 |
|
Carolus Rex
|
|
Sweden
Jan 1970 time: 06:26
|
|
BTW, great choice for April! A classic...
Carolus
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999 time: 23:26
|
|
--"when voting, other than your book vote only for books you haven't read yet."
That is what I've done.
The problem with going with the really big name titles is that they're the ones that have already been discussed endlessly online. It's just not quite as interesting as going over something you haven't read before, you know?
So far I've read all but three books on the list, and one of those I haven't read because I haven't liked any of the author's other work. One or two of the ones I have don't really seem like there'd be much discussion about them.
Come to that, Ender's Game isn't exactly the book most requiring literary analysis. Card makes a point of mentioning it in his introduction. Oh well.
Wraith
"Nothing, not even pleasure, can bind two humans as close as a long-enduring vendetta, for it forces upon each a constant awareness of the strengths and vulnerabilities of each other, and commits them to a common purpose which colors all other activities."
-- Hakur ("In Conquest Born")
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JohnT

|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999 time: 00:26
|
|
Well, this is a new group and one thing I've noticed is when a new group is formed, the easily recognizable "classics" are always chosen among the first films. For example, when the movie group started, three of our first 5 films were "Citizen Kane", "The Godfather", and "Casablanca." Great movies, but c'mon! But lately we've done "lesser" films, such as "Election" and Disneys "Beauty and the Beast."
Point is, we will get the "classics" out of our system and move on to other things in time.
Like you, except for the first book (which I selected) I have not voted for books that I've previously read, and I think a couple of people are doing the same as well.
Perhaps one month I can make it so that we can only nominate authors who've been published novelists less than, say, 5 years. How's that sound?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Static Universe
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JohnT
Point is, we will get the "classics" out of our system and move on to other things in time.
Like you, except for the first book (which I selected) I have not voted for books that I've previously read, and I think a couple of people are doing the same as well.
Perhaps one month I can make it so that we can only nominate authors who've been published novelists less than, say, 5 years. How's that sound?
|
I've read over a third of the nominations on this list, and they're all great books, as I'm sure the others are as well, so it's difficult to choose. I find the selections a little too diverse.
Perhaps the person whose nomination wins can establish a "theme" for the next round of nominations, such as "unsung masterpieces", "really hard sci-fi", or "best short story collections".
Then everybody picks a work that they feel best exemplifies this theme. To add some variety, the "theme" establisher can also pick who gets to decide the "theme" next time, say the second place finisher, last place, or whatever.
If this suggestion is too confusing, let me know, and I'll add a few more rules. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
randomturn
|
|
NYC US
Aug 1999 time: 05:26
|
|
WHAT? No Roger Zelazney? I nominate the original 5 volume Amber Chronicles, Lord of Light, and Roadmarks.
I would also add James Hogan's Code of the Lifemaker --one of the great treatises on skepticism ever written and a damn good story on its own right.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999 time: 23:26
|
|
--"Point is, we will get the "classics" out of our system and move on to other things in time. "
Yeah, but I'm an American. You can't expect me to be paitent, now, can you?
--"That's not a bad idea. Any discussion?"
Sounds like a good idea. At the least it'll keep the same books from popping up every time.
Still, I can't wait to see the flame wars over what qualifies as fitting a particular sub-genre...
--"Is it even sci-fi?"
No, they aren't. They're fantasy, and there isn't really any technological factor involved (that is, not even science fantasy). I do like Zelazny, but these books don't really qaulify for the group.
Wraith
"The more complex the language, the greater its capacity to influence the thoughts of men."
-- Harkur ("In Conquest Born")
|
|
|  |
 |
|
randomturn
|
|
NYC US
Aug 1999 time: 05:26
|
|
I dunno, I'd have to say Amber is more sf than fantasy since it is fundamentally metaphysical and not fantastical. It anticipated chaos theory and complexity theory and alludes strongly to the scientific/philosophical debate on human free will versus determinism. It takes place in a quantum-mechanical infinite-universes multiverse. So while it may not be technological, it is deeply grounded in science theory. So I stick with this nomination: the original 5 volume set of the Amber Chronicles (and it's well short of 1000 pages).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Static Universe
|
|
quote: Originally posted by randomturn
It anticipated chaos theory and complexity theory and alludes strongly to the scientific/philosophical debate on human free will versus determinism. It takes place in a quantum-mechanical infinite-universes multiverse. So while it may not be technological, it is deeply grounded in science theory. |
While I am prepared to accept the Amber novels as a form of Sci-Fi Fantasy, in no way will I agree that it "anticipated chaos theory and complexity theory" or that it's "deeply grounded in science theory".
Zelazny is a fine and intelligent writer, but his primary sources are Joseph Campbell, and the bits of Jungian psychology that haven't been glossed over by the psyhological community in the last 75 years. IMO, this stuff more mysticism than metaphysics.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000 time: 07:26
|
|
Amber is definetely not SF. There arent any scientific/technological aspects involved at all.
If we had a vote for fantasy books though, Amber would've been my first choice. It's way above all the LoTR crap.
*ducks*
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000 time: 07:26
|
|
They could be riding from world to world(I forgot the terminology) on starships instead of horses and it still would be fantasy.
It all boils down to the discussion couple months ago on what is sci-fi and what is not. As long as there is no scientific explanation, even as crappy as in Star Trek, it's not sci-fi.
My opinion of course.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Clear Skies
|
 |
looking for a saviour in these dirty streets
Jul 2000 time: 05:26
|
|
I dug out my copy of Empyrion - here's the blurb from the back of it.
Traveller, debt-dodger, itinerant critic and writer of history books nobody buys, Orion Treet is astounded to be invited to accompany top-secret mission: to observe and document an extraterrestrial colony on a newly-discovered planet.
But the paradise planet Treet and his companions are promised is a nightmare world locked in a spiral of hate, fear and death. The Earthlings' arrival rekindles an impossibly ancient feud - a deadly conflict between two highly evolved civilisations. It is a struggle for the future of a world, a battle where there can be no spectators and everyone must choose a side.
It's a great book, weaving science, sociology, politics, morality and many other strands into a cohesive whole. The characterisations, while sometimes bizarre, are very well moulded, and the two opposing socities are well fleshed out.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|