What other fantasy books do YOU read?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I always find it interesting how Sansa idolises the young, attractive nobles and knights and yet it's the twisted, brutal Hound who treats her with respect.

I kept wondering how she can be so blind to not see anything beyond his face. She should have felt something for him - pity, at least. Respect. Understanding. I was waiting for the whole book for her to develop some kind of affection for him - and instead she goes for her Florian. Sansa disappoints me. I thought she learned her lesson of judging people by their appearance with her dear prince. It's unfortunate that it spread only as far as Lannisters go. But even so - she's closer to the young brave wounded Lancel Lannister who did her nothing than to the Hound who saved her a bunch of times and opened his soul to her and just did so much more for her.

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I kept wondering how she can be so blind to not see anything beyond his face. She should have felt something for him - pity, at least. Respect. Understanding. I was waiting for the whole book for her to develop some kind of affection for him - and instead she goes for her Florian.

True. But Sansa is ultimately shallow. Which springs, ironically, from her following rules religiously. She honestly thinks sewing and looking pretty will get her out of sticky situations. Her problem is that she takes everyone's word for it.

Sansa disappoints me.

As a person, yes. As a character, no. Still, she is one of my least favourites. Nearly at the bottom, in fact.

I thought she learned her lesson of judging people by their appearance with her dear prince. It's unfortunate that it spread only as far as Lannisters go. But even so - she's closer to the young brave wounded Lancel Lannister who did her nothing than to the Hound who saved her a bunch of times and opened his soul to her and just did so much more for her.

Always felt bad for Sandor

[Lalwendë]

Sansa, however, is the POV character for quite a lot of very interesting chapters, and they are all narrated very well. I often think Martin was using her fondness and awareness of stories to express those chapters in such a clear way. As a character, she does change, and I don't know if you've all got to A Storm Of Swords yet, but I think that's where we start to see her realising she has been used and will carry on being used.

I feel sorry for her. Yes, she made some awful mistakes when she was so young and petulant, but she has been raised as a courtly lady without learning all the skills of cunning and intrigue that other ladies have learnt. And in her own way, Arya is just as naive and has to learn for herself. The same goes for Robb and Jon.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

As a character, she does change, and I don't know if you've all got to A Storm Of Swords yet, but I think that's where we start to see her realising she has been used and will carry on being used.

I just started A Storm of Swords, but I didn't get to Sansa's narration yet. I think she began to realise that in A Clash of Kings, and she did absolutely nothing about it except for cry in her pillow about the big bad Lannisters.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

True. But Sansa is ultimately shallow. Which springs, ironically, from her following rules religiously. She honestly thinks sewing and looking pretty will get her out of sticky situations. Her problem is that she takes everyone's word for it.

I don't think she's shallow. She's just passive. And she lives in her dreams and in the songs that she hears, where every knight is a hero who protects the maiden and every villain is ultimately punished. She expected for it to be this way at King's Landing - everyone is honest and goodwilled and noble and etc. Well, they aren't. I'm looking forward to the moment when she'll discard that helpless damsel-in-distress passivness and start learning. I think she won't be as shallow after that.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I just started A Storm of Swords, but I didn't get to Sansa's narration yet. I think she began to realise that in A Clash of Kings, and she did absolutely nothing about it except for cry in her pillow about the big bad Lannisters.

I won't spoil it for you then! There's a lot more to come for her and I was really pleased with the chapters based on her POV.

I don't think she's shallow. She's just passive. And she lives in her dreams and in the songs that she hears, where every knight is a hero who protects the maiden and every villain is ultimately punished. She expected for it to be this way at King's Landing - everyone is honest and goodwilled and noble and etc. Well, they aren't. I'm looking forward to the moment when she'll discard that helpless damsel-in-distress passivness and start learning. I think she won't be as shallow after that.

I think she is starting to learn, she's got a lot further to go yet though...

Originally Posted by Galadriel

My point exactly. I initially felt Arya may have been more mature and more understanding of the world around her, but in a sense she's just as clueless as her sister. IMO she does not yet know how to 'play the game' - she's too blunt and too headstrong. Jon seems to be getting more and more confused as the series goes on. A Dance with Dragons was certainly a shock, regarding Jon.

I think they are very similar, despite one sister being very girly and the other a tomboy. They both have a lot to learn and I feel were sheltered to the extent that they were allowed to build up romantic notions of both being a lady and being a warrior. It's quite clever though, as it shows up what an idyllic upbringing they had at Winterfell and at the same time, means both of them have a lot of character development and potential left in them.

[Galadriel55]

Talking of naive, Brienne beats all of them. She's a darling, but such a child too!

Originally Posted by Lal

I think they are very similar, despite one sister being very girly and the other a tomboy. They both have a lot to learn and I feel were sheltered to the extent that they were allowed to build up romantic notions of both being a lady and being a warrior. It's quite clever though, as it shows up what an idyllic upbringing they had at Winterfell and at the same time, means both of them have a lot of character development and potential left in them.

That made me think about what happened to them already. It seems that they both learned to hate, but on the other hand, it seems they've just got their first taste of it. And both of them have to learn how to control it and use it.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Pretty much all the reviews I've seen not only rave about the series' brilliance, they lavish praise on the "original" plotting and "deep, complex" characterisation. I mean, what the–?"

I remember hearing she wanted to take some of the most common fantasy cliches and see if she could make anything original of them. I think the Farseer trilogy is good enough a read - it's entertaining, and I was never too bothered by the things Galadriel & Nerwen mentioned. Hobb is good at carrying the plot, however her endings are often bad; too happy or simply waaay too unrealistic. I liked best the Liveship Traders series which is, in my opinion, a lot more interesting than the Six Duchies stuff... but it has also problems, such as dragons. I despise dragons, and hers are particularly awful.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I actually like Sandor Clegane a lot. He's the most interesting beast in a Beauty and the Beast thing. But I actually like that one for more than being an interesting character. Somehow he's closer to being a Ned than all these "honourable" true knights... The good, white Ned...

The Hound is the best ever. I've liked him since... A Clash of Kings, I think - but then, I never liked A Game of Thrones.

I also like Theon, and I pity him. I remember my thoughts when reading ACoK: "He seemed so nice, and now he's horrible... ah well he'll learn eventually; he'll be likeable again later on if he survives until then."

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I kept wondering how she can be so blind to not see anything beyond his face. She should have felt something for him - pity, at least. Respect. Understanding. I was waiting for the whole book for her to develop some kind of affection for him - and instead she goes for her Florian. Sansa disappoints me. I thought she learned her lesson of judging people by their appearance with her dear prince.

Sansa is not very intelligent. It probably has to do with her upbringing, but it might also be she's a bit slow, or then only naive and immature. Anyway, there's something very endearing about her. I am convinced she'll learn to stand up for herself (and feel something for the Hound) before the end of the series, or die trying.

Originally, Sansa and Dany were my least favourite characters. Now they're my two favourites. They both have grown a lot, and show potential for further growth.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Jon seems to be getting more and more confused as the series goes on. A Dance with Dragons was certainly a shock, regarding Jon.

My defence of Jon Snow has probably become a bit of a joke by now, but honestly I've never seen him as a pathetic/confused/whiny character. He knows what he wants, and he knows he can get it. He's the kind of person who prefers to do things by himself because that's the only way he can be sure they are done well. He thinks outside the box. The only thing he lacks is a simultaneous interpreter who could explain to others why Jon Snow's reasoning is sound, and that's why he lands into trouble every now and then.

When the series ends, I want a Targaryen on the throne. Not because of the dragons, but because the Targaryens are the coolest family.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

That made me think about what happened to them already. It seems that they both learned to hate, but on the other hand, it seems they've just got their first taste of it. And both of them have to learn how to control it and use it.

I think that because neither of them have been taught about how to manipulate others, and neither of them were brought up with a knowledge that the world was a harsh place, once they both grow up then they stand the potential to be so much more deadly than anyone like Cersei could even dream about. Their lessons have been hard and learnt out in the world, on their own.

Originally Posted by Aganzir

My defence of Jon Snow has probably become a bit of a joke by now, but honestly I've never seen him as a pathetic/confused/whiny character. He knows what he wants, and he knows he can get it. He's the kind of person who prefers to do things by himself because that's the only way he can be sure they are done well. He thinks outside the box. The only thing he lacks is a simultaneous interpreter who could explain to others why Jon Snow's reasoning is sound, and that's why he lands into trouble every now and then.

I love Jon Snow too. He's anything but 'whiny' and I love how he is always slightly an outsider wherever he goes and whatever he achieves - and doesn't let that stop him.

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I don't know if you've all got to A Storm Of Swords yet, but I think that's where we start to see her realising she has been used and will carry on being used.

She does change, but I have doubts as to whether she's really over her gushing romantic stage.

I feel sorry for her. Yes, she made some awful mistakes when she was so young and petulant, but she has been raised as a courtly lady without learning all the skills of cunning and intrigue that other ladies have learnt. And in her own way, Arya is just as naive and has to learn for herself. The same goes for Robb and Jon.

My point exactly. I initially felt Arya may have been more mature and more understanding of the world around her, but in a sense she's just as clueless as her sister. IMO she does not yet know how to 'play the game' - she's too blunt and too headstrong. Jon seems to be getting more and more confused as the series goes on. A Dance with Dragons was certainly a shock, regarding Jon.

[Galadriel]

I think I finally realised why I put Tolkien ahead of other fantasy writers. It's not because I read him first; it's because he did things a little more realistically when it came to his protagonist. After all, many seemingly unimpressive people have done great things - and those great things have not always been appreciated or even acknowledged by other people. Frodo, just a three-foot-tall Hobbit, goes on a quest not for glory or vengeance, but because he feels it's right (from the heart), and actually succeeds in it. And yet people in his own village have no idea that he is the reason they are still there. The only people who know about it (aside from the Fellowship, Fatty and Bilbo) are a different species and live hundreds of miles away.

I mean, Frodo can barely fight with a sword - one could say Sting does all the work for him - and yet he's a hero. I hate the way most 'heroes' these days are just tall, slim, athletic boys and girls who are perfect at archery or can read minds or do other things that hardly anyone can relate to. Frodo's a hero from the heart - where it really counts.

Yeah, sorry for the sappy speech, and I'm pretty sure anyone could argue with what I've said because of my careless phrasing, but you get the general gist.

[Galadriel55]

Not gonna argue with you as you've just put most of my own thoughts into words. I think it's even sadder that Frodo's quest is not appreciated by those whose appreciation he would value above all others - the Shire. But again, I could argue with myself:

...that what he [Frodo] had to do, he had to do, if he could, and that whether Faramir or Aragorn or Elrond or Galadriel or Gandalf or anyone else ever knew about it was beside the purpose.

Such a simple quote, but tells so much! And notice that Frodo doesn't mention hobbits. Maybe he knows deep down that he doesn't want to be a hero among his own.



Am I turning into a schizophrenic, arguing with myself?

[Galadriel]

I'm currently reading A Wizard of Earthsea (did I mention that before?) but I'm a little surprised at Le Guin's portrayal of women - considering she herself is a woman. All the women in the first book are either old and useless or pretty and good. I was also taken aback by Le Guin's use of the phrases 'weak as a woman's magic' and 'wicked as a woman's magic' in consecutive sentences. So women's magic is either weak or evil? Wow. This book takes feminism back to the 1700s. Considering Earthsea is not set in the primary world (even if it is set a 'long time ago'), she could have easily given women at least intellectual strength.

Now, I get a bit tired of feminist arguments from time to time, but this lady really makes me want to hit her. I hear she gets really feminist in the fourth book, but that it's also really bad. Sigh.

I am also reading His Dark Materials, and would like to know if anyone else thinks that Lyra is a blatant Sue.

Yes, I am annoyed.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I'm currently reading A Wizard of Earthsea (did I mention that before?) but I'm a little surprised at Le Guin's portrayal of women - considering she herself is a woman. All the women in the first book are either old and useless or pretty and good.

Serret is beautiful and, if not definitely evil, at least highly morally ambiguous– but then as she's the only powerful female magic-user in the book, I'm not sure if that helps matters.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I was also taken aback by Le Guin's use of the phrases 'weak as a woman's magic' and 'wicked as a woman's magic' in consecutive sentences. So women's magic is either weak or evil? Wow. This book takes feminism back to the 1700s. Considering Earthsea is not set in the primary world (even if it is set a 'long time ago'), she could have easily given women at least intellectual strength.

I don't think it's clear, even in the first book, whether you're meant to take all that "wicked as women's magic" stuff as being real, or merely a matter of prejudice. Not that I buy that it's deliberate social criticism either– it's not like the belief is ever challenged, even in a "token" sort of way.

Now, I get a bit tired of feminist arguments from time to time, but this lady really makes me want to hit her. I hear she gets really feminist in the fourth book, but that it's also really bad.

Unfortunately, yes– mainly because so much of it consists of Le Guin vainly trying to talk her way out of the fairly gratuitous sexism of the previous books.

With all that, she is still one of my favourite SF writers, and the Earthsea trilogy one of the few works of high fantasy I think really compares to Lord of the Rings– by being as different as possible. Honestly I'm really getting rather jaded about the seemingly endless supply of brick-novels that do little more than recycle the old cliches.

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Serret is beautiful and, if not definitely evil, at least highly morally ambiguous– but then as she's the only powerful female magic-user in the book, I'm not sure if that helps matters.

I didn't find her all that ambiguous

I don't think it's clear, even in the first book, whether you're meant to take all that "wicked as women's magic" stuff as being real, or merely a matter of prejudice. Not that I buy that it's deliberate social criticism either– it's not like the belief is ever challenged, even in a "token" sort of way.

True - and there's little to prove those statements wrong.

With all that, she is still one of my favourite SF writers, and the Earthsea trilogy one of the few works of high fantasy I think really compares to Lord of the Rings– by being as different as possible. Honestly I'm really getting rather jaded about the seemingly endless supply of brick-novels that do little more than recycle the old cliches.

Aside from the sexism factor, I quite like her books as well. Ged is a really good character, and the philosophy about names is quite interesting. And I know what you mean about the recycling of old cliches. This seems to be the general plot of most fantasy novels, with nothing very different about the way it's done: orphaned/abused child - child finds out he/she is a great wizard/sorcerer or the last of a species or a great lineage - sets out for vengeance/identity and meets mysterious person (usually a man) on the way - man turns out to be the only person who can 'teach' the protagonist the things they want to learn - protagonist learns all ridiculously fast and well - protagonist up against a series of villains - protagonist comes out victorious without really sacrificing anything that is really important.

Sigh.

[Galadriel]

Anyone around here read 'The Hunger Games'? I'm not sure if it's fantasy, but I've been hearing a lot about it, and to be truthful I'm a little sceptical. I mean, girl and boy chosen to kill other children in a dystopian world where adults rule? Let me guess: the girl and the guy will be prolific, and the girl will end up being some kind of 'leader', and she'll never do anything wrong with intent, because she's only ever forced to do bad things, and she and the guy will have some kind of forced romance...

I think I'd better stop. The number of flat protagonists these days are kind of getting to my head.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Anyone around here read 'The Hunger Games'? I'm not sure if it's fantasy, but I've been hearing a lot about it, and to be truthful I'm a little sceptical. I mean, girl and boy chosen to kill other children in a dystopian world where adults rule? Let me guess: the girl and the guy will be prolific, and the girl will end up being some kind of 'leader', and she'll never do anything wrong with intent, because she's only ever forced to do bad things, and she and the guy will have some kind of forced romance...

I think I'd better stop. The number of flat protagonists these days are kind of getting to my head.

I finished Weirdstone yesterday and still being in the frame of mind to devour a book, I picked up a copy of The Hunger Games today. My interest was piqued because it's dystopian SF and I'm always interested in that, so I wanted to see what a 'young adult' novel would make of what sounded like a lift from the plot of Battle Royale.

I've read three-quarters of it since this afternoon, and it's pretty good. There's vivid scene-setting, the characters aren't flat and predictable at all, and the narrator isn't a 'Mary Sue' but has some definite failings and flaws. The whole concept of people forced to fight to the death has now been done a few times, but it still works. It also makes you feel a bit angry/disgusted, which is always a plus point with dystopian stories. Not finished it yet though, and I've read more than enough novels with poor endings lately, so I shall see....

I wonder - could you call dystopian SF 'fantasy'? Where does one stop and another begin?


EDIT - finished it now, and even though it was basically Battle Royale for younger readers, it was a decent book. Not sure I want to read the sequels, as I thought it was well rounded off, but I'm sure there would be plenty of things to discuss about it, and I can easily see this one creeping into school reading lists at some point.

[Mrs. Boffin]

I feel rather daring and frisky replying to this post, but sci fi and fantasy are two of my three favorite fictional genres.

I got through A Feast of Crows or whatever the title was of Martin's 4th book before I finally gave up on the series. While he's created an in-depth, original universe, it just wasn't enough for me. I personally look for characters I can cheer for when I read, and the ones left by the end of the 4th book were either rotten or Too Stupid To Live and I really didn't care about any of them any more.

I do understand the appeal of such an epic work, and the heraldry and family history is fascinating. I guess I just prefer a less sprawling, more focused style.

On to a cheerier subject -- writers I like, lol! Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon and the Sword and Sorceress anthologies she edited are enjoyable. I also like Orson Scott Card, both his sci fi and his fantasy. Cherryh's Fortress series is on my TBR list, and after reading some of this thread, so is Patrick Rothfuss.

I also enjoyed my daughter's Percy Jackson books.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I finished Weirdstone yesterday and still being in the frame of mind to devour a book, I picked up a copy of The Hunger Games today. My interest was piqued because it's dystopian SF and I'm always interested in that, so I wanted to see what a 'young adult' novel would make of what sounded like a lift from the plot of Battle Royale.

I've read three-quarters of it since this afternoon, and it's pretty good. There's vivid scene-setting, the characters aren't flat and predictable at all, and the narrator isn't a 'Mary Sue' but has some definite failings and flaws. The whole concept of people forced to fight to the death has now been done a few times, but it still works. It also makes you feel a bit angry/disgusted, which is always a plus point with dystopian stories. Not finished it yet though, and I've read more than enough novels with poor endings lately, so I shall see....

I wonder - could you call dystopian SF 'fantasy'? Where does one stop and another begin?


EDIT - finished it now, and even though it was basically Battle Royale for younger readers, it was a decent book. Not sure I want to read the sequels, as I thought it was well rounded off, but I'm sure there would be plenty of things to discuss about it, and I can easily see this one creeping into school reading lists at some point.

Still not sure I want to pick it up. There are not any local libraries where I live, so I shall have to buy it - but it will be at the end of a long, long list of books I want to finish first.