What Are You Reading?

Trojan

Scrapyard Ship (Scrapyard Ship, #1) by Mark Wayne McGinnis

I really wanted to like this book because a fast paced space opera mil-scifi is right up my street, and there's a massive series of books to follow up. Unfortunately, I found a lot of things frustrating about this read.

One major issue for me is how a lot of unrealistic backstory is totally glossed over. I'm ok with suspension of disbelief, but throw us a bone, a little bit of detail as justification every so often. Here I felt I just had to suck it up. (A counterpoint is that in a 7-10+ book series, if you count the follow ups, there's a chance that there's more background at some point, if you have the patience). I initially suspected that this is more aimed at a YA audience, but after reading further in the series, I think it's just simplistic writing.

Another bug bear for me is when characters faced with a problem don't see A Really Obviously Solution that's standing - literally in this case - right in front of them. Then later, it's revealed as some kind of genius last minute answer to their woes.

Finally, and this is what brings it from a 3/5 down to a 2 for me, the ending. Or lack thereof. I'm all for ending a book on a cliff hanger, but this was more than that: this was taking the entire ending and moving it to book 2. (A tip: if you want the ending without needing to buy the next book, it's in the free sample on kindle).

I really, really wanted to like this book and series, it's fun and an interesting world. I think it would make a great TV series or movie. But there's not enough attention to detail for me in this one. If you like fast paced, YA style space opera, give it a try, but if you like the more intellectual end of the spectrum this probably is not for you.


Hab 12 (Scrapyard Ship, #2) by Mark Wayne McGinnis

(Abandoned)

I wasn't crazy about book 1, but wanted to give this a chance. Unfortunately, the curve is going the wrong direction, so I'm out.

The final nail for me was when the squad of battle hardened Navy SEALs, along with their alien warrior allies, enter what they know is the absolutely most hostile environment accessible to them, filled with dangerous creatures that literally killed half their squad mates in the previous book. At this point, on entering the “hab”, they use up 100% of the charges of a weapon that can give them a massive tactical advantage, and meanwhile allow themselves to be surrounded, completely unnoticed, by the enemy.

Yes, while that is bad enough, in true Billy May's style, “but, wait, there's more!”

In the above scenario, it turns out that they haven't discussed and tested important changes to their main rifle design, which means they don't fire when expected. This is what we're expected to believe of these experienced, battle hardened Navy SEALs, the best of the best of them who have come through major fighting where they lost half their numbers.

Somehow I managed to struggle on. After what the main character describes as "an impromtu demonstration of the weapons system" about 2 hours into their journey, after a major battle - our inept SEAL team leader loses the majority of his alien warrior allies to a environmental issue, with a shrug and on we go. He walks into an obvious trap. Hey, those Navy SEALs obviously ain't what they used to be.

At this it's going from "so bad it's awful" to "so bad it's hilarious". We're talking approaching "Oh, John Ringo, No!" levels of ridiculous (featuring less prosititutes).

I'm trying, I really am, but this is too much.

(Yeah, spoilers whatever, if you want to read these, this review isn't what'll spoil you).

Dades

Fian wrote: »

Then again that is how my wife describes the lord of the rings movies, just endlessly walking along.

That is wilfully incorrect!

That said, if they can make 9 hours of movie out of The Hobbit, someone can surely make a tight 90 minute nail-biter from The Long Walk.

nhur

Dades wrote: »

That is wilfully incorrect!

That said, if they can make 9 hours of movie out of The Hobbit, someone can surely make a tight 90 minute nail-biter from The Long Walk.

The Hobbit I liked when I read it as a kid... But tbh, I'd only read the narnia stuff then... Once I'd read something decent like Eddings I could never enjoy the hobbit again... Im sure it was good in its day but the genre has just improved no end since then. I even watched the first of the trilogy and it was all brought home by the ex machina ending to that part... (also, trilogy?! there wasn't enough story in the LOTR (snore) to make a trilogy and the hobbit is one book!)

In other news, Raft is great so far - thanks for the recommendation, kind strangers!

kirk buttercup

caliban's war - 2nd In the expanse series

Dades

nhur wrote: »

there wasn't enough story in the LOTR (snore) to make a trilogy and the hobbit is one book!)

We'll part ways here!

keane2097

I have found the Narnia stuff (much of which I only read in my late teens) really stands the test of time, as does Tolkien. If anything all of those get better over the years as they seem somehow to impart different meanings as you reread them with the benefit of different life experiences etc.

Comparing the above unfavourably to the likes of Eddings is not credible. I couldn't get through the Tamuli even when I was a feverish fan of any old rubbish that had magic and goblins in it. The Elenium was very enjoyable when I was a teenager but I don't know if I would be doing it any favours trying to read it again now.

nhur

keane2097 wrote: »

Comparing the above unfavourably to the likes of Eddings is not credible.

Fair enough... I wasn't trying to paint Eddings as top of the heap... More that almost any fantasy I've read is better than Tolkien... Though I understand there's a component of the enjoyment of books and concepts which depends on the age at which we read them. For the first time... And another which depends on the trajectory we take through the fantasy section of the library... Still... Tolkien's (and now Banks') works are something that I can't bear to read but at the same time, feel like I'm missing out because so many others place them at the top of their lists!

Trojan

nhur wrote: »

almost any fantasy I've read is better than Tolkien... Though I understand there's a component of the enjoyment of books and concepts which depends on the age at which we read them. For the first time... And another which depends on the trajectory we take through the fantasy section of the library... Still... Tolkien's (and now Banks') works are something that I can't bear to read but at the same time, feel like I'm missing out because so many others place them at the top of their lists!

The point you've left out of this position is that Tolkien created the genre. If LOTR wasn't written, then we wouldn't have all this epic modern fantasy. Sure, its simplistic black and white world view doesn't compare with the subtlety of GRRM's ASOIAF world with its likeable villains and weak heroes, but you can't compare.

It's the same in the world of scifi, when I was a kid I loved everything by Asimov. Reading some of his back now, they're not the same as modern scifi has moved on so much. Same for A. E. van Vogt, and Heinlein to some degree, and Clarke to a lesser degree (he wrote more character based works IMO). Lots of these were written in the 1930s-1960s, when microchips were a dream, and this writing actually helped shape the thinking of scientists.

For the most part, I think none of these books stack up to modern authors, but we can't measure them by the same yardstick. My advice is, if you can, read the older stuff first. If you can't do that, just accept them for what they are - the forerunners of genres. As you read them, try to figure out what modern authors and books were directly influenced by them.

(But Banks, wtf?)

nhur

Trojan wrote: »

For the most part, I think none of these books stack up to modern authors, but we can't measure them by the same yardstick.

I do measure them with the same yardstick... There's something to appreciate in the evolution of anything... But when people start banding about superlatives like "best" and "greatest" I start to get confused

Trojan wrote: »

(But Banks, wtf?)

Seriously, help me understand this one... I really feel I'm missing out... I read in order and stopped part way through Excession. I've asked on this thread before and people either love or hate banks. And strong disagreements on which of the books are the good ones

Sleepy

Making another attempt at Malazan after some recent non-fan-sci reading.

Dades

nhur wrote: »

Seriously, help me understand this one... I really feel I'm missing out... I read in order and stopped part way through Excession. I've asked on this thread before and people either love or hate banks. And strong disagreements on which of the books are the good ones

I told you already - Excession is the worst! You should have skipped it and read Against a Dark Background.

Trojan wrote: »

Same for A. E. van Vogt, and Heinlein to some degree, and Clarke to a lesser degree (he wrote more character based works IMO).

I dunno. Clarke for me was all about the concept. I can barely remember any of his characters but I remember Octospiders and the Overlords!

kirk buttercup

reading this thread what are the thoughts on best scifi

author ,series ,stand alone ???

pixelburp

bluewolf wrote: »

It actually gets better

Yeah, I'm about 1/3 to halfway through Senlin Ascends now and the main character has definitely grown on me. He seems to be slowly developing a spine & sense of direction. I suppose he had to given the circumstance but I was worried he'd remain so blandly earnest.

The richness of the writing & world-building puts me in mind of one of Banks' Culture novels; there's something exotic-yet-grotesque about the Tower that echoes that other series. I could almost believe the Babel Tower is some random planet within that universe...

Trojan

kirk buttercup wrote: »

reading this thread what are the thoughts on best scifi

author ,series ,stand alone ???

There's a best scifi thread here that might be worth a look through.

Trojan

Dades wrote: »

I dunno. Clarke for me was all about the concept. I can barely remember any of his characters but I remember Octospiders and the Overlords!

True enough, I think I misspoke there. But the likes of A Fall of Moondust, and Songs of Distant Earth, those are Clarke where I think it has withstood time far better than some of his other works.

nhur

Dades wrote: »

I told you already - Excession is the worst! You should have skipped it and read Against a Dark Background.

10-4... Next on the list after I get through more of the Xelee

shootermacg

nhur wrote: »

Fair enough... I wasn't trying to paint Eddings as top of the heap... More that almost any fantasy I've read is better than Tolkien... Though I understand there's a component of the enjoyment of books and concepts which depends on the age at which we read them. For the first time... And another which depends on the trajectory we take through the fantasy section of the library... Still... Tolkien's (and now Banks') works are something that I can't bear to read but at the same time, feel like I'm missing out because so many others place them at the top of their lists!

I loved the LotRs and the hobbit. I've read them multiple times. There's a lot of enjoyment there if you want to experience it. Hasn't aged a day IMO, they become better with age.

I love the way the heroes are written larger than life almost like rooks and bishops in a world of pawns.

So many little stories within the main arc, truly epic in scale and world building. Few books today can even match it for pure content. Genius, if you ask me.

Teyla Emmagan

I am reading the first of the Witcher books. I am quite enjoying it though the translation makes it flow a bit oddly at times. I just finished 'The Ninth Rain' and 'Godsgrave'. I loved 'Godsgrave'.

lordgoat

Fian wrote: »

I'm doing something similar, reading the "daughter of empire" series, which i read previously about 25 years ago. I remember it being good, but it has really stood the test of time and since i read it so long ago I don't really remember most of the intrigue/machinations. Really enjoying it and encouraging my daughter to read it too.

I regularly re-read this and Riftwar trilogy but I am a massive Feist fan so my opinion is clearly biased to these being the greatest fantasy series ever

Dades wrote: »

I still think of this book every time I buy a pair of shoes. :pac:
Shoe choice is crucial!

Same!

Sleepy wrote: »

Making another attempt at Malazan after some recent non-fan-sci reading.

Book 4 of the Malazan has just kicked off here.

Seriously the end of book 3. whiskey jack like come on man that was cold.

nhur

shootermacg wrote: »

So many little stories within the main arc, truly epic in scale and world building. Few books today can even match it for pure content. Genius, if you ask me.

I used to think the same about Robert Jordans stuff... Then GRRM.. Now Erikson...nothing beats Malazan for pure content and multi-scale, intertwining arcs with snippets of weighty history and larger context

Malazan and Revelation Space are my faves (for quite a while now)

Igotadose

keane2097 wrote: »

I have found the Narnia stuff (much of which I only read in my late teens) really stands the test of time, as does Tolkien. If anything all of those get better over the years as they seem somehow to impart different meanings as you reread them with the benefit of different life experiences etc.

Comparing the above unfavourably to the likes of Eddings is not credible. I couldn't get through the Tamuli even when I was a feverish fan of any old rubbish that had magic and goblins in it. The Elenium was very enjoyable when I was a teenager but I don't know if I would be doing it any favours trying to read it again now.

Here's what C. S. Lewis said about Tolkein. I think there are other quotes from him about it out there, but basically, he loved LotR:
"“The Fellowship of the Ring is like lightning from a clear sky. . . To say that in it heroic romance, gorgeous, eloquent, and unashamed, has suddenly returned at a period almost pathological in its anti-romanticism, is inadequate. . . Here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron; here is a book that will break your heart. . "

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/504539-the-fellowship-of-the-ring-is-like-lightning-from-a

Personally, I read Tolkein (the hobbit) very young, I think 7-8 years old and was enthralled. Later (early teens) LotR. Much later (adulthood) C. S. Lewis.

Frankly, I found Lewis' heavy-handed religious imagery gag-some. I think the books are really a trifle, all are fairly short and as I recall end up with "Save us, Aslan you're our only hope" as the plot device. I could be wrong, the old pussycat might not make an appearance in every one but I think he does, been ages since I read them.

Eddings is an awful hack in comparison to Tolkein. GRRM steals like crazy from Shakespeare and Tolkein (various magical devices), but again like cotton candy, when I read Game of Thrones books they were good long enjoyable summer-at-the-beach kind of things. Got through the first two seasons of the HBO show and that was it, thought the books were better.

coffee_cake

Eddings is a terrible formulaic hack with smug characters everywhere

Nody

bluewolf wrote: »

Eddings is a terrible formulaic hack with smug characters everywhere

Eddings is a great introduction to fantasy for YA; I've read the Belgarion series probably 10+ times when I was younger and it's an upbeat, hero always win, kind of story. Great to get me going down he route of reading more fantasy but when I tried to reread it a year ago it's very simplistic. But; and I think that's important to recognize that Eddings is not aiming to be the Malzan of fantasy either. There were no grand standing "we're going to be the longest fantasy series ever" etc. and for what it is and aimed for it does a good job of being a YA fantasy series with strong characters of both sexes with suitable humor for it's age group (I loved the whole "does bouncing count?" for example at the time). My sister is currently going through the series with her son who's 12 year old and he's loving it as well.

coffee_cake

I agree it was my intro. I read a lot of it. I just don't think he's up there comparable with the greats as was being done earlier

nhur

ok - to reiterate - I wasn't suggesting that Eddings is the greatest author of all time but we've been over this


also - No problem with calling out Eddings as being formulaic (which he is) - part of the charm - but to imply that Tolkien isn't is laughable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero's_journey
- part of my original attraction to GRRM was his breaking of this formula... but when with subsequent books he just became obvious in his reapplication of his formula I got sick of them (same emotional journey with the tv series).



Anyhoo, in other news - Xelee is great fun so far

lordgoat

For me Tolkien is garbage. I can't stand how he writes. Ah yes I know what this chapter needs, a 14 page long song that makes no sense and has no bearing on the story. Also my characters haven't eaten in a while best get them some dried bread and cheese now too.
I'd say starving Frodo must have broke his heart.

All this said I loved the hobbit. He badly needed a strong editor for everything else imo.

lordgoat

Also Eddings used the same character descriptions for two of his characters in different series. The Bulgarian and the other one. It really pissed me off. Or maybe it was the same character but he used the same paragraph again in a later book.

Dades

Trojan wrote: »

True enough, I think I misspoke there. But the likes of A Fall of Moondust, and Songs of Distant Earth, those are Clarke where I think it has withstood time far better than some of his other works.

Couldn't help myself - I found myself looking again at Clarkes' bibliography and now I'm 1/3rd through The Hammer of God. There's something so comfortable about his writing. He's not caught up in trying to force an agenda or be controversial - he just narrates a yarn. And even when some of the science is outdated, you know he was such a visionary that he gets a pass.

lordgoat wrote: »

For me Tolkien is garbage. I can't stand how he writes. Ah yes I know what this chapter needs, a 14 page long song that makes no sense and has no bearing on the story.

As a hater of poetry in any form (especially Vogon) those pages barely get skimmed by me. I allow the old man his indulgence!

kirk buttercup

I liked Lord of the rings however it was the first fantasy novel I read and I very nearly didn't get past the Tom bombadil! part as for the poetry well I just kind of skimmed past that once I realised it wasn't relevant.

Sleepy

Lord of the Rings was the first fantasy I attempted to read when I was about 13. I got about 2 chapters in and went back to my thriller novels (James Clavell, Robert Ludlum, Len Deighton etc.). It was nearly 15 years later before I read another fantasy novel.

I must give it another try at some stage but my memory of it would be of utterly awful prose.