Majkia's 2010 Book Journal

First off I'll list what I've read so far this year. I've been on a fantasy and scifi bender I'm afraid:

1-Academ's Fury - Codex Alera 2 - Jim Butcher
2-Cursor's Fury - Codex Alera 3 - Jim Butcher
3-Captain's Fury - Codex Alera 4 - Jim Butcher
4-Princep's Fury - Codex Alera 5 - Jim Butcher
5-First Lord's Fury - Codex Alera 6 - Jim Butcher
6-Soulless - Gail Carriger
7-Emissaries from the Dead - Adam-Troy Castro
8-Leviathan- Scott Westerfeld
9-The Alchemyst - Michael Scott
10-World War Z - Max Brooks
11-Peshawar Lancers - SM Stirling
12- Changes - Jim Butcher
13. Gardens of the Moon - Steven Erikson
14-American Gods - Neil Gaiman - unfinished
14. Heat Wave - Richard Castle
15. Alchemy of Stone - Ekatrina Sedia
16. Changeless - Gail Carriger
17. Templar Legacy - Steve Berry
18. Altered Carbon - Richard K Morgan
19. Last Stormlord - Glenda Larke
20. Consider Phlebas - Iain Banks
21. The Name of the Wind - Patrick Rothfuss
22. Enchanted, Inc - Shanna Swendson
23. Dragon Keeper - Robin Hobb
24. Lies of Locke Lamora - Scott Lynch
25. Acacia - David Anthony Durham
26. Something From the Nightside - Simon R Green
27. Re-Read: Gardens of the Moon - Steven Erikson
28. Night of Knives - Ian C. Esslemont

I enjoyed all except World War Z. I've decided it is a waste of my time to read zombie books. Primarily I think, because what makes me love a book, is to have complex and intelligent bad guys. I hate one dimensional characters, and too many authors make their bad guys total bastards with no redeeming qualities.

For me that is a massive turnoff. I want my bad guys to be as wel created as my good guys. I want them to have complex motives, confused emotions, some sort of guilt somewhere over their actions, and some explanation as to why they are doing what the heck they are doing. I see enough one dimensional characters on TV. Don't want to see them in books I read.

My second observation from this list (one I've come to about 20 times now but keep testing) is that I simply cannot read more than one novel at a time. I get caught up in one, neglect the other, and resent having to go back to the other one even if it is a pretty good read. See next post with regard to this.

I enjoyed Enchanted, Inc., too. And Leviathan is on my TBR pile as is Lies of Locke Lamora. Though I had Locke once from the library but didn't get past the first page. I've read all the Dresden books by Butcher and have Furies on my TBR list. I'm just hoping that series isn't as depressing as Dresden.

I did like World War Z though. Even had MrMorphy read it. I thought of the "bad guy" more like a plague than as people.

At the moment ATTEMPTING to read two books but I am made of massive FAIL.

I started The Red Pyramid but have been dying to re-read book one of the Malazan series Gardens of the Moon ever since I stumbled upon the re-read of the series Tor.com is doing. What made it a totally irresistible temptation to read it again, was a post by Stephen Erikson himself regarding how he'd written Gardens and what he was up to.

My first read of it was, well, somewhat satisfying, but I found the first third completely confusing. Mostly because the book is so DENSE with information, delivered in ways that show he totally respects his readers, and expects you to suss the info out. No info dumps for him.

Foreshadowing might be only one word in a sentence, which you sort of remember from maybe a bunch of chapters back, but that you then wonder about and want to go looking for. (Well, I do that sort of thing).

Second read through is one of saying 'eureka' quite often. Or, "Oh wow, I totally missed what he was hinting at here, but now, well, that's what he meant!

The characters are fabulous too. Complex, changing, confused, motivated by competing needs, desires and fears, and oftentimes finding themselves played by someone else, and only discovering it too late to stop actions that prove to go against their own morals or beliefs.

Also, I am simply fascinated at how he introduces one character in particular, the Lord of Moon's
Spawn. So interesting, and so mysterious and so powerful a character, whose motives you just don't get because he's well, not entirely human, and we don't know what he really wants yet.

I expect I'll add more about this book as I keep reading.

Poor Red Pyramid is mostly neglected. Not a bad book, but entirely too simple and YA in comparison with Gardens of the Moon.

Morphy: I think Leviathan is my favorite book of the year. Wonderful book. And Lies I thought nearly as good. It is a different sort of read, so can understand why you might have stalled on it. But it does have some fascinating themes and the character just grows and changes so much as the book progresses.

Enchanted was a fun read, although I doubt I'll read the follow ons.

I read the second Enchanted and it was good, but not as fun as the first.

Continuing my re-read of Gardens of the Moon:

Erikson can create such memorable characters: Whiskeyjack, Dujek Onearm, Sorry, Tattersail, The Rope, the Claws, and the poor doomed Bridgeburners. Why?

And the confusing and complex level of gods, adepts, and 'living' ones who are incorporated into that fascinating Dragon Deck that Tattersail reads.

Still the one who fascinates me the most is Anomander Rake, Knight of High House Dark.

The denseness of the writing, with so much crammed in to every sentence, is still amazing on the second read-through.

I love how Erikson just dumps you right into the midst of things. No info dump to explain what is going on. I feel just like Paran. WTF? Who ARE these people?

And the relationship between Dujek and Whiskeyjack is awesome to watch unfold. If I were the Empress I'd be terrified of those two guys being on the same planet.

The recurring refrain of ancient magics certainly is intriguing, as are the alien races.

And where the heck did Moon's Spawn come from? And the great ravens and just why did Moon' Spawn leave Pale? Yeah, it seemed injured but not sure I believe that was the real reason. Plotting on something else, perhaps using the human wars to further far bigger plans.

#2 Furies. I certainyl didn't enjoy it as much as I did HD, I found Furies to be much less well plotted, almost badly done in several places. It's all fairly obvious where it's going, and although the first book has a lot of opportunites for moral grey areas and characters, unlike in Harry these aren't exploited at all, and it just becomes black and white. The hero Tavi probably gets into worse scrapes than Harry ever did, but unlike with Harry, you can be sure he's going to get out intact and most likely better off.

I gave up with Erikson, none of the questions get answered in a timeframe where you can remember them (if at all) and I lost track of who was who, and certainly couldn't care about any of them. This series was my really big reminder that I just don't like multi-character stuff very much.

Somehow I ended up with the 3rd Malazan book and haven't gotten around to getting the first two... it's been on my tbr pile for long enough that I have no idea why it's there now (gift? temporary insanity in a book store? the density of my tbr pile causing it to spontaneously appear?) I'll have to give Gardens of the Moon a try sometime (relatively) soon.

reading_fox: Well, the HDs are special, and yes the Furies books are far simpler, but still I enjoyed them if only because I felt like Tavi had a fair shot at happiness whereas Harry never seems to, you know? This gave me an excuse not to be mad at Jim Butcher all the time. ;-)

I really liked Leviathan, but didn't like The Alchemyst at all.

I love the part where Baruk first meets the Lord of Moon's Shadow.

From his years of study the alchemist knew that great power shaped different souls differently. Had Rake's been twisted Baruk would have known immediately. But the Lord's control seemed absolute. That alone engendered awe. the man shaped his power, not the other way around. Such control was, well, inhuman.

And this part:

"I tracked down all but two." Rake gazed at Baruk. "I want those two, preferably alive, but their heads will suffice."

"You killed those you found? How?"

"With my sword, of course."

Baruk recoiled as if struck. "Oh," he whispered. "Oh."

...

He stared at the sword strapped to the Tiste Andii's back. "Tell me, if you get those wizards alive, will you use THAT on them?"

Rake frowned. "Of course."

Turning away, Baruk closed his eyes. "You'll have their heads then."

Behind him Rake laughed harshly. "There's too much mercy in your heart, Alchemist."

Finally finished the RE-Read of Gardens of the Moon. Wonderful on the re-read. So much I missed the first time round.

It reminds me of A Song of Ice and Fire. You are just never sure who you should root for, who's a good guy, who's a bad guy. I love complex bad guys too, and god knows the bad guys in the Malazan series are complex.

And I adore Anamander Rake, who kicks serious ass.

Well, I attempted to read the next book on my TBR, Mistborn but alas, it is not to be. My head is still deep in Malazan so instead put it down and am reading Night of Knives by Ian C. Esslemont which the Tor Re-read people are reading now, based on a Steven Erikson recommendation for book two.

Finished Night of Knives. Interesting. Esslemont's telling of Malazan tales is, perforce, different from Erikson's. Still, it definitely has the same feel of perpetual warfare, war-weary populace and wornout veterans.

The magic as well as the landscape is dark and forbidding.

The entire book takes place on one night, on the island of Malazan, and takes place before Gardens of the Moon, so depicts part of the rise of Surly and explains some of the disappearance of Kellenved and Dancer.

Pretty much non-stop action with interesting hints and teasers.

I'm a good way into Deadhouse Gates with my head still firmly in Malazan. Wow, this book is nothing like what I expected. Not quite sure what I did expect, mind you, but this ain't it, lol.

Still amazed at how dense this feels as you read it the first time. It's action, it's fantasy, yet it stays far too close to the realities of war and misery, I guess, to feel 'fantastical.' Much like ASoIaF, it's grim and dirty and war-weary, and betrayals are more common than loyalties.

FINALLY finished Deadhouse Gates Wrote review. Great book if awfully grim. Still, I love the too few and far between touches of military and grim humor he tosses in. Feels very real to me, having served for 20 years.

Now on to Half-Made World and early reviewer book I won. Oi. It's dead tree version. Can I remember how to toggle the power button and change pages? We'll see!

FINALLY finished Deadhouse Gates Wrote review. Great book if awfully grim. Still, I love the too few and far between touches of military and grim humor he tosses in. Feels very real to me, having served for 20 years.

Now on to The Half-Made World by Felix Gilman, an early reviewer book I won. Oi. It's a dead tree version. Can I remember how to toggle the power button and change pages? We'll see!

Finished and Reviewed Half-Made World by Felix Gilman which doesn't seem to want to touchstone, sigh.

Interesting book. Steamy and grim. I'd have liked more characterization, but certainly the world was very well conceived.

Now on to Outlander by Diana Gabaldon a TIOLI book, which has been sitting in my TBR pile for absolute ages.

Interesting. I just added Half Made World to my short list for the wife's Christmas shopping. I'll have to check out your review.

I am bookmarking this thread, we seem to have very similar tastes (though I loved World War Z, not because of the zombies, but the style and dystopian story)....

#21 - Well, I did like the way WWZ was written. I'm just not a zombie fan :)

I have to check out your library!

okay, that is it. I am dumping Outlander no matter how many folks tell me how fabulous it is. I made it about half way through. It is far too much like romance for me, and I'd have kicked her bastard husband in the balls if he'd done that to me, regardless of the consequences.

Plus, she's a bloody idiot.

also, it's like trying to read an entire tome of nothing but Sansa Stark chapters. ARgh!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's Arya when I need her?

But majkia, tell us what you really think? ;D

I have to say I'm kind of shocked! They have a really high rating here on LT. I own one of the series, but haven't found the first one (cheap) so I haven't tried reading them yet.

I ran a DV shelter for a few years and served on the board. I have zero tolerance for books that normalize violence between lovers or spouses.

It isn't that I can't deal with it happening, what I cannot stand is when the author sets up a situation where the violence is then justified as 'necessary' or 'deserved' or worse yet, 'for her own good.'

Yeesh...
:o/
Well, thanks for the heads up. I'm not going to go looking for book one, then. If it pops up "in my face" for $1 I might grab it... but not otherwise.

#27 - That's pretty much why I quit reading romances altogether. The whole "she was raped by the bastard, but later fell in love with him and he became a better man" thing doesn't work for me.

I could not have said it better, MrsLee. You got my feelings down pat. It is part of why I really can't tolerate GWTWind either. Why do I want to long after a southern way of life which was all the way through rotten and evil?

#29 and #30 Amen.

I like romance as part of a novel, but not as the reason d'etre.

And, IMO, the romance genre sucks rocks.

I realise I have not read enough romances to have any idea whatsoever. Seems like my distaste for gratuitous romanticism paid off?
I'll admit, though, that my definition of the genre is quite wide - it's THE reason I never read any Austen, for example. Relationship dramas are at the bottom of my list, below the gratuitous sex (but above violence to kids and animals).

Interesting. I adore Austen and Trollope because I read both far more as political satricial commentary on their society rather than as strictly relationship drama.

Gratuitous sex in ANY book will most likely make me drop it. I like a good sex scene but only when it fits the whole of the book, and has a reason for being there.

Re the sex - I agree with you, and the comment was meant to show how low I grade relationship drama ;-)

Re Austen - Austen (not to mention Trollope) is about as far from Swedish literary canon as you can get so isn't on any must read list. This means there's no general knowledge of her book which in turn means to me it's just another relationship drama /see above ;-)/. To us it's Vilhelm Moberg, August Strindberg, Hjalmar Bergman et al, plus a generous dose of French, Russian and German classics.

Most of our Swedish classics could be read as social commentary but to me they're just... relationship dramas. But the language is so stuffy and the stories so boring I couldn't care less.

Busifer! I am suitably chastised! :)