Comparatively Fantastic! Our favourite authors
- Thread starter Jan Van Quirm
- Start date
It was on the BBC in 1966. Real shades of Austin Powers in that it was a man frozen in a block of ice and revived. Only Adam had been frozen at the turn of the century and was brough back to life in the 60s.
Adam Adamant Lives.
I think it was me that started this digression - sorry.
Adam Adamant Lives.
I think it was me that started this digression - sorry. 
I didn't see Adam Adamant as the parental local control wanted to watch something else I think - or it was on after I was sent to bed....
Sorry I've been quiet in here - have had some tough stuff to get through this week and didn't have the time (or more importantly the inclination) to come into this thread at all - and elsewhere I was only up for short(ish) posts.
Victorian/Edwardian adventurers were pretty cool all in all and some like Richard Hannay (John Buchan: 39 steps; Prisoner of Zenda etc) and Allan Quatermain (Rider Haggard; King Solomon's Mines; She etc) are still 'rattling good' yarns today. I've read KSM and She and found them rather stodgy in style, but the imagination of the historic and mythic elements in both those books is interesting from the embryonic modern fantasy-writing perspective - Quatermain certainly is a template for Indiana Jones for instance, although not an academic by any stretch of the imagination!
Surprsingly too Haggard was something of a liberal and had Quatermain fairly well disposed towards tribal Africans and their political autonomy, and certainly for it's time the books aren't particularly colonialist in the 'me white hunter, you shut up and carry the tents' manner.
See - still no JRRT! Aren't I good! :twisted:
Sorry I've been quiet in here - have had some tough stuff to get through this week and didn't have the time (or more importantly the inclination) to come into this thread at all - and elsewhere I was only up for short(ish) posts.
Victorian/Edwardian adventurers were pretty cool all in all and some like Richard Hannay (John Buchan: 39 steps; Prisoner of Zenda etc) and Allan Quatermain (Rider Haggard; King Solomon's Mines; She etc) are still 'rattling good' yarns today. I've read KSM and She and found them rather stodgy in style, but the imagination of the historic and mythic elements in both those books is interesting from the embryonic modern fantasy-writing perspective - Quatermain certainly is a template for Indiana Jones for instance, although not an academic by any stretch of the imagination!
Surprsingly too Haggard was something of a liberal and had Quatermain fairly well disposed towards tribal Africans and their political autonomy, and certainly for it's time the books aren't particularly colonialist in the 'me white hunter, you shut up and carry the tents' manner.See - still no JRRT! Aren't I good! :twisted:
But it's much more fun to be bad and this thread needs bumping anyway :twisted:
I think I'd have to toss a coin between Pterry and Tolks as to who was my favourite author and actually I'd then have to do a knockout toss between the winner and Jane Austen who was, had the typewriter been invented, possibly the greatest (consistent) writer this country's ever produced... But it wasn't, so sorry Janey - I really wish you'd been born in WW2, lived in LA (or possibly in San Francisco 1st wearing a flower in your hair) because you'd have been a truly kickass screenwriter/director - maybe that's an idea for another thread actually: What if XXX author had been born in the 20th Cent (or whenever).
And already I digress! OK we know Pterry's a huge fave of mine, but JRRT Tolkien is as well to the point of and way beyond obsession. And now I'm going to contradict myself kind of because I freely admit I haven't read all his books or even half of them, and what's more I don't intend to either, because TBH they're a pain in the bum to read. I'm still convinced that The Silmarillion - as a book to curl up in bed with - is in fact the sovereign cure for insomnia (actually it isn't but that's just me 
). And the Sil's Gone with the Wind compared with such potboilers as The History of Arda - Morgoth's Ring or - gods forbid - The Children of Hurin (I want to shake Turin to death for being the most boringly annoying gung ho prat ever and drown soppy Nienor a lot earlier because she's so erm... wet ) I actually own a deluxe HB edition of TCOH - but that was for the illustrations (Alan Lee is a brilliant artist).
However, this doesn't matter because The Sil etc aren't supposed to be for reading for pleasure - they're lore... In fact it's not even lore for the die-hard Tolkien geeks - it's 'canon' as in 'canon law' (yes that's law not lore) - because what the Prof (or the Master as some people prefer ) wrote is in fact gospel truth and woe-betide you if you dare to question such mysteries as -
'did Balrog's have wings' (answer no - or if they did they didn't use them to fly much since they always got killed by falling off tall buildings or places with predictable regularity) or
'was it really Meriadoc Took who killed the Witchking of Angmar on the Pelennor Fields' (and not Eowyn who simply chopped his block off...' (answer - who cares, the legend is 'no man' could kill the nasssty Nazgul so probably it was a team effort) or
'what happened to the Entwives' (answer - who cares, period)
The officers of the lore will angonise and argue the toss over a period of days, if not weeks or months, over burning issues such as these on the plethora of fan forums out there, and that is why LotR and the Sil, with Unfinished Tales and the History of Arda are like the four bastion tenets of Middle Earth fandom and all within them are reverently analysed minutely and generally treated like the Holy Grail of fantasy literature. That and the languages (Sindarin (very Welsh with a smattering of other Gaelic mutations) Quenya (god knows – some germanic influences as it has a lot of umlauts) for the Elves; Saxon the Rohirrim: and for the baddies Black Speech - actually a derivative of barbarian Goth and Varangian... ) make JRRT's literary oeuvre completely compelling for people from all walks of life, for a variety of reasons.
Part of the allure is that all this canon lore isn't in fact set in stone, because the guy who wrote and developed it all was constantly changing his mind - like originally there was no Frodo or indeed Legolas characters in LotR (possibly a killer for box office options) - or recycling bits and pieces like the Balrog killings (Gandalf's duel on the Bridge was in fact a re-gurgitation of not 1 but 2 earlier fights during the Fall of Gondolin where Glorfindel did for one on a mountainside and Ecthelion killed 3 of the buggers on top of a tower... and none of these fire demons could glide or flap those wings if they had them, see! )
Me, I just like a good story and that is mostly what LotR is - on a grand scale. When you sit down and analyse this though, it's full of holes and if you haven't read the Hobbit (I read that afterwards) it’s really frustrating and you keep having to look at the prologue or appendix to find out who the hell Gil-galad or Elendil were and still get confused when they're yelling Elbereth Gilthoniel all the time, thinking they're two heroes when in fact you find out it's actually just more names for an angel-like deity (female) called Varda who 'made' the stars - it's enough to drive you nuts but it all seems to coalesce into this gorgeous mythic miasma that really is a kind of fascinating magic. I fell in love in other words on that first reading, even though there was tons I didn't understand - and when I finished it I went straight back to the beginning and read it all again - five times in a row in the summer of 1969. The Hobbit to be frank was a disappointment when I got around to it, not because it is for kids (although like Terry's 'young adult' work it's fine for grown ups too) but because the characters in common (except Bilbo who's great in both books) like Gandalf and Elrond are completely different to how they are in LotR - Elrond's an ‘Elf friend’ for instance, instead of the Half-Elf Lord (with a bit of Maia in there) in the later book.
See - it's completely mesmeric the more you go into it and this is why it has achieved and continues to attract a huge cult fanbase. It really is another world with its own creation myth, geography (The Atlas of Tolkien's Middle Earth is currently my favourite reference book), history spanning 10,000 years or more, cultures and languages. Tolkien was an uber-geek in fact. Call that geek an academic and you have the key to JRRT's obsession with his own creation and you're already halfway to realising why you've fallen in love...
Terry has said that the Discworld (aside from being a disc not a globe) is Middle Earth 500 years on and at the start of an Industrial Revolution. He's right I think - well he would be wouldn't he? If you add 'with a sense of humour' onto that theory then it certainly holds water
Tolkien's work isn't original (it has many derivations and sources including Nordic myth and Arthurian and Atlantean legend), so much as deeply developmental, and so his books on Middle Earth deservedly became much-loved classics. Very different to Pterry's work, but they both achieve a inner life of their own inside the reader’s mind with a very keen sense of integral reality once you're hooked into them.
The places and people become solid and attractive or repellent and take on a life of their own. I would love to be able to live in Middle Earth as my main Tolkien RP character (Janowyn the elf) - but I'd take my holidays on the Discworld I think! (maybe not as an elf though…)
I think I'd have to toss a coin between Pterry and Tolks as to who was my favourite author and actually I'd then have to do a knockout toss between the winner and Jane Austen who was, had the typewriter been invented, possibly the greatest (consistent) writer this country's ever produced... But it wasn't, so sorry Janey - I really wish you'd been born in WW2, lived in LA (or possibly in San Francisco 1st wearing a flower in your hair) because you'd have been a truly kickass screenwriter/director - maybe that's an idea for another thread actually: What if XXX author had been born in the 20th Cent (or whenever).
And already I digress!
OK we know Pterry's a huge fave of mine, but JRRT Tolkien is as well to the point of and way beyond obsession. And now I'm going to contradict myself kind of because I freely admit I haven't read all his books or even half of them, and what's more I don't intend to either, because TBH they're a pain in the bum to read. I'm still convinced that The Silmarillion - as a book to curl up in bed with - is in fact the sovereign cure for insomnia (actually it isn't but that's just me ). And the Sil's Gone with the Wind compared with such potboilers as The History of Arda - Morgoth's Ring or - gods forbid - The Children of Hurin (I want to shake Turin to death for being the most boringly annoying gung ho prat ever and drown soppy Nienor a lot earlier because she's so erm... wet ) I actually own a deluxe HB edition of TCOH - but that was for the illustrations (Alan Lee is a brilliant artist). However, this doesn't matter because The Sil etc aren't supposed to be for reading for pleasure - they're lore... In fact it's not even lore for the die-hard Tolkien geeks - it's 'canon' as in 'canon law' (yes that's law not lore) - because what the Prof (or the Master as some people prefer
) wrote is in fact gospel truth and woe-betide you if you dare to question such mysteries as -'did Balrog's have wings' (answer no - or if they did they didn't use them to fly much since they always got killed by falling off tall buildings or places with predictable regularity) or
'was it really Meriadoc Took who killed the Witchking of Angmar on the Pelennor Fields' (and not Eowyn who simply chopped his block off...' (answer - who cares, the legend is 'no man' could kill the nasssty Nazgul so probably it was a team effort) or
'what happened to the Entwives' (answer - who cares, period)
The officers of the lore will angonise and argue the toss over a period of days, if not weeks or months, over burning issues such as these on the plethora of fan forums out there, and that is why LotR and the Sil, with Unfinished Tales and the History of Arda are like the four bastion tenets of Middle Earth fandom and all within them are reverently analysed minutely and generally treated like the Holy Grail of fantasy literature. That and the languages (Sindarin (very Welsh with a smattering of other Gaelic mutations) Quenya (god knows – some germanic influences as it has a lot of umlauts) for the Elves; Saxon the Rohirrim: and for the baddies Black Speech - actually a derivative of barbarian Goth and Varangian...
) make JRRT's literary oeuvre completely compelling for people from all walks of life, for a variety of reasons. Part of the allure is that all this canon lore isn't in fact set in stone, because the guy who wrote and developed it all was constantly changing his mind - like originally there was no Frodo or indeed Legolas characters in LotR (possibly a killer for box office options) - or recycling bits and pieces like the Balrog killings (Gandalf's duel on the Bridge was in fact a re-gurgitation of not 1 but 2 earlier fights during the Fall of Gondolin where Glorfindel did for one on a mountainside and Ecthelion killed 3 of the buggers on top of a tower... and none of these fire demons could glide or flap those wings if they had them, see!
)Me, I just like a good story and that is mostly what LotR is - on a grand scale. When you sit down and analyse this though, it's full of holes and if you haven't read the Hobbit (I read that afterwards) it’s really frustrating and you keep having to look at the prologue or appendix to find out who the hell Gil-galad or Elendil were and still get confused when they're yelling Elbereth Gilthoniel all the time, thinking they're two heroes when in fact you find out it's actually just more names for an angel-like deity (female) called Varda who 'made' the stars - it's enough to drive you nuts but it all seems to coalesce into this gorgeous mythic miasma that really is a kind of fascinating magic. I fell in love in other words on that first reading, even though there was tons I didn't understand - and when I finished it I went straight back to the beginning and read it all again - five times in a row in the summer of 1969. The Hobbit to be frank was a disappointment when I got around to it, not because it is for kids (although like Terry's 'young adult' work it's fine for grown ups too) but because the characters in common (except Bilbo who's great in both books) like Gandalf and Elrond are completely different to how they are in LotR - Elrond's an ‘Elf friend’ for instance, instead of the Half-Elf Lord (with a bit of Maia in there) in the later book.
See - it's completely mesmeric the more you go into it and this is why it has achieved and continues to attract a huge cult fanbase. It really is another world with its own creation myth, geography (The Atlas of Tolkien's Middle Earth is currently my favourite reference book), history spanning 10,000 years or more, cultures and languages. Tolkien was an uber-geek in fact. Call that geek an academic and you have the key to JRRT's obsession with his own creation and you're already halfway to realising why you've fallen in love...
Terry has said that the Discworld (aside from being a disc not a globe) is Middle Earth 500 years on and at the start of an Industrial Revolution. He's right I think - well he would be wouldn't he?
If you add 'with a sense of humour' onto that theory then it certainly holds water Tolkien's work isn't original (it has many derivations and sources including Nordic myth and Arthurian and Atlantean legend), so much as deeply developmental, and so his books on Middle Earth deservedly became much-loved classics. Very different to Pterry's work, but they both achieve a inner life of their own inside the reader’s mind with a very keen sense of integral reality once you're hooked into them.
The places and people become solid and attractive or repellent and take on a life of their own. I would love to be able to live in Middle Earth as my main Tolkien RP character (Janowyn the elf) - but I'd take my holidays on the Discworld I think! (maybe not as an elf though…)
Nice summary Jan! (if you can call a post that big a summary )
I have to admit that last year was the first time I ever read LOTR, although I read The Hobbit a long time ago. My feelings while I was reading it was that I was scratching the surface of something HUGE.
When I was in school we were still (at least for one term) doing Classical studies and this is what it was like. The Greek myths all seem to be interconnected. You read one myth and you get references to many others. It's like doing a jigsaw and finding pieces of another jigsaw in the box. You might complete the one puzzle, but then you've also got bits of another one and want to see how that turns out.
The way I can see it, that can either go two ways - you can read the book and then go and find out the pieces of the other stories and see how they all interconnect - or you don't bother.
I personally found the thought of all that other stuff somewhat daunting and decided, at least for now, that I'd enjoy LOTR and leave it at that. I also felt that JRR wasn't the greatest of descriptive writers. We don't really learn a lot about what our heroes and villains actually look like - we just get a vague sketch of them. Terry does this as well and I don't altogether think it's a bad idea as it promotes us to use our imaginations. But that is one of the reasons that 'casting' threads cause so much argument with Discworld, and I imagine Middle Earth. Everyone has their own idea what these characters look like.
Did I enjoy LOTR? Well yes and no. Some of it was really good and I enjoyed it a lot, but some of it was really annoyingly superfluous (to my mind) and I thought the Prof was just rambling on. I'll probably read the books again some day and who knows whether I'll look into the rest of his writing. For a start I'd kind of like to know why he thinks "cellar door" is such a wonderful phrase.
(if you can call a post that big a summary )I have to admit that last year was the first time I ever read LOTR, although I read The Hobbit a long time ago. My feelings while I was reading it was that I was scratching the surface of something HUGE.
When I was in school we were still (at least for one term) doing Classical studies and this is what it was like. The Greek myths all seem to be interconnected. You read one myth and you get references to many others. It's like doing a jigsaw and finding pieces of another jigsaw in the box. You might complete the one puzzle, but then you've also got bits of another one and want to see how that turns out.
The way I can see it, that can either go two ways - you can read the book and then go and find out the pieces of the other stories and see how they all interconnect - or you don't bother.
I personally found the thought of all that other stuff somewhat daunting and decided, at least for now, that I'd enjoy LOTR and leave it at that. I also felt that JRR wasn't the greatest of descriptive writers. We don't really learn a lot about what our heroes and villains actually look like - we just get a vague sketch of them. Terry does this as well and I don't altogether think it's a bad idea as it promotes us to use our imaginations. But that is one of the reasons that 'casting' threads cause so much argument with Discworld, and I imagine Middle Earth. Everyone has their own idea what these characters look like.
Did I enjoy LOTR? Well yes and no. Some of it was really good and I enjoyed it a lot, but some of it was really annoyingly superfluous (to my mind) and I thought the Prof was just rambling on. I'll probably read the books again some day and who knows whether I'll look into the rest of his writing. For a start I'd kind of like to know why he thinks "cellar door" is such a wonderful phrase.
Tony - I could have written much more so you got off lightly! :twisted:
I know what you mean with the 'unnecessary' bits and in fact when I used to re-read it at first I generally skipped the Tom Bombadil bit (except for the Barrow Downs - which has a nude scene in it! - when the hobbits captured by the barrow-wight have to get changed out of their grave-robes) and even the Lothlorien section. Generally I did this when I was reading the book to my younger sisters and Tom Bombadil chapter certainly adds nothing to the story itself. I also used to leave out the poetry mostly. Some of Bilbo's stuff is quite nice but the rest are I still think that Tolkien isn't that great a poet except in the heroic/epic sense, as those pre-medieval forms are really interesting as stories.
But once I'd matured I did start to read the Lothlorien part again as that is of course very important to the story (who doesn't remember Cate Blanchett reversing out in the Mirror scene - and her speech there is virtually carbon-copied from the book visually (with her form darkening etc) as well as verbally.) Tolkien is a b*gger on descriptions, but he can do them really well no trouble - the Eye of Sauron is fully depicted in that scene and Peter Jackson had the best template possible for the CGI guys to interpret I have to agree with you (and be thankful) that both Pterry and Tolks more often get on with the story and let the reader be a part of internal visualising, however as a sometime illustrator, there is quite a lot of descriptive writing in there on locations more than character to be sure that is a tribute to PJ's faithfullness (mostly anyway) to the books because for the most part the scenery was spot on - the Argonath in particular, but many more, including Rivendell were so perfectly brought to life.
Once you do get into exploring the layers in LotR even the Tom Bombadil bit is actually quite important in the book because there are concepts in there relating to the Ring and it's inherent evil as Frodo 'hallucinates' about Gandalf's imprisonment in Isengard for instance - how did the Ring know about Gandalf's connection to Frodo is something that's a fascinating aspect to discuss and shows how its partially sentient... Also where Pippin and Merry get swallowed by Old Man Willow and are rescued by Tom - Fangorn wasn't the only place that had Ents and Huorns!
See how geeky I really am now! :twisted:
Silverstreak - I used to do that too! Do you remember there was a LotR album as well - by Bo Hansen a Swede I think? He was a friend of Jimi Hendrix and there were some ace synthesiser stuff on the LP. Happy days indeed!
I could have written much more so you got off lightly! :twisted: I know what you mean with the 'unnecessary' bits and in fact when I used to re-read it at first I generally skipped the Tom Bombadil bit (except for the Barrow Downs - which has a nude scene in it!
- when the hobbits captured by the barrow-wight have to get changed out of their grave-robes) and even the Lothlorien section. Generally I did this when I was reading the book to my younger sisters and Tom Bombadil chapter certainly adds nothing to the story itself. I also used to leave out the poetry mostly. Some of Bilbo's stuff is quite nice but the rest are I still think that Tolkien isn't that great a poet except in the heroic/epic sense, as those pre-medieval forms are really interesting as stories.But once I'd matured I did start to read the Lothlorien part again as that is of course very important to the story (who doesn't remember Cate Blanchett reversing out in the Mirror scene - and her speech there is virtually carbon-copied from the book visually (with her form darkening etc) as well as verbally.) Tolkien is a b*gger on descriptions, but he can do them really well no trouble - the Eye of Sauron is fully depicted in that scene and Peter Jackson had the best template possible for the CGI guys to interpret
I have to agree with you (and be thankful) that both Pterry and Tolks more often get on with the story and let the reader be a part of internal visualising, however as a sometime illustrator, there is quite a lot of descriptive writing in there on locations more than character to be sure that is a tribute to PJ's faithfullness (mostly anyway) to the books because for the most part the scenery was spot on - the Argonath in particular, but many more, including Rivendell were so perfectly brought to life.Once you do get into exploring the layers in LotR even the Tom Bombadil bit is actually quite important in the book because there are concepts in there relating to the Ring and it's inherent evil as Frodo 'hallucinates' about Gandalf's imprisonment in Isengard for instance - how did the Ring know about Gandalf's connection to Frodo is something that's a fascinating aspect to discuss and shows how its partially sentient... Also where Pippin and Merry get swallowed by Old Man Willow and are rescued by Tom - Fangorn wasn't the only place that had Ents and Huorns!
See how geeky I really am now! :twisted:
Silverstreak - I used to do that too!
Do you remember there was a LotR album as well - by Bo Hansen a Swede I think? He was a friend of Jimi Hendrix and there were some ace synthesiser stuff on the LP. Happy days indeed!
I sort of got the feeling that Tom Bombadil, although really annoying, could have been important. It seemed almost as if JRR painted himself into a corner with Tom though. The Hobbits get into terrible trouble, Tom turns up and the trouble goes away. It was too easy. And it left the question of why didn't they give the ring to Tom - which Gandalf (IIRC) manages to explain away.
It's a bit like mobile phones in movies - in the past when someone was being chased by a serial killer there was no way they could call for help. Now that everyone has a mobile it's too easy to call the police. So they have to write into the script that the phone is broken, stolen, out of battery, out of range or whatever. It seems that after creating Tom Bombadil JRR then realised that he couldn't actually use him.
If that makes sense.
It's a bit like mobile phones in movies - in the past when someone was being chased by a serial killer there was no way they could call for help. Now that everyone has a mobile it's too easy to call the police. So they have to write into the script that the phone is broken, stolen, out of battery, out of range or whatever. It seems that after creating Tom Bombadil JRR then realised that he couldn't actually use him.
If that makes sense.
This is all a bit deep for me
But I haven't seen a mention for Isaac Asimov. I know he's more science fiction than fantasy but in my youth I found all of his stories fired my imagination and the robot series, perhaps close to reality now, was such a change from the usual 'horror' image of mechanical monsters. Detective R Daneel Olivaw is so close to human yet retains its essential roboticness, a bit like 'Data' in Star Trek TNG.
The foundation trilogy again was full of hope for the human race and in that time of the cold war, I think many people felt it could all end in an instant.
As for LOTR, I only read it a few years ago and I certainly didn't see many of the deeper meanings but as a fantasy adventure story I was entranced by it. It is the only book I have had to put down because it gave me vertigo!
Others I enjoy are Tom Holt, I've just read 'The Better Mousetrap', Robert Rankin and though I'm not normally a crime novel lover I did recently enjoy reading all of the 'Rebus' books in order. The descriptions of Edinburgh are superb. Though I've never been there, the books left me feeling I know the place intimately.
But I haven't seen a mention for Isaac Asimov. I know he's more science fiction than fantasy but in my youth I found all of his stories fired my imagination and the robot series, perhaps close to reality now, was such a change from the usual 'horror' image of mechanical monsters. Detective R Daneel Olivaw is so close to human yet retains its essential roboticness, a bit like 'Data' in Star Trek TNG.
The foundation trilogy again was full of hope for the human race and in that time of the cold war, I think many people felt it could all end in an instant.
As for LOTR, I only read it a few years ago and I certainly didn't see many of the deeper meanings but as a fantasy adventure story I was entranced by it. It is the only book I have had to put down because it gave me vertigo!
Others I enjoy are Tom Holt, I've just read 'The Better Mousetrap', Robert Rankin and though I'm not normally a crime novel lover I did recently enjoy reading all of the 'Rebus' books in order. The descriptions of Edinburgh are superb. Though I've never been there, the books left me feeling I know the place intimately.
There you are Straw Walker I knew I'd yacked on about Isaac somewhere (on page 3! ) Nothing wrong with talking Sci-fi in here as it's more about the writers so feel free to wander away and back again into Fantasy genres I think my favourite non-robot Asimov was a short story (gotta love shorts I think as they're so hard-hitting at times) was one called 'Nightfall' which was about a planet that never had darkness/night because it had several suns - the concept here was the effects of astronomical disasters on social development, but instead of comets or meteors colliding with this planet, it was simply a multiple eclipse of the majority of the local stars, which led to a Nightfall where the people saw distant stars for the first time - and they were bang in amongst a more congested sector of the Milky Way... When the eclipse 'hit' it was doomsday and I won't spoil it by saying anymore if you've never read it, but it was possibly the first time I ever felt the hairs on the back of my neck standing to attention - he was a truly amazing writer.
The Foundation series were also good - I think Psychohistory is something that it would be fascinating to study although I suppose these days it probably is in a way, with a dash of chaos theory - though maybe the mathematical side would defeat that! Did you read the two follow ups - One was Foundation and Earth (I think) but I can't remember the title of the other one - those were more like prequels and went back to when Hari Seldon was very young and sort of tied in with one of the Robot stories too.
Writers who can get you feeling so dizzy or scared, or take you with them into the pages so they come alive are maybe not so rare, but in the fantasy/sci-fi genres they are especially talented as they take their readers beyond our experience in this reality and I'm convinced this is why a fair proportion of people don't get into Pterry's sort of books
Tony - I think you're more or less right. Tolkien was always changing his mind and he never said 'what' Bombadil was. Common opinion is that he's something like Gandalf (or Saruman and Sauron) but more amoral and non-aligned, though benevolent enough. He's some kind of immortal spirit for sure but what he definitely isn't (and this Tolkien was definite about) is the Creator deity of Arda (Eru Illivatar) or one of his leading angelic helpers the Valar and Valier (7 guys - including the first Dark Lord Morgoth - and 7 gals). What we are told, and Tolks never deviated from, was that he was the first being on Arda, but quite what his purpose was is never really made plain. Maybe Tolks invented him after he'd been on the magic mushrooms and forgot what it was he was supposed to be there for? :twisted:
Maybe the answer's somewhere in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil but that's one of Tolkien's books I'm never going to read - he's too bloody annoying and his songs are tripe
I knew I'd yacked on about Isaac somewhere (on page 3! ) Nothing wrong with talking Sci-fi in here as it's more about the writers so feel free to wander away and back again into Fantasy genres I think my favourite non-robot Asimov was a short story (gotta love shorts I think as they're so hard-hitting at times) was one called 'Nightfall' which was about a planet that never had darkness/night because it had several suns - the concept here was the effects of astronomical disasters on social development, but instead of comets or meteors colliding with this planet, it was simply a multiple eclipse of the majority of the local stars, which led to a Nightfall where the people saw distant stars for the first time - and they were bang in amongst a more congested sector of the Milky Way... When the eclipse 'hit' it was doomsday and I won't spoil it by saying anymore if you've never read it, but it was possibly the first time I ever felt the hairs on the back of my neck standing to attention - he was a truly amazing writer. The Foundation series were also good - I think Psychohistory is something that it would be fascinating to study although I suppose these days it probably is in a way, with a dash of chaos theory - though maybe the mathematical side would defeat that!
Did you read the two follow ups - One was Foundation and Earth (I think) but I can't remember the title of the other one - those were more like prequels and went back to when Hari Seldon was very young and sort of tied in with one of the Robot stories too.Writers who can get you feeling so dizzy or scared, or take you with them into the pages so they come alive are maybe not so rare, but in the fantasy/sci-fi genres they are especially talented as they take their readers beyond our experience in this reality and I'm convinced this is why a fair proportion of people don't get into Pterry's sort of books
Tony - I think you're more or less right. Tolkien was always changing his mind and he never said 'what' Bombadil was. Common opinion is that he's something like Gandalf (or Saruman and Sauron) but more amoral and non-aligned, though benevolent enough. He's some kind of immortal spirit for sure but what he definitely isn't (and this Tolkien was definite about) is the Creator deity of Arda (Eru Illivatar) or one of his leading angelic helpers the Valar and Valier (7 guys - including the first Dark Lord Morgoth - and 7 gals). What we are told, and Tolks never deviated from, was that he was the first being on Arda, but quite what his purpose was is never really made plain. Maybe Tolks invented him after he'd been on the magic mushrooms and forgot what it was he was supposed to be there for? :twisted:
Maybe the answer's somewhere in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil but that's one of Tolkien's books I'm never going to read - he's too bloody annoying and his songs are tripe
Jan! That made me laugh. A sci fi writer who I've enjoyed a lot is Arthur C Clarke. I think the first book I read by him was 2001, but I've read a lot more since and think he's a very good writer. He's not satisfied with saying that (for example) you could in theory build an elevator into space, he goes into how it could actually be done and the scientific theory behind it - without bogging the reader down with gobbldygook.
And prophetic! There's a book by him called The Songs of Distant Earth that has one of the characters playing his favourite music from a small box he carries in his pocket through earphones. When I first read this I thought he had predicted the Walkman - years later I realised that he'd actually predicted the iPod.
I think my favourite book by him is Childhood's End. It's about the next step in human evolution and well worth reading.
Am a fan of Mr. C Clarke myself. I read 2001 to the little woman many years ago when she was still in the womb!
I seem to remember in an interview many years ago he said that our early astronauts had found many things in space( moons and such) which were almost exactly how they were in the book. They said they were half expecting to see the monolith up there!!
I seem to remember in an interview many years ago he said that our early astronauts had found many things in space( moons and such) which were almost exactly how they were in the book. They said they were half expecting to see the monolith up there!!
Jan Sorry I missed your first mention of Asimov. I do agree that, having re-read his books as an adult, they can be a bit simplistic at times but he was as much a mathematician and scientist as a fiction writer. I still think that the Foundation series is among the best science fiction ever and the way later books, Foundations Edge, Foundation and Earth and Prelude to Foundation link with his other works is brilliant. I must try again to read some of his non fiction and I think there is at least one more Foundation book around. Something to read while waiting for Pterry's next
Tony & Cols I've enjoyed some of Clarke's books but have found him a bit pompous at times. To be fair, I'm not sure if it's his writing or if I'm being influenced by my perception of his public persona. I would agree that his foresight and technical ideas are very good and obviously based on a good understanding of science.
Tony & Cols I've enjoyed some of Clarke's books but have found him a bit pompous at times. To be fair, I'm not sure if it's his writing or if I'm being influenced by my perception of his public persona. I would agree that his foresight and technical ideas are very good and obviously based on a good understanding of science.
