Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Flinty wrote:
I’m reading the Discworld books to my son just now. Getting toward the end of Sourcery.

In terms of bad stories, I think Lost Continent doesnt really sparkle. Relies too much on hardcore aping of Mad Max and Aussie parody , rather than actually telling a story. However, one dud out of how many is a pretty good score

That one isn’t helped by my general apathy toward Rincewind. But I shall read it as part of this literary odyssey. Because even “not his best” PTerry is significantly better than many other authors.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I'm currently re-reading The Lord of the Rings for the umpteenth time. I never get tired of it! I do always start with The Hobbit first, of course!

Do you read the other Tolkien Middle Earth stories too?

As someone else who also re-reads LotR periodically:

I’ve tried, and read some. Silmarillion a few times.

There are a few issues. One is that they often feel disjointed? They are not nearly as polished as the finished works. Some of them feel like drafts, or alternate universe versions of main books. They might be gems, but unpolished.

The fragmented nature also make it hard for them to set a hook into you. They are scattered snapshots, short tales from the history of Middle Earth. This makes it easy to put the book down, as without a compelling story to keep you going, and quite thick prose, getting through them can be rough.

If someone wants to take a step away from the core books, I [i]would[i] recommend the Silmarillion. It’s dense and it took me a few tries to get through it. But it is also edited and put together into a coherent format. It tells a compelling story, and gets into the history of ME. Lots of cool lore. It is hard to read in places, at times it’s like a history book just data dumping on you. But you will walk away from it with a trove of depth from the universe.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I'm currently re-reading The Lord of the Rings for the umpteenth time. I never get tired of it! I do always start with The Hobbit first, of course!

I reread LoTR over the winter. I tried, really tried, but once again skipped over all the songs.

After finishing {b]The Veteran[/b] by Frederick Forsythe I picked up the next in my pile of used, thrift store Paperbacks that I randomly grabbed and just started.

Memorial Day by Vince Flynn. This guy was a local so I heard him interviewed a lot on the local radio station before his untimely death. I never really read any of his books though..... until now!

I have just started and this is a National Security pot-boiler of the right-wing persuasion. This thing is powered by the 24 vibe and clear product of the the War on Terror era.

It is not as technically dense as a Clancy book, but so far has no nuance or subtlety to the story, subtext or message. I am honestly pretty disappointed in it so far, but I am only about 30 pages in. I am likely to finish it, but this is no Ken Folliett and Key to Rebecca, and it sure isn't Tom Clancy and The Hunt for Red October. The opening line is so amateurish that I had to read it a few times to believe it.

Dogs of War by Jonathan Maberry. It is the 9th book in the Joe Ledger series, which I discovered because of someone else on this forum (thanks Flinty!). The series is a blending of sci-fi military horror thriller, reminding me of something like the Rogue Warrior or Jack Reacher series mixed with Stephen King. Much of the horror elements tend to be grounded in real world science, but more esoteric aspects are introduced slowly as the series goes on. Some of it can become a bit predictable in the latter books, but I have still been enjoying the interesting mix of ideas enough that I likely will end up reading the entire series.

I’m reading the latest Murderbot Diaries book. It’s light-hearted Sci Fi humor, quite enjoyable.

We’ve been reading the Weird America series to plan road trips. We decided to stop reading the big Weird America book because it got samey and repetitive (so many “The Devil’s _______” sites that are all just bridges). Focusing on a state at a time, Weird Oregon has given us a few good ideas for places to stop.

Atlas Obscura can be a good source of fun stuff too.

Thanks for the suggestion. Is that a website only, or a book, too?

I think they have a book, but the more Up-to-date info is online.

For example, I was on a work trip on the East Coast and used the website to find some fun local history places to visit in my down time.

The Island of Dr Moreau, by HG Wells.

It feels like its written today, and that's how far ahead of his time Wells was. We should be ashamed of how we treat the animal kingdom! Damn us!

 nels1031 wrote:
Just finished Twilight of the Gods : War in the Western Pacific 1944-45 (3 of 3 in the trilogy) by Ian W. Toll

Great read and something that will probably stick with me for a long while.

Have some very strong opinions on the Japanese of this era, and firmly believe they got off light in regards to accountability in some higher up positions who steered their nation during the war. Would’ve liked more rope around necks, particularly at the very top. But the conduct of most of their people in interacting with occupation forces was very heartwarming and a stark contrast to all of the savagery that preceded it.

My one thing that I didn’t like was how abruptly it ended. If you read this trilogy, you go on a journey with some remarkable people, some deeply flawed and others absolute paragons of warfighting generals/admirals. Would’ve liked a bit of what they did after WW2. Probably get tedious, as most would just be career servicemen, but I wanted one last little tidbit/sendoff of Spruance, Nimitz, McArthur etc. Guess I gotta do the homework, now!

Could probably write a small novel in my review, but I’ll stop here. Highly, highly recommend.

Might take the chronological step and search out some novels on the communist take over of China, and/or the Korean War, both of which I’m woefully uninformed of. But I probably need something a bit lighter, more fun in a different genre as a palate cleanse.

Sounds like it was a good companion piece to Dan Carlin's Supernova in the East.

And just polished off Reaper Man

I think this might’ve been my first ever Discworld novel, back in the dim and distant.

A bloody good story by anyone’s standards, with a particularly satisfying ending. And in the history of the evolution of PTerry’s writing, probably his best ending up to that point. It is really pleasing to be able to spot his skill and confidence grow across these early books.

I mean, he was never a bad writer (not even his super early non-Discworld stuff). But there is ongoing development and refinement there to be seen.

Next up, is Witches Abroad

Raided a used bookstore:


1. Big Bad City (An 87th Precinct novel) - Ed McBain

The greatest police procedural novelist ever

2. Enterprise: Daedalus - Dave Stern

3. Star Trek Enterprise: Daedalus's Children - Dave Stern

Parts 1 and 2, I could never find part 1 until yesterday

4. Seven Ancient Wonders - Matthew Reilly

Matt Reilly books are like Michael Crichton novels done by Michael Bay... while Bay was mainlining pure cane sugar.

The Absent Superpower : The Shale Revolution and a World Without America by Peter Zeihan(2016)

A book written by Geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan, offering the view of an America bent on near isolationism and a willing retreat from prominence on the global stage. Given that this book was written 9-ish+ years ago, there’s a decent amount of prophecy in this tome, given whats happened since the book was started.

It all started with shale oil, basically. The day America started down the path of an oil exporter, rather than mainly an importer, the calculus of the world changed. America (according to the author) didn’t need or want to be the guarantor of world order, as it had been since after WW2 and even moreso after containment made the USSR eat itself. With near total energy independence, it could pick and choose its interests, maybe even be more confrontational or coldly transactional. Sound familiar?

I’ve soured on this author a bit over the years since I read The End of the World Is Just the Beginning (2022) (the followup to this novel, yes, I’m reading in the wrong order >.< ) as he gets quite a few big things wrong from time to time, but its been an interesting and somewhat educational read so far.

So I've got a weird one.

A question came up on a place where I try to answer history questions for peeps, specifically, about whether or not Dracula was inspired by Vlad the Impaler (TLDR; it depends on who you ask). This sent me on a deep dive I was not expecting to go on today, but I've been at it for an hour so you all get to see the toils of my labors!

So, we know from Bram Stoker's notes that he read a history book 'An account of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia' by William Wilkinson. I procured a plain text copy of this book via Project Gutenburg (thanks Project Gutenburg!)

Now. I text searched this book to see what I could find that Stoker might have learned in reading it. And I found that this book actually never names Vlad the Impaler. Or father. Or his brothers (maybe?) for that matter. It actually only has a whole whoppy 3 paragraphs and a footnote about the entire family and provides little to no details about their lives.

It gets weird when I get to paragraph 3;

The Wallachians under this Voïvode joined again the Hungarians in 1448, and made war on Turkey; but being totally defeated at the battle of Cossova, in Bulgaria, and finding it no longer possible to make any
stand against the Turks, they submitted again to the annual tribute, which they paid until the year 1460, when the Sultan Mahomet II. being occupied in completing the conquest of the islands in the Archipelago, afforded them a new opportunity of shaking off the yoke. Their Voïvode, also named Dracula[5], did not remain satisfied with mere prudent measures of defence: with an army he crossed the Danube and attacked the few Turkish troops that were stationed in his neighbourhood; but this attempt, like those of his predecessors, was only attended with momentary success. Mahomet having turned his arms against him, drove him back to Wallachia, whither he pursued and defeated him. The Voïvode escaped into Hungary, and the Sultan caused his brother Bladus to be named in his place. He made a treaty with Bladus, by which he bound the Wallachians to perpetual tribute; and laid the foundations of that slavery, from which no efforts have yet had the power of extricating them with any lasting efficacy.

For the life of me, this paragraph is such a god damn bastard. Maybe I've just been staring at it too long trying to figure it out but numerous parts of this paragraph are confusing. First, I'm not entirely sure which 'Dracula' is referred to in this section. I want to say Vlad III from context, but it's also possible it refers to Vlad II, Vlad III's cousin who was in charge after Vlad's dad, also Vlad II, died. The section also seems to confuse whoever it is trying to refer to with Vlad's older brother Micea II who was dead by 1448? I have no idea who Baldus is. Either Vlad the Impaler himself, or his younger brother Radu, or Radu's usurper whose name at lest starts with a B? I don't know enough about Romanian to figure it out.

I kept going but this is literally all the book really contains about the whole of Vlad Impalesworth's family. Three whole paragraphs, and the last paragraph abridges the events of 1448-1460 so damn hard, I can't tell what it's trying to say. It either is just eluding me in this moment, or the writer conflates several different Wallachian rulers and the events of their lives during this period with no clarification, unaided by the unspecifric nature of the name Dracula which could refer to any of them.

To wit, I'm not sure if Stoker even knew who Vlad III was (Vlad III's name doesn't appear in any of Stoker's notes), let alone could be bother to have worked the history of the man into his story.

Reaper Man is my one signed Pratchett. I loves it most dearly.

 Flinty wrote:
Reaper Man is my one signed Pratchett. I loves it most dearly.

So jealous. Reaper Man is one of his very best.

I have a signed Joe Abercrombie - that's my only signed book.

Currently reading "Doom Guy: Life In First Person" by John Romero.

Only two chapters in and it's a bit heavy going, but glad to finally have a copy all the same. I wasn't going to buy it because it has little on his time at Monkeystone, but saw it on the shelf at the mueseum of computing in Cambridge and thought "why not." It was a nice visit and really wanted a momento...

Would have liked the mueseum's Spectrum 48K+, but the life & times of John Romero would suffice!

Ever been browbeaten by others into reading a book?

"I can't believe you've never read..."

"What? I thought you, of all people would have read..."

"I can't talk to you until you've read..."

And so you read this book, and go. Okay. It was a book. Nothing spectacular.

But you're too afraid to offend your friends who've drunk the Kool-aid and signed on to author...

Do you return and say:

A) Wow, I loved the thinly veiled smut disguised as fantasy, with an obviously author as protagonist (who goes on and on about loving porridge and chocolate). I imagine that this overrated tripe is real popular with high school girls - I'm going to assume this was some horrible April Fool's Joke at my expense... You got me!

B) Sorry, this book wasn't my speed.
What did I say or do make you believe that I would enjoy this?

C) I'm sorry, I must've misheard the author's name, because the author I picked up writes horrible garbage. Can you spell the name again for me? Oh its spelled the same? Wow, did you know that your author shares a name with a horrendous author?

D) Meh.

E) Like, Wow! This was the single best thing I've ever read? Ive thrown away all my Tolkien, Abercrombie, Howard, and Sanderson, Since this author has made me rethink what fantasy could be! Oh... There's a whole series? That's amazing! I can't wait to read the next installment!

There is no Option F.

I've also removed the author's name as she is a popular fantasy author, and I've already pissed off enough people this month.

Option F- Never see the people who shamed you into reading the book again by joining the local equivalent of the Peace Corp.

Just be honest.

Literary Works, like Comedy, are inherently subjective when it comes to enjoyment.

You or I not enjoying a given recommendation does not a bad book make. It just wasn’t one you enjoyed.

For instance? I think it’s clear I love Discworld, and I’ve enjoyed everything I’ve read by the same author. I also greatly enjoy the Gotrek novels, particularly the Bill King ones.

But if someone isn’t into Fantasy? They’re probably going to struggle with the same.

Never make excuses when it comes to your taste in media.

That kind of happened to me recently with the 3 body problem. A friend at work was raving over it so I picked it up and ended up just skim-reading half of it as I found the delivery unutterably dull and full of itself. As MDG says art is subjective so I felt quite comfortable saying it wasn’t quite my thing. I enjoyed the TV adaptation much more, but even then I don’t think it lives up to the hype.

I was promised fantasy and was given a fifty-shades-of-fantasy romance novel, with a thin veneer of "fantasy" coated on top.

I feel a little duped.

But much like religion and politics, I've discovered that no one wants to hear you say, "You know that series that you loved, and talk about constantly? I read it and think it sucked."

Honesty, is not the best policy, when it comes to beloved books.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I was promised fantasy and was given a fifty-shades-of-fantasy romance novel, with a thin veneer of "fantasy" coated on top.

I feel a little duped.

But much like religion and politics, I've discovered that no one wants to hear you say, "You know that series that you loved, and talk about constantly? I read it and think it sucked."

Honesty, is not the best policy, when it comes to beloved books.

LoL, if this happens to be ACOTAR, or something similar, just agree with the things everyone can. Tamlin was such a jerk. And then let them enjoy their fairy smut in peace.

There's a big gap between admitting you love a book, and admitting you love a trashy book.

I fully appreciate that Ciaphas Cain is , at best, pulp fiction, but I find it tremendously entertaining. You have to have a lot of confidence as a reader to admit that you sank hours or more likely days into something that is objectively not great, and loved every minute of it.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I was promised fantasy and was given a fifty-shades-of-fantasy romance novel, with a thin veneer of "fantasy" coated on top.

I feel a little duped.

But much like religion and politics, I've discovered that no one wants to hear you say, "You know that series that you loved, and talk about constantly? I read it and think it sucked."

Honesty, is not the best policy, when it comes to beloved books.

LoL, if this happens to be ACOTAR, or something similar, just agree with the things everyone can. Tamlin was such a jerk. And then let them enjoy their fairy smut in peace.

There's a big gap between admitting you love a book, and admitting you love a trashy book.

I fully appreciate that Ciaphas Cain is , at best, pulp fiction, but I find it tremendously entertaining. You have to have a lot of confidence as a reader to admit that you sank hours or more likely days into something that is objectively not great, and loved every minute of it.

Shhh... It is Sarah J. Maas .

Ciaphas Cain is a damn literary work of genius and I'll not stand for slander. (I'm one that will admit to enjoying every minute of that trashy pulpy amazingness)

Ahhh, but Sandy Mitchell knows Cain reads as trashy pulp. And even better, knew enough about what makes a book trashy pulp to really play with the genre.

I mean…is Cain a genuine coward? Is he suffering impostor syndrome? Or is he a worryingly sane person in an insane galaxy just doing what he thinks will preserve as many Imperial lives as possible, despite the main life he’s concerned with being his own?

So, so many grey areas.

Certainly I’ll always argue he can’t be the coward he believes himself to be, because so many of his miraculous tales of survival come from putting the boot in, but only ever when it’s absolutely necessary. A true coward would just give up and die.

He is an endlessly fascinating character, and it almost gets better as his supporting cast gradually becomes aware of part of the man behind the facade. I will never tire of Amberly Vale's intense hatred of every single additional writer she has to bring in to provide context to Cain's memoirs.

Ok, time to start another reread. I love these books so much!