenced by them, and in fact to believe so is to believe in the most debased and superstitious kind of magic. The would-be sorcerer alone has faith in the efficacy of pure knowledge; rational people know that things act of themselves or not at all.”
― Gene Wolfe, Shadow and Claw (via Severian)

 

[Kenneth R.]

I've been reading China Mieville's "Between Equal Rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law".

I'm not a Marxist, but the argument is a very interesting one.

 

[metalxmetalx]

I've just reread The Antichrist: a book written by that enfant terrible and true iconoclast named Nietzsche! It's always a pleasure reading his works. As I was reading it, I thought to myself: what a source of great lyrics his books could be!

 

[Kenneth R.]

He was full of really interesting ideas.

 

[monoxide_child]

I hate movie-tie in editions of books.

wow
okay then

 

[Kenneth R.]

well, let me put it in perspective for you. imagine spider-man gets rebranded as Burger King man. Same costume, same powers, cept instead of a spider logo, it's a cheeseburger, and he can't stop talking about that meal deal.

Okay, extreme example. But that's basically what it is. Sure, they MIGHT not change the textual content, but they definitely spray some colorful shitstain movie poster cover on the jacket and attempt to bundle in stuff. I guess on the silver lining, it might get movie goers to read. But why, when they saw the movie already? Most people are too lazy or too busy to care to read the book. Just watch the film, it's like Cliff Notes in color and quicker! A heinous crime IMO.

 

[MotherEel]

I hate movie-tie in editions of books. It's a sacrilege against tradition. It's insidious. It's like plastering fucking ipod earbuds on the goddamn mona lisa. It just isn't done. Not on the original anyway - and for books, which themselves are just copies of a manuscript - each and every one is "the original" unless it becomes a shitty film knockoff.

“We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges. When soldiers take their oath they are given a coin, an asimi stamped with the profile of the Autarch. Their acceptance of that coin is their acceptance of the special duties and burdens of military life—they are soldiers from that moment, though they may know nothing of the management of arms. I did not know that then, but it is a profound mistake to believe that we must know of such things to be influenced by them, and in fact to believe so is to believe in the most debased and superstitious kind of magic. The would-be sorcerer alone has faith in the efficacy of pure knowledge; rational people know that things act of themselves or not at all.”
― Gene Wolfe, Shadow and Claw (via Severian)

The first part of your quote reads a bit like Baudrillard's "signification". Maybe you would be interested in reading things on that (if you haven't already).

 

[Kenneth R.]

Thanks for the tip. Always looking for new stuff to read.