Book Recommendations?

AcidCat wrote:

Yeah I can be down with some pulp, even generic stuff but when someone recommends these books I just nope on any opinion they have to offer. I dont care if they get better after the first book because it would be impossible to get worse. Having some kind of taste and standards is the basis for any recommendation and sorry to be a hot take elitist but anyone that champions this garbage has neither.

It's ok to not like something but I think you're taking it a bit far when you start insulting the people who do enjoy it.

beanman101283 wrote:

I have a few choices for what's next: Joe Abercrombie's The Blade Itself, Jim Butcher's first Dresden Files book, and Katherine Addison's The Goblin Emporer. Any recommendations for what I should pick?

I also enjoyed the first in the Locke Lamora series and went back for book 2 after a break and found it be a bit long. I gave up about halfway through that one. Maybe I'll go back to it if the series ever starts up again but that, ASOIAF, Kingkiller Chronicles have all taught me to not start on something until it's finished or the author has a proven track record of consistent releases.

Of the books you listed I've only read the first Dresden book. Liked it well enough that I do want to go back to the series some day. And the other 2 are both on my never ending TBR pile.

Thanks for all the thoughts, everyone. The three choices are what I currently have out from the library, so I'm limiting myself to those for now. I do appreciate the other suggestions though!

I wasn't expecting such a strong reaction to Dresden Files since I thought it was generally well-liked here. I admit it's made me morbidly curious about it. Since it was described as "breezy" I'll probably give it a try, keeping my expectations low. If it doesn't grab me I can just move on to The Blade Itself and The Goblin Emperor after that.

Robear wrote:

No love for Tom Holt’s fantasy alter ego? I figured he’d be popular here. He’s been quite prolific. :-)

I read that "Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City" and the trilogy about the engineer exiled from fantasy Rome that manipulates everybody to get revenge. They were OK, I guess? They didn't really grab me - I didn't gel with the characters.

I'm also surprised how much AcidCat and Ruhk hate Dresden. The first book was Butcher's first novel and is a bit ropey, but the second is a big improvement, and by the third and especially the fourth I think they're pretty great examples of pulp nonsense. If having to get through 3 books before a series gets really good is a dealbreaker for you, then I wouldn't bother. I would say that it is worth giving them a go if that sounds like your kind of thing, and ignore AcidCat's unpleasant, "if you like these you have no taste", statement.

The premise of Dresden is great, and I’m sure there’s a lot of fun to be had exploring it — if you can get over the annoyance of every female character description including something about their nipples. That and the relationship between Dresden and his cop friend drove me away after 2.5 books.

The annoying thing is that it’s not really the typical men-writing-women stuff. This isn’t Artemis. The female characters themselves are generally fine. It’s just the male-gazey way in which every single one of them is described when they make an appearance.

billt721 wrote:

The premise of Dresden is great, and I’m sure there’s a lot of fun to be had exploring it — if you can get over the annoyance of every female character description including something about their nipples. That and the relationship between Dresden and his cop friend drove me away after 2.5 books.

The annoying thing is that it’s not really the typical men-writing-women stuff. This isn’t Artemis. The female characters themselves are generally fine. It’s just the male-gazey way in which every single one of them is described when they make an appearance.

I agree with all that - defenders say that "it's told from the POV of an unreconstructed male who wants to open doors for women but also wants to stare at their tits the whole time - it's not the author", but it's my least favourite part of those books. I think the other characters should call Harry out on that stuff if Butcher wants to support that interpretation. His other two series are a lot better on that though.

It is a hurdle though.

DudleySmith wrote:

I'm also surprised how much AcidCat and Ruhk hate Dresden. The first book was Butcher's first novel and is a bit ropey, but the second is a big improvement, and by the third and especially the fourth I think they're pretty great examples of pulp nonsense.

I didn’t see any noteworthy improvement between the three books. Each character is essentially a single trait which constitutes their entire personality and Dresden is such a ridiculous Mary Sue that each book requires a deus ex machina to depower or restrict him from just steamrolling the plot. The world that the book takes place in has the potential to be really interesting as well, yet Butcher just fills it with the most generic fantasy tropes available and doesn’t even try to do anything interesting with them. Maybe the series gets better as it goes but I saw no sign of it in the three books I read.

Now I want to read the first Dresden book just to see whether or not I'm a horrible person.

The Goblin Emperor could be a great palate cleanser after Lies of Locke Lamora, in that it's about a basically good person getting in over their head and getting through rough situations by continuing to be a good person.

The Goblin Emperor is a good book, yes.

Robear wrote:

The Goblin Emperor is a good book, yes. :-)

Yes, it is. It is a pretty slow burn and more interpersonal than action packed, but I also enjoyed it.

AcidCat wrote:
beanman101283 wrote:

Jim Butcher's first Dresden Files book

Literally the worst book I've ever read in my life.

The first Dresden book is the worst book you've read in your life? Wow, you are very lucky. Literally.

AcidCat wrote:

Yeah I can be down with some pulp, even generic stuff but when someone recommends these books I just nope on any opinion they have to offer. I dont care if they get better after the first book because it would be impossible to get worse. Having some kind of taste and standards is the basis for any recommendation and sorry to be a hot take elitist but anyone that champions this garbage has neither.

I must have neither taste nor standards, because I think The Dresden Files is an excellent series. You don't like it? Fine. My opinion is garbage and yours is the unquestionable truth? Suuuuure.

beanman101283 wrote:

Thanks for all the thoughts, everyone. The three choices are what I currently have out from the library, so I'm limiting myself to those for now. I do appreciate the other suggestions though!

I wasn't expecting such a strong reaction to Dresden Files since I thought it was generally well-liked here. I admit it's made me morbidly curious about it. Since it was described as "breezy" I'll probably give it a try, keeping my expectations low. If it doesn't grab me I can just move on to The Blade Itself and The Goblin Emperor after that.

I liked the Dresden Files stuff and there have been a lot of people here that also recommend them. I think there's even a whole thread somewhere. No, it's not the best thing you've ever read, but to me a lot of the urban fantasy books are good chasers to heavier stuff. Not that Dresden doesn't eventually get weighty with end of the world stuff with very bad stuff happening to your favorite characters on it's own, but at least initially it's pulpy fantasy that doesn't require a ton of me. Sometimes that's exactly what I want.

I think if you're looking for something lighter after Lock Lamora, Dresden might be what you want. The Abercrombie stuff is hit or miss with me. It's pretty violent like Lamora, but without the humor and wry wit. Goblin Emperor was OK but I don't think I ever went and read a sequel.

That's my taste talking there though. Everybody's different. So I'm not going to impune based on my personal tastes After all, I've made multiple runs at the Malazan series, making it two or three books in, and I just don't enjoy them at all. Even though many here seem to feel they're the best things they've ever read.

MannishBoy wrote:

After all, I've made multiple runs at the Malazan series, making it two or three books in, and I just don't enjoy them at all. Even though many here seem to feel they're the best things they've ever read.

They are long and complicated and full of big words, so they must be good.

Honestly, though, I would watch the hell out of a Netflix Tehol/Bugg buddy series.

Heh, I tried to re-read the first 5 Malazan books so I could make the push into the second half of the series, and fizzled out in book 4. I would like to pick it up this year again.

I'm 42, I won't live long enough to re-read the series. I just use the wiki to refresh me on characters/regions/races/plots when I need to. It has taken me over 12 years to get through the first seven books.

It's not like I can't get into weighty stuff with lots of useless info included. I've probably read or listened to the Game of Thrones books at a minimum of five times through to get ready for the next book or season of TV. It's just the Erikson stuff just doesn't entertain me.

And that's fine. I'm glad they're good for others.

Like the Jim Butcher stuff.

Yeah we do have a Dresden thread because it's awesome. The first 3 books were written together back when he was in college or something. The writing is only ok, some of the descriptions are repetitive, especially with Murphy.

But the characters are great, the mystery is interesting and there's hints of a larger world out there.

After that first trilogy, most of the Dresden books are the absolute best books urban fantasy has to offer.

I've tried several other series in the wait between Dresden books and about half are Romance genre with supernatural layer, while some others are barely better than Buffy/Angel fanfic.

Anybody who tosses out an 18 book series (plus 2 short story collections) because they don't like the universally agreed upon 1 worst book in the series... Well I'd be wary of their recommendations.

Malazan was interesting to me because it was highly immersive. Lots of details to absorb, tons of history and lore, interesting magic systems, politics at all levels from inter-guild rivalries to town and nation leadership to the gods, and mixed in with all of it dozens of intertwined personal stories that were shown differently from different viewpoints. All of that mixed with the various origin stories of races and their interactions on a millenial scale... It's just a sweeping, detailed set of books that moves inexorably (but slowly) to a world-changing conclusion, and tells innumerable stories along the way.

If Tolkien had written 3 books about the Elves and Dwarves, 3 about the Kingdoms of Men, 3 about Sauron's forces, and intertwined the story of the Ringbearers and their pursuit, with a final book to tie everything up, it would have looked like Malazan.

Another alternative or addition to the Dresden series is the Alex Verus series by Benedict Jacka

Robear wrote:

Malazan was interesting to me because it was highly immersive. Lots of details to absorb, tons of history and lore, interesting magic systems, politics at all levels from inter-guild rivalries to town and nation leadership to the gods, and mixed in with all of it dozens of intertwined personal stories that were shown differently from different viewpoints. All of that mixed with the various origin stories of races and their interactions on a millenial scale... It's just a sweeping, detailed set of books that moves inexorably (but slowly) to a world-changing conclusion, and tells innumerable stories along the way.

If Tolkien had written 3 books about the Elves and Dwarves, 3 about the Kingdoms of Men, 3 about Sauron's forces, and intertwined the story of the Ringbearers and their pursuit, with a final book to tie everything up, it would have looked like Malazan.

This is pretty much why I love the Malazan books: it's all because of the worldbuilding. If you're someone who gets into books primarily because of characters, though, I can see why it might not be enjoyable. There's no "main character(s)" at all, with each book's cast being almost disjoint from that of the previous ones, although this changes somewhat in the last entries.

That's probably at the root of why I bounced off Malazan - I didn't like any of the characters. I don't like grimdark either, so they didn't really work for me. That's why Sanderson works so much better for me. I find myself wanting more upbeat stuff to contrast with the grimdark actual news.

I have read all the Alex Verus books, without every really loving them. They are solid, however. The Felix Castor by Mike Carey books are really good, with a less pulpy and more downbeat tone. I still really love the Sandman Slim books by Richard Kadrey, which I think work on a trashy pulp level too. And of course, I would never miss an opportunity to recommend Ben Aaronovitch's Rivers of London books.

Probably from my lifelong anxiety, I'm good with Grimdark, and being OCD/ADHD, I don't fully understand people, so I'm okay with "fictional nonfiction" styles. The personality-driven stories always amaze me, where I know my wife sees all the twists and turns of mind with no trouble but I'm shocked a lot when people make decisions I did not see coming. So for me, Malazan is like a cross between a nonfiction history series, and a huge set of character pastiches that are all intriguingly different.

Different strokes. It's probably why I look for interesting prose as much as anything else.

Is Malazan widely considered grimdark? I've never thought of it that way. Certainly not in the way e.g. Abercrombie is.

A lot of it certainly is. Entire cities taking foot across an unforgiving desert. The destruction of races and nations. A children's march towards oblivion. All sorts of large, long-term nastiness built into the stories.

That's not to say it's all like that, but some of the elements are definitely grim.

Yeah, Malazan has astonishingly grim sequences throughout, at least in the ones I've read. The ending of Deadhouse Gates in particular is vicious, and Memories of Ice has incredibly grim scenes of urban war, along with characters going through crushing physical and mental torment.

Robear wrote:

A lot of it certainly is. Entire cities taking foot across an unforgiving desert. The destruction of races and nations. A children's march towards oblivion. All sorts of large, long-term nastiness built into the stories.

That's not to say it's all like that, but some of the elements are definitely grim.

Having grim or terrible things happen doesn't make a work grimdark. Typically it needs to have an amoral or even nihilistic narrative. I would say that doesn't apply to Malazan, where compassion is a main theme by the end.

Edit : this piqued my interest and apparently Erikson himself resents Malazan being called grimdark.

Seems like semantics, but regardless of how it turns out in the end, it's still a LOT of grim or dark or bleak or whatever-you-want-to-call-it content to get through. That's the main point - Malazan is a very dark series, regardless of whatever genre moniker you want to give it.

Yeah, that's how I use it. And that makes sense; I tend to avoid nihilistic stuff because it's essentially meaningless, but still can be corrupting to the mind.

Large fantasy and sci-fi sale on Audible for Premium Plus members only.

Natus wrote:

Large fantasy and sci-fi sale on Audible for Premium Plus members only.

This reminds me... I'm getting very annoyed at Audible relabeling/formatting titles so that books they show now aren't marked as in your library. There's been multiple times I've had things in my cart to remember at the last minute that I actually already have a copy.