By Ravensmash Go To PostSpeaking of King - anyone read Needful Things?Characters are what make every great King book. He's especially good at it and especially bad at most of the other stuff. It's usually worth it though.
900 odd pages but one of the best novels I've read. Characterisation is off the charts.
By Planck Energy Go To PostCharacters are what make every great King book. He's especially good at it and especially bad at most of the other stuff. It's usually worth it though.
Yup! To me Stephen King's stats are:
Characterization - Very Good
Premise - Good
Weird Sex Scenarios - Excessive
Story Telling - Very Good
Referencing 80's songs I don't know - Perfect
Pacing - Good/Average
Endings - lol
Endings - lol is true for almost every horror or fantasy writer, though. King is just so prolific. Spend potentially thousands of pages demonstrating how unbeatable the big bad is and see how well that turns out.
Special props to Anne Rice for the ending of Queen of the Damned.
Special props to Anne Rice for the ending of Queen of the Damned.
I just re-read The Peace War by Vernor Vinge and now reading Metro 2033 (because I liked the games).
Lots of talk about Murakami here. Which books written by him should I read first ?
Lots of talk about Murakami here. Which books written by him should I read first ?
By Watershed Go To PostHave you watched the BBC adaptation of Tinker, Tailor? I enjoyed the film but appreciate the BBC series much more. Smiley's People (the BBC series) is not quite as good as Tinker, Tailor. I haven't read Alan Furst at all. I may some day though. Thanks for the suggestion.
Nope, is The Great British Bake Off a BBC joint? That's all I've seen from them lately I must admit.
By Ravensmash Go To PostMan, All the Pretty Horses is a lot more difficult to read than some of the other Mccarthy stuff I've read.
It's beautiful prose but the descriptions of the landscapes just confuse me. Grasses this and creeks and south and west and all sorts.
Stick with it. Reading All the Pretty Horses actually felt like hiking. Short, workman like sentences building up to beautiful vistas, in this case descriptions. The synergy between style of prose, setting, and genre is something to behold. McCarthy's darkness and cruelty rounds out the world and characters rather than beat the reader over the head with it the way Blood Meridian can. One of my all time favorites. I could not get over them riding across Mexico, it's so good.
He can throw out half a dozen specific names of flora on a page though, you're right. As they ride deeper into Mexico there will be plenty of Spanish words for various things as well. Have your phone or whatever nearby.
Had a pretty productive reading day, mostly since I didn't feel like doing any real work.
Finished off The Darkness That Comes Before by R. Scott Bakker first. I found it interesting, though I'm not really sure I'd rate it all that highly. It was very clearly the first novel of a series, which isn't necessarily a terrible thing, but it felt like a book entirely of table-setting and I'm not sure I ended up caring about any of the pieces being shifted about. Will read the second book of the series at some point, as I did find some of the world-building and characters intriguing.
After that, I read Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse. I didn't really respond to it. The prose didn't capture me(Might have been better had I read it in German) and the philosophy espoused left me cold. Given the content and style, it isn't surprising that it was popular in the 60s and 70s in the US, matches up well with the general counter-culture philosophy and the fascination with eastern religions that permeated the era.
Finally, I got around to reading To The Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf. I thought it was fantastic, worthy of all praise. The characterization was sublime, as was the style. Took a few chapters to get used to the shifting perspectives, but from that point out I hardly looked up from the page.
I'd say The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, Kafka on the Shore, or, if you're not a fan of surreal/fantastical elements, Norwegian Wood.
Finished off The Darkness That Comes Before by R. Scott Bakker first. I found it interesting, though I'm not really sure I'd rate it all that highly. It was very clearly the first novel of a series, which isn't necessarily a terrible thing, but it felt like a book entirely of table-setting and I'm not sure I ended up caring about any of the pieces being shifted about. Will read the second book of the series at some point, as I did find some of the world-building and characters intriguing.
After that, I read Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse. I didn't really respond to it. The prose didn't capture me(Might have been better had I read it in German) and the philosophy espoused left me cold. Given the content and style, it isn't surprising that it was popular in the 60s and 70s in the US, matches up well with the general counter-culture philosophy and the fascination with eastern religions that permeated the era.
Finally, I got around to reading To The Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf. I thought it was fantastic, worthy of all praise. The characterization was sublime, as was the style. Took a few chapters to get used to the shifting perspectives, but from that point out I hardly looked up from the page.
By Andromeda Go To PostI just re-read The Peace War by Vernor Vinge and now reading Metro 2033 (because I liked the games).
Lots of talk about Murakami here. Which books written by him should I read first ?
I'd say The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, Kafka on the Shore, or, if you're not a fan of surreal/fantastical elements, Norwegian Wood.
Started Kings of the Wyld without knowing how much praise it gets. It is the real deal so far. A real page turner with great dialogue and humour.
By brawly Go To PostStarted Kings of the Wyld without knowing how much praise it gets. It is the real deal so far. A real page turner with great dialogue and humour.I was thinking I'd pick it up once I clear out a bit of my backlog/it goes on sale. Not sure the rock music comedy elements will work for me, but I've heard enough good things about it I reckon it's worth a shot.
By Stolichnaya Go To PostHad a pretty productive reading day, mostly since I didn't feel like doing any real work.Every book in The Second Apocalypse (Baker's novels) is better than the one before it, or near enough. You should keep reading.
Finished off The Darkness That Comes Before by R. Scott Bakker first. I found it interesting, though I'm not really sure I'd rate it all that highly. It was very clearly the first novel of a series, which isn't necessarily a terrible thing, but it felt like a book entirely of table-setting and I'm not sure I ended up caring about any of the pieces being shifted about. Will read the second book of the series at some point, as I did find some of the world-building and characters intriguing.
After that, I read Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse. I didn't really respond to it. The prose didn't capture me(Might have been better had I read it in German) and the philosophy espoused left me cold. Given the content and style, it isn't surprising that it was popular in the 60s and 70s in the US, matches up well with the general counter-culture philosophy and the fascination with eastern religions that permeated the era.
Finally, I got around to reading To The Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf. I thought it was fantastic, worthy of all praise. The characterization was sublime, as was the style. Took a few chapters to get used to the shifting perspectives, but from that point out I hardly looked up from the page.
I'd say The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, Kafka on the Shore, or, if you're not a fan of surreal/fantastical elements, Norwegian Wood.
There's also quite a lot to uncover with rereads and such.
I'm currently going through the Halo Forerunner trilogy. I love reading, but I always have these periods where I'll read every night, then take 3 weeks off, ha.
Currently I am reading the first book in the Stormlight Archive series; The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson. When I don't feel beat down by the stress of college. I'm only about a 100 some pages into it, but so far I'm liking it a lot. The magic system is pretty cool and the world is real intriguing. I hear that the series has a lot of crazy stuff that happens and I can't wait to get to that if I ever find time to relax and read.
On that note I snagged a signed copy of the third book that's coming out next month, so I'm excited to get that.
On that note I snagged a signed copy of the third book that's coming out next month, so I'm excited to get that.
By Andromeda Go To PostI just re-read The Peace War by Vernor Vinge and now reading Metro 2033 (because I liked the games).Norwegian Wood is a good one to start with.
Lots of talk about Murakami here. Which books written by him should I read first ?
The Strange Library is good as well. Very short, and will give you a good idea of what to expect from his longer works.
I read Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimage a couple of months ago. It absolutely slayed me. Wonderful book.
Finished the new Philip Pullman La Belle Sauvage and liked it a lot. Really enjoyed being back in Lyra’s world and, although you knew Lyra would survive it still managed to create an air of dread and urgency. Love the way it has a world like ours, but different, with some things that crossover. Couple of problems were that the villain felt underdeveloped - he was threatening but seemed one note and a book that has hints of rape and assault seems a bit odd for a young adults book. Or maybe I’m getting old!
By Planck Energy Go To PostEvery book in The Second Apocalypse (Baker's novels) is better than the one before it, or near enough. You should keep reading.I'm torn between waiting for a sale or just moving ahead right away. I'll probably crumble and get The Warrior-Prophet at full price, because I am actually excited about where it's going, even if the first book wasn't that great of an experience for me by itself. It definitely felt like a book that would be better on a reread with the full context of the series. Not like that's a new thing for a long fantasy series, I try to reserve judgment until I'm two or three books deep.
There's also quite a lot to uncover with rereads and such.
By Andromeda Go To PostLots of talk about Murakami here. Which books written by him should I read first ?
Rat Trilogy
Buy them all 5 times so Bakker can stop working at Burger King to make ends meet.
Though I should say I loved the first book right away for various reasons.
Though I should say I loved the first book right away for various reasons.
I review books (mostly thrillers) for a publishing industry magazine. It's a low paying gig, reading sometimes not very good books (though those are the fun reviews to write), but occasionally I get to see my review featured on a cover, even if I might not recognize the sequence of words. I feel guilty if I'm reading for mere pleasure. I've been rereading IT after seeing the movie; King's "Constant Reader" narrative voice is an annoying schtick, his humor doesn't age well, I refuse to believe anyone--even from Maine--really talks like that, and I'm kind of dreading the ending, but damn if he can't bring some scary shit to life. I've got The Knife of Never Letting Go by Patrick Ness in the batter's box.
By adamsappel Go To PostI review books (mostly thrillers) for a publishing industry magazine. It's a low paying gig, reading sometimes not very good books (though those are the fun reviews to write), but occasionally I get to see my review featured on a cover, even if I might not recognize the sequence of words. I feel guilty if I'm reading for mere pleasure. I've been rereading IT after seeing the movie; King's "Constant Reader" narrative voice is an annoying schtick, his humor doesn't age well, I refuse to believe anyone–even from Maine–really talks like that, and I'm kind of dreading the ending, but damn if he can't bring some scary shit to life. I've got The Knife of Never Letting Go by Patrick Ness in the batter's box.
Could you recommend some titles that aren't gratuitously bloody/fixated on maniacs? A friend often asks for recommendations and I've got next to nothing for her.
I enjoyed IT. The kids' timeline was good, adults not so much. Still, you can pick up a King novel when you're feeling in a rut reading wise and almost always come away with something really entertaining and mostly competent. I don't know what people who are really critical of him are reading, but I find that to be a rare ability. IT's no Salem's Lot or The Shining, but still fun.
By Apollo Go To PostRat Trilogy
Any word yet of when Killing Commendatore will hit?
Reading Monsters of Men, the third in the Chaos Walking trilogy.
I can't wait to be done with it—I sorta really hate this fucking trilogy, but I've invested so much time in it, I feel like I owe it to myself to at least see Mistress Coyle and Mayor Prentiss hook up how it ends.
I can't wait to be done with it—I sorta really hate this fucking trilogy, but I've invested so much time in it, I feel like I owe it to myself to at least see Mistress Coyle and Mayor Prentiss hook up how it ends.
By TTG Go To PostCould you recommend some titles that aren't gratuitously bloody/fixated on maniacs? A friend often asks for recommendations and I've got next to nothing for her.Unfortunately, most of the thrillers I review are the "gratuitously bloody maniacs" kind. If she's a fan of The Great Gatsby, The Good Assassin by Paul Vidich is "a quiet, simmering, old-fashioned literary spy tale that can stand with the classics of the genre. This novel of pre-Revolutionary Cuba can scarcely escape nods to Ernest Hemingway and Graham Greene, but Vidich most deliberately evokes F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, from the opening epigraph to the denouement. Bold, but his writing is so adroit to warrant the homage." Or so some hack said. If she does like stories about deadly assassins, geopolitical machinations, or SEAL teams caught behind enemy lines, I can help.
I enjoyed IT. The kids' timeline was good, adults not so much. Still, you can pick up a King novel when you're feeling in a rut reading wise and almost always come away with something really entertaining and mostly competent. I don't know what people who are really critical of him are reading, but I find that to be a rare ability. IT's no Salem's Lot or The Shining, but still fun.
IT is a good book, and I too enjoy the kid's story more, though I haven't gotten to the sewer scene yet; I'm not sure how to interpret that one these days. King is a great writer; I think The Stand is his best.
By JasonMCG Go To PostReading Monsters of Men, the third in the Chaos Walking trilogy.
I can't wait to be done with it—I sorta really hate this fucking trilogy, but I've invested so much time in it, I feel like I owe it to myself to at least see Mistress Coyle and Mayor Prentiss hook up how it ends.
Jason, that's the series I was just going to start! Not worth it?
By Planck Energy Go To PostBuy them all 5 times so Bakker can stop working at Burger King to make ends meet.That would force me to take more shifts at my own retail job that I keep to make ends meet, so it would be somewhat counter-productive. Well, as long as we assume that my time and Bakker's time are approximately equal in value, opinions on that might differ.
Though I should say I loved the first book right away for various reasons.
Don't start work until four today, so I spent the morning reading The Stone Sky by N.K. Jemisin, the third book of her Broken Earth trilogy. I enjoyed it, the ending was satisfying to me, but I'd say it was a slight letdown compared to the previous two books. Aside from the ending, a lot of what happened in the book felt a bit perfunctory. It was very clearly leading to a specific place and the emphasis given to the journey there didn't really seem justified to me, but overall a good conclusion to the series.
By adamsappel Go To PostI review books (mostly thrillers) for a publishing industry magazine. It's a low paying gig, reading sometimes not very good books (though those are the fun reviews to write), but occasionally I get to see my review featured on a cover, even if I might not recognize the sequence of words. I feel guilty if I'm reading for mere pleasure. I've been rereading IT after seeing the movie; King's "Constant Reader" narrative voice is an annoying schtick, his humor doesn't age well, I refuse to believe anyone–even from Maine–really talks like that, and I'm kind of dreading the ending, but damn if he can't bring some scary shit to life. I've got The Knife of Never Letting Go by Patrick Ness in the batter's box.
I reread IT after seeing the film as well, and while the humor elements really weren't amusing to me at all, I thought he did a great job in crafting a gloriously unsettling town in Derry and the ending actually wasn't abominable. The sewer scene is still as weird as ever, and I can only assume it was an idea he locked in on early in the writing process, and that he insisted on including, despite it clearly not fitting into the novel anymore. It meshes with the coming of age/loss of innocence theme, it just doesn't mesh with the story itself as it was written.
By adamsappel Go To PostUnfortunately, most of the thrillers I review are the "gratuitously bloody maniacs" kind. If she's a fan of The Great Gatsby, The Good Assassin by Paul Vidich is "a quiet, simmering, old-fashioned literary spy tale that can stand with the classics of the genre. This novel of pre-Revolutionary Cuba can scarcely escape nods to Ernest Hemingway and Graham Greene, but Vidich most deliberately evokes F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, from the opening epigraph to the denouement. Bold, but his writing is so adroit to warrant the homage." Or so some hack said. If she does like stories about deadly assassins, geopolitical machinations, or SEAL teams caught behind enemy lines, I can help.I wouldn't say it's not worth it—the first book is magnetic—but it just retreads the same themes across the three books and grows tiresome. There's a lot of "cliffhangers" too, and a lot of them are very similar in the way they happen to the point where they become arbitrary and not meaningful. The way it's written (run-on sentence after run-on sentence) also overstays its welcome, I thought. I just sort of checked out mentally halfway through the second book and only by way of pride am I continuing.
IT is a good book, and I too enjoy the kid's story more, though I haven't gotten to the sewer scene yet; I'm not sure how to interpret that one these days. King is a great writer; I think The Stand is his best.
Jason, that's the series I was just going to start! Not worth it?
Currently reading one chapter a day of Game of Thrones (Sometimes I'll read more than one but for the most part). I should be done by February.
By AliasGreed Go To PostCurrently reading one chapter a day of Game of Thrones (Sometimes I'll read more than one but for the most part). I should be done by February.I don't want to nitpick but...
The series is A Song of Ice and Fire, of which A Game of Thrones is the first book. I understand why they went that route for the show, but the less we emulate that the better.
I think a slow, deliberate read is a good idea for the series. There's a lot of stuff beneath the surface to pick up on.
I'm just so used to calling it Game of Thrones after watching it for 7 seasons that it stayed that way.
By Planck Energy Go To PostBuy them all 5 times so Bakker can stop working at Burger King to make ends meet.
Though I should say I loved the first book right away for various reasons.
I didn't like it. I can't put a finger on exactly what it is that I don't like about his books, I just know I didn't enjoy them much. If it's the exaggerated introspection by many of the characters, how he writes, something completely different or if it's a combination of things.
A series I warmly recommend is the books about Eddie LaCrosse by Alex Bledsoe. They have become some of my favourite fantasy books.
By Shanks D Zoro Go To PostAny word yet of when Killing Commendatore will hit?
Nope, I’m going to say summer 2018 or 2019
By zon Go To PostI didn't like it. I can't put a finger on exactly what it is that I don't like about his books, I just know I didn't enjoy them much. If it's the exaggerated introspection by many of the characters, how he writes, something completely different or if it's a combination of things.A lot of people find it too nihilistic or depressing. Or they feel there's no one to cheer for (kind of hard to argue this one, at least in the traditional sense).
A series I warmly recommend is the books about Eddie LaCrosse by Alex Bledsoe. They have become some of my favourite fantasy books.
By Planck Energy Go To PostA lot of people find it too nihilistic or depressing. Or they feel there's no one to cheer for (kind of hard to argue this one, at least in the traditional sense).
Hmm, I can't say that was my issue with his work. I've read the Farseer Trilogy and that got me depressed. Maybe it's because there's no one to really cheer for, although I did cheer for Cnaiür to an extent. There's just so much nothing in the books, that's what it feels like. There's so much thinking about thoughts and emotions, and then speaking about thoughts and emotions. Most of it, to me, never felt relevant to move the story forward, it was just there.
I'm usually better at describing what I don't like about books. That's why I remember Bakker, I don't like it but I can't formulate why.
I don't know... There's actually a whole lot going on in the books if you read between the lines. They're almost as layered as ASOIAF with regard to how much you can dig out about the world and how it works with careful reading. Of course a lot of books are out now and later ones make a lot of the earlier stuff plain if you didn't read them before release.
He does do a lot of verbose "philosophizing" from time to time. It doesn't really prevent the plot from moving forward, but he could probably do with less repetition in this area.
Overall, he's always asking interesting questions with the plot that I at least want the answers to. There's often explicit stated goals of characters (especially Kellhus) with a lot of uncertainty about real motives and the effects on the larger world.
He does do a lot of verbose "philosophizing" from time to time. It doesn't really prevent the plot from moving forward, but he could probably do with less repetition in this area.
Overall, he's always asking interesting questions with the plot that I at least want the answers to. There's often explicit stated goals of characters (especially Kellhus) with a lot of uncertainty about real motives and the effects on the larger world.
I'm sorry, but Bakker is an absolute bore to read.
I lump him in with Abercrombie as horrendously overrated authors.
As for the Eddie Lacrosse series, it's very enjoyable pulp mystery fantasy.
I lump him in with Abercrombie as horrendously overrated authors.
As for the Eddie Lacrosse series, it's very enjoyable pulp mystery fantasy.
I'd take 20 of The Blade Itself over some shit like My Struggle by Karl Ove Knausgård and I dislike fantasy
By Apollo Go To PostI'd take 20 of The Blade Itself over some shit like My Struggle by Karl Ove Knausgård and I dislike fantasy
The opening chapter of The Blade Itself has worse writing than your average comic book.
Logen: "oof" "grunt" Might have been better with speech bubbles.
...the rest of the book is better if you survived that.
By Planck Energy Go To PostThe opening chapter of The Blade Itself has worse writing than your average comic book.
Logen: "oof" "grunt" Might have been better with speech bubbles.
…the rest of the book is better if you survived that.
WHOA Reilo ban this hate filled post
By Planck Energy Go To PostThe opening chapter of The Blade Itself has worse writing than your average comic book.
Logen: "oof" "grunt" Might have been better with speech bubbles.
…the rest of the book is better if you survived that.
I have news for you: The First Law trilogy's action scenes especially, but also dialogue are consistently better written than what your lord and savior GRRM puts out there.
I second Apollo's motion to ban Planck Energy immediately and forever. Unless you want to explain how the Planck constant works, I never got it. He was staring at an oven and the energy emanating couldn't be infinite so bang whoop here's a constant?
Unfortunately Martin does every other thing far better. Most importantly for this discussion, organic subversion of fantasy tropes. That's like the one and only thing first law is going for and it's so shallow. I'm not saying there isn't entertainment to be had.
Martin isn't god, though. Not even the best contemporary fantasy writer. But he's very good at what he does and is the best of the authors most people might have actually heard about.
(Mountain vs. Viper is better than anything Abercrombie has done).
Martin isn't god, though. Not even the best contemporary fantasy writer. But he's very good at what he does and is the best of the authors most people might have actually heard about.
(Mountain vs. Viper is better than anything Abercrombie has done).
Prose is such a nebulous criteria to me, it is notoriously difficult to argue against someone asserting that this prose is bad or this prose is good, so I'd rather just analyze the elements of the style and whether or not I felt it was effective for the intended purpose. Often, when people argue about prose quality, I feel that they are operating with some sort of objective ideal of prose that all fiction should strive for, and that notion of objective merit confuses me.
The other day, I was having a discussion with someone who had tried to read A Song of Ice and Fire and found the writing so unbelievably bad that they gave up after the first book, and I genuinely didn't know how to counter that. To me, that is just clearly not true; Martin isn't James Joyce, but his style fits very well with the story he's chosen to tell and certain passages were quite evocative to me. To assert so strongly that it is poorly written is an opinion I can't quite comprehend. I don't think it's due to me not being exposed to "real literature", as my reading is probably split 30/70 between speculative fiction and literary fiction, with literary being the larger share.
That being said, I've always felt that First Law is best in audiobook form. Steven Pacey does a great job with the narration, and the style, which I believe is intentionally evoking movies and comics rather than literary fiction or classic fantasy fiction, lends itself to being told to you rather than read. I enjoyed the trilogy a lot, but I think the other three represented a step up for him in a lot of ways, particularly when it came to shedding the on-the-nose subversion Planck is talking about, and making the world more interesting in itself.
The other day, I was having a discussion with someone who had tried to read A Song of Ice and Fire and found the writing so unbelievably bad that they gave up after the first book, and I genuinely didn't know how to counter that. To me, that is just clearly not true; Martin isn't James Joyce, but his style fits very well with the story he's chosen to tell and certain passages were quite evocative to me. To assert so strongly that it is poorly written is an opinion I can't quite comprehend. I don't think it's due to me not being exposed to "real literature", as my reading is probably split 30/70 between speculative fiction and literary fiction, with literary being the larger share.
That being said, I've always felt that First Law is best in audiobook form. Steven Pacey does a great job with the narration, and the style, which I believe is intentionally evoking movies and comics rather than literary fiction or classic fantasy fiction, lends itself to being told to you rather than read. I enjoyed the trilogy a lot, but I think the other three represented a step up for him in a lot of ways, particularly when it came to shedding the on-the-nose subversion Planck is talking about, and making the world more interesting in itself.
By Planck Energy Go To Post(Mountain vs. Viper is better than anything Abercrombie has done).
By Stolichnaya Go To PostProse is such a nebulous criteria to me, it is notoriously difficult to argue against someone asserting that this prose is bad or this prose is good, so I'd rather just analyze the elements of the style and whether or not I felt it was effective for the intended purpose. Often, when people argue about prose quality, I feel that they are operating with some sort of objective ideal of prose that all fiction should strive for, and that notion of objective merit confuses me.
It can be difficult, which is why I went to specifics like action and dialogue. My recall of ASOIF isn't so fresh, I mean I read the books after season one ended on HBO, but Abercrombie's battles in the trilogy are top tier action across genre fiction, ASOIF isn't. I'm not using genre fiction as a cop out by the way, but I'm not about to compare Logen in a duel to Ahab in his final struggle versus Moby-Dick. Or, since someone brought up All The Pretty Horses earlier, I'm not gonna say McCarthy's journey across the border and into Mexico beats the shit out of Frodo leaving the Shire. The comparison doesn't make sense. They're doing different things. Maybe that's what your friend missed, i.e. being a bit of a snob. Or, as I'm sure you know, people who can't articulate why they dislike a book will sometimes default to that.
In any case, I'm comfortable calling something bad prose when it is(not ASOIF, just to be clear). We can get into an old philosophic argument that if something is objectively bad there must surely be objectively good on the other end of the scale, but who knows? I was never a fan of that argument and It's late. The platonic ideal of prose, if one exists, will have to be defined on another day.
By TTG Go To Post
It can be difficult, which is why I went to specifics like action and dialogue. My recall of ASOIF isn't so fresh, I mean I read the books after season one ended on HBO, but Abercrombie's battles in the trilogy are top tier action across genre fiction, ASOIF isn't. I'm not using genre fiction as a cop out by the way, but I'm not about to compare Logen in a duel to Ahab in his final struggle versus Moby-Dick. Or, since someone brought up All The Pretty Horses earlier, I'm not gonna say McCarthy's journey across the border and into Mexico beats the shit out of Frodo leaving the Shire. The comparison doesn't make sense. They're doing different things. Maybe that's what your friend missed, i.e. being a bit of a snob. Or, as I'm sure you know, people who can't articulate why they dislike a book will sometimes default to that.
In any case, I'm comfortable calling something bad prose when it is(not ASOIF, just to be clear). We can get into an old philosophic argument that if something is objectively bad there must surely be objectively good on the other end of the scale, but who knows? I was never a fan of that argument and It's late. The platonic ideal of prose, if one exists, will have to be defined on another day.
I tend to divide it into cognizant and incognizant prose, where I feel comfortable referring to something I deem as incognizant prose as bad, while with cognizant prose I would either call it misguided, if I find it particularly abhorrent, or, simply state that it was disagreeable to me personally, or, that I found it to be ineffectual. That requires an assumption, and things that I may consider deliberate choices might be an author not caring or being insufficiently skilled to do it a different way, but I find that it at least allows me to separate the wheat from the chaff somewhat.
Essentially, it allows me to establish a divide between a middle schooler and an author who has intentionally adopted a simple or aberrant prose style, and it can serve as part of an explanation for why one is good and one is bad, without necessarily creating an ideal for prose. Both a cognizant and incognizant style can be ineffective or distasteful, but if the author is aware of their personal style I try to engage with criticism of it in a different way. It is imperfect, but most solutions are.
But yeah, the battle scenes in The Heroes have stuck with me quite a bit more than any comparable scenes from ASoIF, but like you, I haven't read any of ASoIF since shortly after the TV series premiered, so I'd feel uncomfortable making a blanket statement about it. Either way, I'm quite fond of both series and I'm looking forward to the next First Law trilogy(Which I imagine will be out before Winds of Winter).
If you want top tier action... Malazan DESTROYS pretty much everything else. Particularly book 3 (Memories of Ice).
That series is /extremely/ schizophrenic to me though. It's equal parts great and unreadable depending on the book.
That series is /extremely/ schizophrenic to me though. It's equal parts great and unreadable depending on the book.
Massive bookworm here. Currently going through Salem's Lot by Stephen King since Halloween is right around the corner, really enjoying it so far. Say what you will about his shortcomings, but he's a master at writing characters and creating suspense.
Also working my way through October Dreams, an anthology published by Cemetery Dance. It's a collection of Halloween themed horror stories, along with really excellent and touching essays from each author about their favorite Halloween memories. If anyone wants a good October read sometime in the future I can't recommend it enough. Personal preference, but one of the works is The Lantern Marsh by Poppy Z. Brite and it's such a beautiful little story that the whole collection is worth it for that alone.
Also working my way through October Dreams, an anthology published by Cemetery Dance. It's a collection of Halloween themed horror stories, along with really excellent and touching essays from each author about their favorite Halloween memories. If anyone wants a good October read sometime in the future I can't recommend it enough. Personal preference, but one of the works is The Lantern Marsh by Poppy Z. Brite and it's such a beautiful little story that the whole collection is worth it for that alone.
When I review a book, I'm not really judging whether it's objectively good or not. The books I typically review aren't great literature; I doubt the Great American Novel is going to be about a Green Beret caught behind the North Korea DMZ. I judge books against others in the genre, and if fans of the genre itself will enjoy it. Is this book as good as the last one in the series? Does this author carry the Tom Clancy legacy forward? "Formulaic" isn't a negative criticism to someone who likes the formula.