What's your favorite perspective in books?
There's 3rd-person perspective ("he said", "she thought"). Some books focus on a large amount of characters and don't really talk much about their thoughts, which makes me feel disconnected. The more specialized "limited 3rd-person", where the narrator only focuses on a few characters (or just one) but goes deeper, are more my thing.
There's 1st-person perspective ("I went"), which can be very interesting if the main character feels real. My mom said once that she generally didn't like 1st person as much as 3rd, maybe because it feels too intimate?
And there's the rarest one, 2nd-person perspective ("you said"...or usually, "you say", since 2nd-person is almost always in the present tense). I don't care for it much in the "Choose Your Own Adventure" kids books, because they try to make the main character as neutral as possible so you can implant your own thoughts into the book. There are a couple of short stories (and books too?) out there, though, that are in 2nd-person. I only read one (something by Ray Bradbury), but it's different because the main character isn't actually you, but by reading it you sort of pretend to be him. And I love this kind of "ultimate-being-in-someone's-shoes"/roleplay. When I write my own "Choose your own..." games (I actually call them "Pick Your Own Path Adventures"...or, PYOPAs) I try to create a character for the reader to become. This character is obviously not as detailed as 1st or 3rd person perspective (maybe it can be, though...I should read more books like that), but it's vague enough that you can put a bit of yourself in it.
Next time: present tense, past tense, or future tense? Heh heh.
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
I speak for the books!
Two posts in one day! Do I rock or what? ;)
I find that people are often biased when it comes to things they aren't familiar with (I'm like that too). I especially notice it when it comes to books genres. I used to think SF was only really tech-oriented space opera kind of things (which it's totally not...although space opera can be kinda fun). The sad thing is, we don't realize what we're missing unless we really investigate the genre...looking at titles in a chain bookstore won't cut it.
This is a very general topic, so I'm going to focus on one specific thing...let's say "YA books" (I'm not a fan of labeling, but I'll ignore that right now), since I've been thinking about it lately.
I hear negative things about teen fiction, on the internet and occasionally from people I know. People seem to focus on the fact that teen fiction produced Twilight (and many Twilight-wannabes), and not so much on the actually deep, good books out there.
Yes, some YA books can be shallow and focus too much on romantic relationships, but so can adults books. And teen fiction has many really interesting books that explore things that books for other ages don't. Self-discovery, other people...and a lot of it feels fresh, since the characters are often finding out these things for the first time. And, I find that books for this age (and younger) are more positive than adult books (but I'm no expert...this is just from what I've heard about various adult books).
And that's just realistic fiction. Fantasy teen fiction (when it's good) is, in my opinion, the best kind of fantasy fiction. It's sophisticated, but it's not as restrained to a genre as an adult book might be.
So...that's my defense of teen books. I'd love to hear your opinion on similar subjects...what genres/ages groups/writing styles/whatever do you love, and why should I love it too?
I find that people are often biased when it comes to things they aren't familiar with (I'm like that too). I especially notice it when it comes to books genres. I used to think SF was only really tech-oriented space opera kind of things (which it's totally not...although space opera can be kinda fun). The sad thing is, we don't realize what we're missing unless we really investigate the genre...looking at titles in a chain bookstore won't cut it.
This is a very general topic, so I'm going to focus on one specific thing...let's say "YA books" (I'm not a fan of labeling, but I'll ignore that right now), since I've been thinking about it lately.
I hear negative things about teen fiction, on the internet and occasionally from people I know. People seem to focus on the fact that teen fiction produced Twilight (and many Twilight-wannabes), and not so much on the actually deep, good books out there.
Yes, some YA books can be shallow and focus too much on romantic relationships, but so can adults books. And teen fiction has many really interesting books that explore things that books for other ages don't. Self-discovery, other people...and a lot of it feels fresh, since the characters are often finding out these things for the first time. And, I find that books for this age (and younger) are more positive than adult books (but I'm no expert...this is just from what I've heard about various adult books).
And that's just realistic fiction. Fantasy teen fiction (when it's good) is, in my opinion, the best kind of fantasy fiction. It's sophisticated, but it's not as restrained to a genre as an adult book might be.
So...that's my defense of teen books. I'd love to hear your opinion on similar subjects...what genres/ages groups/writing styles/whatever do you love, and why should I love it too?
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
What do you look for...
...In a book or movie? I know there are a lot of different aspects, but what is one thing (or two things) that you find you can't read a book without?
For me, it's story and characters. I used to think that I found the story the most important thing...and it is very important (that's why I barely read non-fiction). But I recently found out that if a book has characters that I love, I don't mind if the story sucks.
One thing I can do without in books are descriptions of places or things. I have a greater tolerance for them if I'm listening to an audio book, but for some reason I just get bored reading about the surrounding area, unless it's really really unusual or exciting.
With movies, though, it's different. I really like visuals (at least if it's fantasy or SF), and setting takes a bigger role in a movie than it does for a book. Story and characters are more equal, because it's harder for me to really love a character in a movie (maybe because I can't get in their head? Well, maybe I'll post about that later).
So...what about you? What's important for you in a book, and how is it different in a movie?
For me, it's story and characters. I used to think that I found the story the most important thing...and it is very important (that's why I barely read non-fiction). But I recently found out that if a book has characters that I love, I don't mind if the story sucks.
One thing I can do without in books are descriptions of places or things. I have a greater tolerance for them if I'm listening to an audio book, but for some reason I just get bored reading about the surrounding area, unless it's really really unusual or exciting.
With movies, though, it's different. I really like visuals (at least if it's fantasy or SF), and setting takes a bigger role in a movie than it does for a book. Story and characters are more equal, because it's harder for me to really love a character in a movie (maybe because I can't get in their head? Well, maybe I'll post about that later).
So...what about you? What's important for you in a book, and how is it different in a movie?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Friday: Recycled content
Don't worry, this isn't going to be a post about something I've already talked about.
Today I'm actually going to post about recycled content.
When you read a label that says "80 percent recycled content", you think, "Yay! It's environmental!" But what if you read that in a book review?
That was the title of a review on Amazon.com. I'm reading the book ("Juggler of Worlds" by Larry Niven and Edward Lerner) in question, so I've decided to write about that today.
What, exactly, is a book with "recycled content"? In my case, it's a book with certain plot points that have been used before, in short stories (and occasionally other books) by the same author. As in, the actual plots of the short stories. In LN's defense, he did write those parts from different perspectives than the first time, which seemed to change it enough, plus the way he fit all those different plots into a whole was interesting. But still, it's recycled.
When I heard it the first time, two thoughts came to mind: "That's kinda lazy", and "So am I supposed to read all those stories first?" That's my question today: would a new reader want to read the original stories first, and then the book? Or just the book itself?
On one hand, if you just read the book you get the end result either way, and with less effort because most of the plot points are shortened. But that way you probably won't want to read the stories afterward, because the endings have already been spoiled. And not just that: since the plot is condensed, it's not as full and interesting in the book as it would have been in the story.
On the other hand, if you read the stories first, then the book won't be so interesting. And, again, since all the side-plot things will be shortened, it won't be as cool to read as it is in the story.
I think most LN readers ended up reading the stories first, just because they were published a long time before the book. Since I'm new, I actually had the choice. What did I do? I only read some of the short stories. So that way it's only 20-40 percent recycled content, and yet I know the kind of thing I'm missing. So if I'm interesting in something, I can go look for the short story to get the full version.
So, I suppose in the end it depends on how dedicated you are. What would you do? What if you didn't have the choice of a mix? (If I didn't, I'd probably read all the short stories first, but that's just because I'm a fan of the author.)
This post was freakishly hard to write for some reason. I guess I'm not in a writing mood today. Oh well, I've finally got it out of my head! Thanks, as always, for reading. Bye!
Today I'm actually going to post about recycled content.
When you read a label that says "80 percent recycled content", you think, "Yay! It's environmental!" But what if you read that in a book review?
That was the title of a review on Amazon.com. I'm reading the book ("Juggler of Worlds" by Larry Niven and Edward Lerner) in question, so I've decided to write about that today.
What, exactly, is a book with "recycled content"? In my case, it's a book with certain plot points that have been used before, in short stories (and occasionally other books) by the same author. As in, the actual plots of the short stories. In LN's defense, he did write those parts from different perspectives than the first time, which seemed to change it enough, plus the way he fit all those different plots into a whole was interesting. But still, it's recycled.
When I heard it the first time, two thoughts came to mind: "That's kinda lazy", and "So am I supposed to read all those stories first?" That's my question today: would a new reader want to read the original stories first, and then the book? Or just the book itself?
On one hand, if you just read the book you get the end result either way, and with less effort because most of the plot points are shortened. But that way you probably won't want to read the stories afterward, because the endings have already been spoiled. And not just that: since the plot is condensed, it's not as full and interesting in the book as it would have been in the story.
On the other hand, if you read the stories first, then the book won't be so interesting. And, again, since all the side-plot things will be shortened, it won't be as cool to read as it is in the story.
I think most LN readers ended up reading the stories first, just because they were published a long time before the book. Since I'm new, I actually had the choice. What did I do? I only read some of the short stories. So that way it's only 20-40 percent recycled content, and yet I know the kind of thing I'm missing. So if I'm interesting in something, I can go look for the short story to get the full version.
So, I suppose in the end it depends on how dedicated you are. What would you do? What if you didn't have the choice of a mix? (If I didn't, I'd probably read all the short stories first, but that's just because I'm a fan of the author.)
This post was freakishly hard to write for some reason. I guess I'm not in a writing mood today. Oh well, I've finally got it out of my head! Thanks, as always, for reading. Bye!
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Thursday: Audio books
Thursday already? We're halfway there, guys! Keep blogging!
When I'm reading a book that isn't going well for me, but that I have to read (for the book club, for example), you'll often hear me saying, "I'm not getting through it, so I've ordered the audio book from the library."
Sometimes I wonder why I find listening to audio books more engaging than printed books. Is it because if I find a description boring, I can just not pay much attention to it and it'll go by? Is it because I can multitask while I'm listening?
Well, yes, but I think there's more to it than that. I'm very people-oriented, and when I listen to someone I pay attention. Certain things seem more interesting when I hear someone talking about it.
Technically you could say that just reading a book is sort of like listening to someone talking (the narrator, the characters). It is, and that's why I love to read (especially dialogue). At the same time, it's not as close to the real thing as an audio book. And I think that's the reason I like audio books so much.
I know this isn't the same for everyone. My mom, for example, prefers reading to listening.
What do you think? Do you like audio books, but for a different reason? Do you hate them? Discuss!
When I'm reading a book that isn't going well for me, but that I have to read (for the book club, for example), you'll often hear me saying, "I'm not getting through it, so I've ordered the audio book from the library."
Sometimes I wonder why I find listening to audio books more engaging than printed books. Is it because if I find a description boring, I can just not pay much attention to it and it'll go by? Is it because I can multitask while I'm listening?
Well, yes, but I think there's more to it than that. I'm very people-oriented, and when I listen to someone I pay attention. Certain things seem more interesting when I hear someone talking about it.
Technically you could say that just reading a book is sort of like listening to someone talking (the narrator, the characters). It is, and that's why I love to read (especially dialogue). At the same time, it's not as close to the real thing as an audio book. And I think that's the reason I like audio books so much.
I know this isn't the same for everyone. My mom, for example, prefers reading to listening.
What do you think? Do you like audio books, but for a different reason? Do you hate them? Discuss!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Tuesday: Star Trek
Herein lies day two of the "WLBC", as Dorothy called it. (BTW...yay, three people are participating in it!)
Well, my nerdiness is complete: I watch Star Trek on TV. It started when I went to see the new Star Trek movie (which was really good, by the way). Soon after, I found out that the actual TV series (two series', actually: the original and the Next Generation) was showing in the late mornings. So, I was curious and started watching it.
The "first generation"...that is, the original, is very...sixties. The music is really cheesy ("dun dun...DUNNNNNNN!"), the acting isn't great, and the planets they go to look a LOT like movie sets (maybe because they are? Dun dun DUNNN!). But the funny thing is, it kind of grows on you. I wasn't around in the sixties, and I haven't watched it until now, so there isn't any nostalgia for me. But it's kind of sweet. And some of the episodes have really interesting stories.
I was more into "The Next Generation" when I first started watching. Despite the fact that I was unfamiliar with the characters, I began to like them quickly. It was also somewhat more...believable, I guess. Graphics, music...it absorbed easier. Now I like them equally, because their so different from each other despite having the same setting.
I haven't seen any of the other Star Trek series' (I heard Deep Space Nine is darker in storyline, so that might be interesting), but maybe I'll look for them on YouTube.
Anyway, I'm one of those people that like SF for the story and the characters, rather than the ideas and the science. In some ways, Star Trek reminds me of Larry Niven's "Known Space" universe. Both things seem to put more emphasis on the "science" than the "fiction"...although, I still somehow really like both. I guess I can find enough character to be interested, even if the creator didn't put it there. (I'm talking more about Known Space here than Star Trek...I think Star Trek has some really cool characters, especially TNG. Although so does Known Space.)
And that's it for now. As always, thanks for reading.
Dun dun DUNNNNNN!
Well, my nerdiness is complete: I watch Star Trek on TV. It started when I went to see the new Star Trek movie (which was really good, by the way). Soon after, I found out that the actual TV series (two series', actually: the original and the Next Generation) was showing in the late mornings. So, I was curious and started watching it.
The "first generation"...that is, the original, is very...sixties. The music is really cheesy ("dun dun...DUNNNNNNN!"), the acting isn't great, and the planets they go to look a LOT like movie sets (maybe because they are? Dun dun DUNNN!). But the funny thing is, it kind of grows on you. I wasn't around in the sixties, and I haven't watched it until now, so there isn't any nostalgia for me. But it's kind of sweet. And some of the episodes have really interesting stories.
I was more into "The Next Generation" when I first started watching. Despite the fact that I was unfamiliar with the characters, I began to like them quickly. It was also somewhat more...believable, I guess. Graphics, music...it absorbed easier. Now I like them equally, because their so different from each other despite having the same setting.
I haven't seen any of the other Star Trek series' (I heard Deep Space Nine is darker in storyline, so that might be interesting), but maybe I'll look for them on YouTube.
Anyway, I'm one of those people that like SF for the story and the characters, rather than the ideas and the science. In some ways, Star Trek reminds me of Larry Niven's "Known Space" universe. Both things seem to put more emphasis on the "science" than the "fiction"...although, I still somehow really like both. I guess I can find enough character to be interested, even if the creator didn't put it there. (I'm talking more about Known Space here than Star Trek...I think Star Trek has some really cool characters, especially TNG. Although so does Known Space.)
And that's it for now. As always, thanks for reading.
Dun dun DUNNNNNN!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
A lot of questions about "classics"
Book critic mode...engage!
This month my book club was reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin", by Harriet Beecher Stowe. I thought it was kinda boring until the halfway point, then it got really good. Wasn't a big fan of the dialogue, though...but you learn to ignore that. But that's not what I wanted to talk about.
I have a friend who couldn't get through it, and we had an interesting discussion over the phone about classics and books in general. At the book club meeting, the conversation turned in that direction as well. It seems like all of the members, whether they like classic books or not, agree that reading a book just so you can say, "I read this! I'm so scholarly!" is not why you should read it. I think the best way to put it is: classics for the sake of classics is entirely missing the point. I think lots of people, even if they try to avoid it, usually read a classic book with that kind of thing in mind (I know I do!). I'm not saying that it's the only reason someone reads a classic, but it's often there under the surface.
So...that leads to the question: how do you define a classic, then? It seems to be a really subjective thing. Is any book a classic if it's old? Do you have to learn something from a classic? If so, then there are a lot of modern books that have powerful messages. And, as my friend was saying, sometimes modern books are more relevant to real life because they are written by people in our time, who are faced with more or less the same problems.
But...does a book have to be relevant at all? What about fantasy? I guess you can say that fantasy has a lot of symbols for real life, but what if a book wasn't written that way? What if it you don't learn anything from a book that can be applied to your life, but it was powerful in a different way?
I'm kind of going off in various directions here, but what I'm trying to say is: does a book always have to "teach you something"? Is it only a classic then? Or is it just an old book? Or is a classic just a book that you love, for whatever reason? (That makes it a more personal definition, of course.)
So...what do you think? Do you know what I'm talking about? Agree? Disagree? I'd love to hear people's opinions.
This month my book club was reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin", by Harriet Beecher Stowe. I thought it was kinda boring until the halfway point, then it got really good. Wasn't a big fan of the dialogue, though...but you learn to ignore that. But that's not what I wanted to talk about.
I have a friend who couldn't get through it, and we had an interesting discussion over the phone about classics and books in general. At the book club meeting, the conversation turned in that direction as well. It seems like all of the members, whether they like classic books or not, agree that reading a book just so you can say, "I read this! I'm so scholarly!" is not why you should read it. I think the best way to put it is: classics for the sake of classics is entirely missing the point. I think lots of people, even if they try to avoid it, usually read a classic book with that kind of thing in mind (I know I do!). I'm not saying that it's the only reason someone reads a classic, but it's often there under the surface.
So...that leads to the question: how do you define a classic, then? It seems to be a really subjective thing. Is any book a classic if it's old? Do you have to learn something from a classic? If so, then there are a lot of modern books that have powerful messages. And, as my friend was saying, sometimes modern books are more relevant to real life because they are written by people in our time, who are faced with more or less the same problems.
But...does a book have to be relevant at all? What about fantasy? I guess you can say that fantasy has a lot of symbols for real life, but what if a book wasn't written that way? What if it you don't learn anything from a book that can be applied to your life, but it was powerful in a different way?
I'm kind of going off in various directions here, but what I'm trying to say is: does a book always have to "teach you something"? Is it only a classic then? Or is it just an old book? Or is a classic just a book that you love, for whatever reason? (That makes it a more personal definition, of course.)
So...what do you think? Do you know what I'm talking about? Agree? Disagree? I'd love to hear people's opinions.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Sci-fi lists part two
Yay, I actually posted soon after the first one! Good for me.
So, here are a bunch of other science fiction books that I've read recently:
1. Fahrenheit 451 (By Ray Bradbury)
This one is more of a "social sci-fi" book than the other ones, and because of that I didn't love it, but it was good. I think the stuff about censorship and the pretty clueless society was very important. Did the people even know about the war going on? I don't remember. I listened to the audio book, and I can't remember who narrated but I thought his reading style really fit Bradbury's writing style.
2. The Giver (By Lois Lowry)
This was a book I'd been planning to read for ages, and I finally did because of my book club. It's another dystopian book (weird...my spell check doesn't have the word "dystopia" for some reason), although this one is more anti-utopian than anything else. It's kind of creepy and the writing style is uniquely vague...although sometimes I did want the author to elaborate on things more, especially the ending.
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey (By Arthur C. Clarke)
Because of this book I learned how to spell "odyssey"...yay! As with Fahrenheit, I listened to it on audio book. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I just might because of the book. I actually wasn't too impressed with it...I thought it was a bit boring, even the whole "HAL" thing (not because the events were boring, but because of the writing style)...at first. Then I got to the ending. I stayed up really late listening to the ending, and after that I lay awake in bed thinking, "WOAH...that was...WOAH". I don't really think I'll be reading the sequel, mainly because I loved the open-ended conclusion, and I don't want that to be spoiled. Unless the sequel is really, really good...(?)
4. Sphereland (By Dionys Burger)
This book was written in Dutch (or something like that), and I was reading the translation, but I can't remember who the translator was. Anyway, this isn't so much science fiction as "math fiction". It's a sequel to "Flatland" (by Edwin A. Abbot), a book about shapes living in a two-dimensional world. "Sphereland" further explores that concept, with some new ideas about curved space and other cool things like that.
There are still lots of books sci-fi books I want to read...right now I want to focus on various classic authors like Orwell and Asimov. Maybe I'll blog about that, too! Oh, and more Larry Niven, of course. Wish me luck!
So, here are a bunch of other science fiction books that I've read recently:
1. Fahrenheit 451 (By Ray Bradbury)
This one is more of a "social sci-fi" book than the other ones, and because of that I didn't love it, but it was good. I think the stuff about censorship and the pretty clueless society was very important. Did the people even know about the war going on? I don't remember. I listened to the audio book, and I can't remember who narrated but I thought his reading style really fit Bradbury's writing style.
2. The Giver (By Lois Lowry)
This was a book I'd been planning to read for ages, and I finally did because of my book club. It's another dystopian book (weird...my spell check doesn't have the word "dystopia" for some reason), although this one is more anti-utopian than anything else. It's kind of creepy and the writing style is uniquely vague...although sometimes I did want the author to elaborate on things more, especially the ending.
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey (By Arthur C. Clarke)
Because of this book I learned how to spell "odyssey"...yay! As with Fahrenheit, I listened to it on audio book. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I just might because of the book. I actually wasn't too impressed with it...I thought it was a bit boring, even the whole "HAL" thing (not because the events were boring, but because of the writing style)...at first. Then I got to the ending. I stayed up really late listening to the ending, and after that I lay awake in bed thinking, "WOAH...that was...WOAH". I don't really think I'll be reading the sequel, mainly because I loved the open-ended conclusion, and I don't want that to be spoiled. Unless the sequel is really, really good...(?)
4. Sphereland (By Dionys Burger)
This book was written in Dutch (or something like that), and I was reading the translation, but I can't remember who the translator was. Anyway, this isn't so much science fiction as "math fiction". It's a sequel to "Flatland" (by Edwin A. Abbot), a book about shapes living in a two-dimensional world. "Sphereland" further explores that concept, with some new ideas about curved space and other cool things like that.
There are still lots of books sci-fi books I want to read...right now I want to focus on various classic authors like Orwell and Asimov. Maybe I'll blog about that, too! Oh, and more Larry Niven, of course. Wish me luck!
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Sci-fi lists part one
Since I love reading and I love to make lists, I'm going to make a list of some recent science fiction I've read. WARNING: If you don't like lists, don't read this as you'll find it boring.
I'm generally a fantasy-reader, but recently I've started to love science fiction as well. It actually started through my obsession with the Lord of the Rings movies last fall (still haven't read the books by the way. I know, I'm a bad fantasy lover). This January, I was looking for an online audio book to listen to when I came across "Ringworld" by Larry Niven. I thought, "Oooh...it has 'ring' in the title! Like 'The Ring'! Awesome!" So I downloaded it. I had no clue what it was about, and I'd never heard of Larry Niven, but I saw it had won a sci-fi/fantasy award, so I figured it must be good.
Let's just say I found a new obsession. So...from classic fantasy to hard sci-fi. Kind of a big leap, but I have to say that sci-fi really isn't that different from fantasy. Anyway, it turns out that not only is Larry Niven famous among the sci-fi crowd, but he's written a lot of books and short stories. So, here are the books I've read so far:
"Ringworld" and its sequel "Ringworld's Engineers"
(Ringworld was awesome, the sequel not quite as great...and I'm afraid to read the third one as I've heard lots of negative things about it)
Fleet of Worlds
(I was very excited to find out about this one because it was about one of my favorite characters from Ringworld. It's really good too! This one is co-authored by Edward Lerner)
Protector
(I mainly read it as background info for "Ringworld's Engineers"...I didn't like it as much, but it was still fun for its ideas)
And these ones I'm still reading:
Neutron Star
(I'm actually almost finished with this one. It's a good short story collection that would make a great introduction to Larry Niven's universe)
Three Books of Known Space
(An omnibus with two novels and lots of short stories. I wasn't too impressed with the early stories, but I'm reading the first novel and it's very interesting)
Juggler of Worlds
(Sort of a sequel to "Fleet of Worlds"...not as good as Fleet but not bad so far. It seems to contain a lot of stuff about Niven's short stories, so I want to read lots of those first before finishing this)
This turned out longer than I expected it to be, so I think I'll split it into two parts and make the second post (which will be about various non-Niven books) sometime soon (if not tomorrow, then this week). I may also make a more in-depth post about Ringworld or one of the other ones...I dunno. Would you want to read it if I post it? Leave a comment.
Seriously, if anyone reads this blog, leave a comment. I'd like to know who reads it. I don't bite. =)
I'm generally a fantasy-reader, but recently I've started to love science fiction as well. It actually started through my obsession with the Lord of the Rings movies last fall (still haven't read the books by the way. I know, I'm a bad fantasy lover). This January, I was looking for an online audio book to listen to when I came across "Ringworld" by Larry Niven. I thought, "Oooh...it has 'ring' in the title! Like 'The Ring'! Awesome!" So I downloaded it. I had no clue what it was about, and I'd never heard of Larry Niven, but I saw it had won a sci-fi/fantasy award, so I figured it must be good.
Let's just say I found a new obsession. So...from classic fantasy to hard sci-fi. Kind of a big leap, but I have to say that sci-fi really isn't that different from fantasy. Anyway, it turns out that not only is Larry Niven famous among the sci-fi crowd, but he's written a lot of books and short stories. So, here are the books I've read so far:
"Ringworld" and its sequel "Ringworld's Engineers"
(Ringworld was awesome, the sequel not quite as great...and I'm afraid to read the third one as I've heard lots of negative things about it)
Fleet of Worlds
(I was very excited to find out about this one because it was about one of my favorite characters from Ringworld. It's really good too! This one is co-authored by Edward Lerner)
Protector
(I mainly read it as background info for "Ringworld's Engineers"...I didn't like it as much, but it was still fun for its ideas)
And these ones I'm still reading:
Neutron Star
(I'm actually almost finished with this one. It's a good short story collection that would make a great introduction to Larry Niven's universe)
Three Books of Known Space
(An omnibus with two novels and lots of short stories. I wasn't too impressed with the early stories, but I'm reading the first novel and it's very interesting)
Juggler of Worlds
(Sort of a sequel to "Fleet of Worlds"...not as good as Fleet but not bad so far. It seems to contain a lot of stuff about Niven's short stories, so I want to read lots of those first before finishing this)
This turned out longer than I expected it to be, so I think I'll split it into two parts and make the second post (which will be about various non-Niven books) sometime soon (if not tomorrow, then this week). I may also make a more in-depth post about Ringworld or one of the other ones...I dunno. Would you want to read it if I post it? Leave a comment.
Seriously, if anyone reads this blog, leave a comment. I'd like to know who reads it. I don't bite. =)
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Misc. weather thoughts (plus book club)
It got up to -30 degrees yesterday (Celsius, obviously). It's quite a bit less now, and hopefully we won't get any more of that this winter. Um...can it be spring now? Please? Usually I don't mind waiting for spring because of skiing and other wintry things, but this year I'm getting really sick of snow. I remember last year April was insane...first it was really cold and snowing, then the next day it would be 20 degrees, then it would snow again, then summer again, then...well, it was crazy. Maybe this year it'll be more summery?
On another note: yesterday was my book club meeting. We talked about "The Giver", and decided the next book to read will be "Born on a Blue Day", which is a memoir. I might blog about "The Giver", but I'm not sure. Wait and see, I guess. =)
On another note: yesterday was my book club meeting. We talked about "The Giver", and decided the next book to read will be "Born on a Blue Day", which is a memoir. I might blog about "The Giver", but I'm not sure. Wait and see, I guess. =)
Monday, March 09, 2009
Rants of a future librarian
You know what annoyed me today? When I found that someone had put checkmarks next to certain characters' names in my copy of "And Then There Were None". Was the previous reader checking off who dies or marking possible people who might've "dunnit"? I'm guessing the first. Luckily I only caught one name before I stopped looking...but seriously...use a list instead of marking a library book! *sigh*
Thursday, February 26, 2009
My thoughts on Walden
Ok, so I finished the book Walden (by Henry David Thoreau) a couple of days ago (just in time for my book club meeting), and I was intending to post, but I never got around to it. So, here's my thoughts on Walden:
I didn't like the first chapter. First of all, I didn't agree with Thoreau. He's opinionated. He's critical. He seems to think that everybody will all be like him when they "live up to their potential". He wants everyone to go live in the woods and not interact with each other much. Second of all, the chapter was 60. Pages. Long. I couldn't believe I'd have to read this thing in time for the book club, which was in the end of February (I started late too).
But...once I got past the first couple of chapters, I noticed something weird was happening: it was starting to grow on me. Once Thoreau was done being opinionated he started to actually describe his life in the woods near Walden Pond. I liked his descriptions of nature, especially when they were less descriptions and more like anecdotes (Thoreau chasing a loon on the pond, an epic ant battle). I even started to agree with him on some points.
So, by the end...I liked it. I didn't love it, but I liked it. I can see how it's a classic. It's sort of unique too (I think...I'm not really familiar with this genre).
I don't regret reading it...if only for the bragging rights. ;)
The next book we're reading is "The Giver" by Lois Lowry. Fiction and sci-fi! Woohoo! Maybe I'll post a "my thoughts" on that as well.
I didn't like the first chapter. First of all, I didn't agree with Thoreau. He's opinionated. He's critical. He seems to think that everybody will all be like him when they "live up to their potential". He wants everyone to go live in the woods and not interact with each other much. Second of all, the chapter was 60. Pages. Long. I couldn't believe I'd have to read this thing in time for the book club, which was in the end of February (I started late too).
But...once I got past the first couple of chapters, I noticed something weird was happening: it was starting to grow on me. Once Thoreau was done being opinionated he started to actually describe his life in the woods near Walden Pond. I liked his descriptions of nature, especially when they were less descriptions and more like anecdotes (Thoreau chasing a loon on the pond, an epic ant battle). I even started to agree with him on some points.
So, by the end...I liked it. I didn't love it, but I liked it. I can see how it's a classic. It's sort of unique too (I think...I'm not really familiar with this genre).
I don't regret reading it...if only for the bragging rights. ;)
The next book we're reading is "The Giver" by Lois Lowry. Fiction and sci-fi! Woohoo! Maybe I'll post a "my thoughts" on that as well.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Skiing
I went skiing yesterday. It was a really nice day...not cold, but not so warm that the snow melted and got all slushy.
Some interesting things that happened:
1. When I was going up the chairlift I saw somebody had written "please 33" on the seat. I have yet to google it. I wonder what it means.
2. I talked to a friendly ski lift attendant that was reading Kurt Vonnegut's Hocus Pocus. Yay for literary lift attendants!
I noticed that when you're skiing on your own you (or at least I) notice stuff more...you pay more attention to surroundings. The ski lifts feel slower, even. I guess that makes sense.
So yeah. I'm going skating tomorrow...if anything interesting happens, I'll report. Bye!
Some interesting things that happened:
1. When I was going up the chairlift I saw somebody had written "please 33" on the seat. I have yet to google it. I wonder what it means.
2. I talked to a friendly ski lift attendant that was reading Kurt Vonnegut's Hocus Pocus. Yay for literary lift attendants!
I noticed that when you're skiing on your own you (or at least I) notice stuff more...you pay more attention to surroundings. The ski lifts feel slower, even. I guess that makes sense.
So yeah. I'm going skating tomorrow...if anything interesting happens, I'll report. Bye!
Monday, February 16, 2009
Epic bookshelf quest - continued
Oh yeah, and here are two cool bookshelf pictures I found while wandering around. They could be quite fitting for some people (not me, though).
My epic quest for the perfect bookshelf pic
Ok, so a little while ago my friend Dorothy from A Brick Short of a Load (link in my sidebar) posted a picture of her laptop skin:
(I actually found that picture off the web...you can see a close-up of it if you go to Dorothy's blog)
I think it's the most awesome laptop skin ever, and I think it really fits her personality. So that got me thinking, "So what would be the perfect bookshelf pic for me?"
And thus began my quest.
Last night I started by searching "bookshelf" on Google Images. Better to start vague, I guess? That gave me a lot of photos of (surprise!) people's bookshelves. They were very average bookshelves, though, and not very characteristic of anybody (unless you start reading the titles, but that wasn't what I was looking for).
So I decided I need to figure out what kind of picture I wanted anyway. Well, I wanted something like the above pic, but maybe a little neater (to fit my personality), but preferably kind of surreal. So I searched "surreal bookshelf". Ok, that was better... there were some cool ones...but it still wasn't quite what I needed.
"Fantasy bookshelf", perhaps?
Nope, no luck. Mainly just fantasy books.
Maybe something a bit more vague? "Magic bookshelf"?
Nope.
That's where I gave up for the moment. Maybe I will spread my search to a photo website like Flickr. Maybe you people that know me can help me out?
Thank you for listening to my ranting, and I'll post if I find something interesting.
(I actually found that picture off the web...you can see a close-up of it if you go to Dorothy's blog)
I think it's the most awesome laptop skin ever, and I think it really fits her personality. So that got me thinking, "So what would be the perfect bookshelf pic for me?"
And thus began my quest.
Last night I started by searching "bookshelf" on Google Images. Better to start vague, I guess? That gave me a lot of photos of (surprise!) people's bookshelves. They were very average bookshelves, though, and not very characteristic of anybody (unless you start reading the titles, but that wasn't what I was looking for).
So I decided I need to figure out what kind of picture I wanted anyway. Well, I wanted something like the above pic, but maybe a little neater (to fit my personality), but preferably kind of surreal. So I searched "surreal bookshelf". Ok, that was better... there were some cool ones...but it still wasn't quite what I needed.
"Fantasy bookshelf", perhaps?
Nope, no luck. Mainly just fantasy books.
Maybe something a bit more vague? "Magic bookshelf"?
Nope.
That's where I gave up for the moment. Maybe I will spread my search to a photo website like Flickr. Maybe you people that know me can help me out?
Thank you for listening to my ranting, and I'll post if I find something interesting.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Summer, games, and Walden
It's a nice day today. It kinda makes me miss summer. I mean, I like winter and all (I like to downhill ski and skate), but I would like it to be summer soon. This might be because I've been making plans about what I'm going to do this summer.
So. What else?
Well, I haven't posted in three years, so I might as well say what I've been doing.
I still really miss the Myst series, but I'm more into action-type games now. Especially platformers and the like. I watch "Let's Plays" on Youtube, and I wonder if maybe I should give it a try.
I'm reading a book right now called Walden (by Henry David Thoreau) for this book club. I didn't know it was a classic...maybe it's more popular down in the U.S. For those who don't know what it is, it's about Thoreau himself when he goes to live in a cottage in the woods. It's about nature, and his philosophies in life.
Anyway, Thoreau and I aren't getting along very much...he seems a little judgmental to me (like, "we should all live like THIS and everyone who doesn't is WRONG.") but I do agree with some of what he says (it's still relevant today even though he wrote in the nineteenth century! Maybe that's why it's still around), and his descriptions of nature are really cool. I'll tell you my full impression after I've actually finished it.
Ok, that's it for now. I'm going to go reread my old posts now...maybe I'll post on that later. Bye! =)
So. What else?
Well, I haven't posted in three years, so I might as well say what I've been doing.
I still really miss the Myst series, but I'm more into action-type games now. Especially platformers and the like. I watch "Let's Plays" on Youtube, and I wonder if maybe I should give it a try.
I'm reading a book right now called Walden (by Henry David Thoreau) for this book club. I didn't know it was a classic...maybe it's more popular down in the U.S. For those who don't know what it is, it's about Thoreau himself when he goes to live in a cottage in the woods. It's about nature, and his philosophies in life.
Anyway, Thoreau and I aren't getting along very much...he seems a little judgmental to me (like, "we should all live like THIS and everyone who doesn't is WRONG.") but I do agree with some of what he says (it's still relevant today even though he wrote in the nineteenth century! Maybe that's why it's still around), and his descriptions of nature are really cool. I'll tell you my full impression after I've actually finished it.
Ok, that's it for now. I'm going to go reread my old posts now...maybe I'll post on that later. Bye! =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
