leemond2008 Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 oh and for the record I am also planning on re-reading Salems Lot as well. I have read it a few times in the past but I don't feel as though I can remember a fat lot about it although I know within the first few pages everything will come flooding back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogso Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I'm still on my way to the Dark Tower. I started reading Wolves of Calla before my OCD kicked in and I told myself I had to read Salem's Lot first, so that's what I'm doing. I'm aware I don't HAVE to read it just because Father Callaghan is in it, but I feel I should anyway. Wolves of the Calla is my least favourite of the series. It's far, far too long. Reference is made throughout by Roland to his Ka Tat, and the reader, that a gunfight may take many months of planning but can be over in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately that is exactly what happens in the book. Of course there are subplots, very important ones actually, going on aswell, but the build up to The Big Fight takes forever and then it's over ever so quickly. Too quickly, I thought. It's clear that's what King was going for, he wanted to evoke that feeling of suddeness (damn that looks weird. Suddenness? Sudeness? Sudenes? Sudenese?) and an explosion of viseceral violence all over your face...but it was still a bit to quick for me. Then there's the reveals immediately after The Big Fight. To call them controversial would be putting it mildly... The connection to 'salem's Lot is probably the best one in the series though, so you've done the right thing really. Maybe tied with Everything's Eventual. The Pere's backstory in Wolves of the Calla is the best bit really, and it is useful because it actually tells you the ending of 'salem's Lot ...and there I go again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I'm still on my way to the Dark Tower. I started reading Wolves of Calla before my OCD kicked in and I told myself I had to read Salem's Lot first, so that's what I'm doing. I'm aware I don't HAVE to read it just because Father Callaghan is in it, but I feel I should anyway. Wolves of the Calla is my least favourite of the series. It's far, far too long. Reference is made throughout by Roland to his Ka Tat, and the reader, that a gunfight may take many months of planning but can be over in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately that is exactly what happens in the book. Of course there are subplots, very important ones actually, going on aswell, but the build up to The Big Fight takes forever and then it's over ever so quickly. Too quickly, I thought. It's clear that's what King was going for, he wanted to evoke that feeling of suddeness (damn that looks weird. Suddenness? Sudeness? Sudenes? Sudenese?) and an explosion of viseceral violence all over your face...but it was still a bit to quick for me. Then there's the reveals immediately after The Big Fight. To call them controversial would be putting it mildly... The connection to 'salem's Lot is probably the best one in the series though, so you've done the right thing really. Maybe tied with Everything's Eventual. The Pere's backstory in Wolves of the Calla is the best bit really, and it is useful because it actually tells you the ending of 'salem's Lot ...and there I go again. Happy new year, hogso 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I've always felt a little envious toward those who find a series of books they love and throw themselves into. I'm tempted by Asimov's Foundation books but I'm not sure. Bank's Culture books appeal to me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 31, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted December 31, 2013 I've always felt a little envious toward those who find a series of books they love and throw themselves into. I'm tempted by Asimov's Foundation books but I'm not sure. Bank's Culture books appeal to me too. I loved Foundation, but I read it when I was about 17, so dunno whether it holds up. I think it might. The Culture books are good, but only loosely connected. Have you read any Neal Stephenson? I really loved Cryptonomicon, followed by the (related) Baroque Cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Nope, can't say I have. Look interesting, though. Re: Culture. Does it matter if they are read in order? Imma need to go shoppin' soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 31, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted December 31, 2013 Culture books don't really need to be read in order, but you may as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I've always felt a little envious toward those who find a series of books they love and throw themselves into. I'm tempted by Asimov's Foundation books but I'm not sure. Bank's Culture books appeal to me too. I loved Foundation, but I read it when I was about 17, so dunno whether it holds up. Mrs H got me the first Foundation book I just couldn't get into them , but it's probably more that I just can't read Sci Fi books for some reason ( which is strange as I love Sci fi films ) If I ever finish the 40 + books that i still have in my cupboard /shelves ( and don't buy another 50 in the mean time ) then maybe I try it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 31, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted December 31, 2013 (edited) Nope, can't say I have. Look interesting, though. Re: Culture. Does it matter if they are read in order? Imma need to go shoppin' soon. The Culture books don't strictly have a reading order but there are definitely points to begin, and a couple of books should be read after others - most notably Consider Phlebas should be read before Look to Windward as the latter deals with events following the former. Excession should be read after you've got a few books under your belt as the entire thing is effectively an in joke about what would happen if the Culture encountered something it didn't understand. And while it's not a Culture novel, Inversions should be read at some point too. Also a lot of the books have references to each other which you can miss if you've skipped around. The Player of Games is a good jumping on point, Consider Phlebas is a bit odd for an introduction to the series as the Culture are more of a background feature (they're presented as the opposition in a war taking place largely at arms length), whereas the Player of Games features the Culture prominently in a decent standalone story that introduces a lot of recurring themes and ideas. Edited December 31, 2013 by Chindie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) Some of you might be shocked to discover that I am not a teenage girl, but that hasn't stopped me from powering through The Hunger Games trilogy recently. I think the constant bombardment of adverts for the second film piqued my interest enough to see what all the fuss was about. I'll confess I really did enjoy the first book, it's not very original of course (it owes more than a passing nod to The Running Man for starters) but it is tightly written and I felt a genuine sense of tension as the story progressed. As the series continues there has been a marked decline in quality though, I'm halfway through the third book and I reached the point where I would dismiss the whole series as juvenile quite a while ago but I guess that isn't really a fault of the books because they are clearly aimed at fifteen year olds. The love triangle aspect is quite dull and almost every dramatic point is generated by two characters keeping a secret from a third, then the third finds out and has a hissy fit. I'll reserve complete judgement until I finish the last bit but I think I am finding the series a bit "meh" which is a real shame because the first book was excellent and had that rare trait where the ending actually left me wanting more. Edited January 2, 2014 by The_Rev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogso Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I commented on it after having watched the second Hunger Games movie at the pictures - it's a real shame they've split the third book in to two movies as it's going to be such an anti-climax in 2 years time. Check it out! A post in the book thread without a Stephen King Reference! I even purposely did not quote Rev so as not to mention The Running Man ...hang on I've mentioned him now haven't I All things serve the Beam...and Ka blows like the wind... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) Just picked this up at the bookstore - I've wanted to read it for a long time. Edited January 2, 2014 by legov 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Just picked this up at the bookstore - I've wanted to read it for a long time. It is an interesting first step but the title leads the reader astray by suggesting that evolution is teleological: the most frequent misunderstanding of evolution, which is a way of thinking which is difficult get out of. A legacy of our religious indoctrination I am afraid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 2, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 2, 2014 Probably an unfortunate title, but it's only the interpretation certain dim people (who haven't read it) put on it. Dawkins makes the meaning perfectly clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Totally agreed. Besides, this was written before he became such a prominent public figure - understandable then that he opted for that title, because he was (probably) writing primarily with research rather than public education in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 2, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 2, 2014 Oh no, TSG is definitely a "public education" book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Oh no, TSG is definitely a "public education" book. Really? i was always under the impression that it was a bit of a hybrid. Half popular science, half scientific journal piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 You know hard science when you see it, at least I do, because I've no idea what they're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 As I said, hybrid. I was always under the impression that the gene-centred view of evolution that we have now started with TSG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 2, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 2, 2014 Well, lets's say it's the easy-to-digest version of the academic work he was doing at the time. It's not dumbed-down as such, but like CED says, a proper PhD thesis is damned hard going for the layman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts