Book Recommendations?

Tanglebones wrote:
Dangofrank88 wrote:

Oh an Enders game by Orson Scott Card. Yeah i know hes a bigot in real life, but his Ender series is pretty good.

I loved Ender's Game when I was a kid, as well as the first book or two of the Alvin Maker series, but I've pretty much disliked everything he's written since then, even before I knew about his real life opinions.

Card has a habit of starting off with a good base, but by the end of a series it usually degenerates into insanity. I like how he focus's on characters instead of junk science, which is the kind of sci-fi i prefer.

Dangofrank88 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Dangofrank88 wrote:

Oh an Enders game by Orson Scott Card. Yeah i know hes a bigot in real life, but his Ender series is pretty good.

I loved Ender's Game when I was a kid, as well as the first book or two of the Alvin Maker series, but I've pretty much disliked everything he's written since then, even before I knew about his real life opinions.

Card has a habit of starting off with a good base, but by the end of a series it usually degenerates into insanity. I like how he focus's on characters instead of junk science, which is the kind of sci-fi i prefer.

Usually we call that genre fantasty

Completely random recommendations apropos of nothing:

I really enjoyed Guns, Germs and Steel. It's an examination of why Eurasian societies have been the driving force in human development over the past several thousand years, while debunking the "because whites are smarter then the darkies" theories of racial superiority.

Blindsight (and pretty much everything by Peter Watts, but especially Blindsight) is just plain awesome. Fairly hard Sci-Fi by a biologist with an apparent thing for neurological conditions. It has some pretty fun mindf*ck moments.

Nosferatu wrote:
Dangofrank88 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Dangofrank88 wrote:

Oh an Enders game by Orson Scott Card. Yeah i know hes a bigot in real life, but his Ender series is pretty good.

I loved Ender's Game when I was a kid, as well as the first book or two of the Alvin Maker series, but I've pretty much disliked everything he's written since then, even before I knew about his real life opinions.

Card has a habit of starting off with a good base, but by the end of a series it usually degenerates into insanity. I like how he focus's on characters instead of junk science, which is the kind of sci-fi i prefer.

Usually we call that genre fantasty ;)

Yeah, but instead of fireballs its lazers, and instead of orcs its aliens. Totally different.

Dangofrank88 wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:
Dangofrank88 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Dangofrank88 wrote:

Oh an Enders game by Orson Scott Card. Yeah i know hes a bigot in real life, but his Ender series is pretty good.

I loved Ender's Game when I was a kid, as well as the first book or two of the Alvin Maker series, but I've pretty much disliked everything he's written since then, even before I knew about his real life opinions.

Card has a habit of starting off with a good base, but by the end of a series it usually degenerates into insanity. I like how he focus's on characters instead of junk science, which is the kind of sci-fi i prefer.

Usually we call that genre fantasty ;)

Yeah, but instead of fireballs its lazers, and instead of orcs its aliens. Totally different.

By that logic Star Wars is science fiction.

Hint:

Spoiler:

Star Wars isn't science fiction.

mikeatdtv wrote:

Completely random recommendations apropos of nothing:

I really enjoyed Guns, Germs and Steel. It's an examination of why Eurasian societies have been the driving force in human development over the past several thousand years, while debunking the "because whites are smarter then the darkies" theories of racial superiority.

I'll put it in my list, idea seems interesting (plus it's cheap on bookdepository ;]). Anymore similar recommendations?

Blindsight (and pretty much everything by Peter Watts, but especially Blindsight) is just plain awesome. Fairly hard Sci-Fi by a biologist with an apparent thing for neurological conditions. It has some pretty fun mindf*ck moments.

Yep, I've heard great things about Watts's books. And he seems to be great guy too. Here's Blindsight: http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsig... (but of course buy it ;])

I'm currently on a popular economics streak, so here are a few recommendations:

Superfreakonomics (and its predecessor Freakonomics) by Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner - finding hidden correlations and patterns in just about everything and trying to explain why is it so (does the education of the parents influence the education of the children?, how much do drug dealers really make?, is there a way to solve global warming for cheap?, how come legalizing abortion actually reduce crime levels? etc.)

The Logic of Life (and its predecessor The Undercover Economist) by Tim Harford - both are about the deeply economic motivations in everyday actions of people and not only people (did you know that monkeys actually barter food for sex?). Both books are simply a great read.

Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy by Eamon Javers - true stories and business of corporate espionage. You'll meet Howard Hughes, Enron, former CIA operatives, spy planes and satellites. Fascinating stories about little-known subjects.

Billionaire's Vinegar by Benjamin Wallace - A story of so-called Jefferson bottles, fake old wines and how they are forged, rich wine collectors and auctions of old wines. Very well-written, deeply researched and again on subject that is rarely covered.

UCRC wrote:
mikeatdtv wrote:

Completely random recommendations apropos of nothing:

I really enjoyed Guns, Germs and Steel. It's an examination of why Eurasian societies have been the driving force in human development over the past several thousand years, while debunking the "because whites are smarter then the darkies" theories of racial superiority.

I'll put it in my list, idea seems interesting (plus it's cheap on bookdepository ;]). Anymore similar recommendations?

Jared Diamond is a really great writer. I first read an article by him in Discover Magazine when he wrote about Tasmania. He just does a really great job of explaining anthropology in ways that the average joe can really understand, and in style that easy and fun to read.

I would also recommend his book Collapse about how societies throughout history, and prehistoric have impacted their environment in ways that both helped and destroyed their chances for survival. It's an excellent read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...

wanderingtaoist wrote:

Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy by Eamon Javers - true stories and business of corporate espionage. You'll meet Howard Hughes, Enron, former CIA operatives, spy planes and satellites. Fascinating stories about little-known subjects.

I saw the author on the Daily Show recently and was intrigued - going to put this one on my list.

Don't know if I posted earlier, but the Thursday Next series by Jasper Fforde. I've read The Eyre Affair, Lost in a Good Book, and The Well of Lost Plots so far. Tackling Something Rotton right now. Basically, in an alternaworld Britain, there's a woman who can jump into books and follow along with the story and characters. Its fantastic. Or as the Harry Potter kids say, Brilliant.

Grenn wrote:

Don't know if I posted earlier, but the Thursday Next series by Jasper Fforde. I've read The Eyre Affair, Lost in a Good Book, and The Well of Lost Plots so far. Tackling Something Rotton right now. Basically, in an alternaworld Britain, there's a woman who can jump into books and follow along with the story and characters. Its fantastic. Or as the Harry Potter kids say, Brilliant.

I tandem-read Jane Eyre and the Eyre Affair about two years ago, and loved both of them.

Sci-fi not loaded with junk science is the the kind i prefer to read because it puts humans in new circumstances. In that sense its not like fantasy at all. Something like Firefly (yes i know its not a book but follow with me) Is what i like, because it allows for extraordinary things to happen that are still based in reality, just in the future. And yeah, I know star wars isnt really sci fi. Saying lite sci fi is like fantasy though is just dumb.

Suddenly we have a taxonomy argument.

So, if we say that Star Wars and similar works are Space Opera, does that mean that Space Opera is a sub-genre of science fiction, or is it on an equal level as Sci-Fi as a sub-genre of speculative fiction?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

After finishing The Name of the Rose, I moved on to A Canticle for Leibowitz. It was not my intention to read two consecutive books about Catholic monks, it was simply coincidence.

Let me know how that goes for you, that's the next one on my list.

Oso wrote:

Suddenly we have a taxonomy argument.

So, if we say that Star Wars and similar works are Space Opera, does that mean that Space Opera is a sub-genre of science fiction, or is it on an equal level as Sci-Fi as a sub-genre of speculative fiction?

Heh, okay I'll bite.

I would argue that true science fiction is synonymous with speculative fiction. Seemingly the presence of any of the the attributes {aliens, the future, time travel, space, lasers} is a sufficient condition for a work to be called science fiction. But usually it's another genre, like fantasy (= space opera: Star Wars, Macross), horror (Alien, Sphere), or action (Aliens, Doom). But I'd say that the necessary condition for a work to be called SF is that it asks a question about us, either where we are now (Star Trek, Banks' Culture novels) or where we might end up (Neuromancer, 2001), "hard" SF vs. "soft" SF aside. Genre trappings are absolutely unnecessary (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, A Canticle for Liebowitz).

But because we hastily identify anything that looks like SF, i.e. has the cliches of SF, without considering if it really is (What is it about contra What does it look like), it dilutes the genre to a lamentable extent. So much so, in fact, that when something that is SF, and "looks like" SF (Battlestar Galactica, District 9) comes along and is well-regarded by the mainstream, it's as if it were the exception—"It's science fiction, but it's good." No no no! It's just SF! All that crap that looks like SF isn't SF at all, it's fantasy/horror/action.

Conversely, there's plenty of SF out there that doesn't look like SF but really is. But because it eschews the cliches, it's not recognized as SF or is given a free ticket out of the genre ghetto (Oryx & Crake, Solaris).

ColdForged wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

After finishing The Name of the Rose, I moved on to A Canticle for Leibowitz. It was not my intention to read two consecutive books about Catholic monks, it was simply coincidence.

Let me know how that goes for you, that's the next one on my list.

I loved A Canticle for Liebowitz. I think there's a sequel, but I've never read it. In that vein (monks in the fuuuuuutuuuure) Anathem by Neil Stephenson is pretty cool.

Off topic question: What am I doing wrong with quotes?

mikeatdtv wrote:

Off topic question: What am I doing wrong with quotes?

You are a coffee grinder. That feature won't work for you until your first promotion.

Ahhhhh. Makes sense, thanks!

Are we only allowed to suggest published books buyable in the store, or can we also suggest web-novels that have been written??

mikeatdtv wrote:
ColdForged wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

After finishing The Name of the Rose, I moved on to A Canticle for Leibowitz. It was not my intention to read two consecutive books about Catholic monks, it was simply coincidence.

Let me know how that goes for you, that's the next one on my list.

I loved A Canticle for Liebowitz. I think there's a sequel, but I've never read it.

Indeed there was. I liked it quite a bit, but not as well as the first.

mudbunny wrote:

Are we only allowed to suggest published books buyable in the store, or can we also suggest web-novels that have been written??

Pretty sure anything goes:)

Just finished re-reading Titus Groan by Mervyn Peake. First time in years.

This is an amazing book. I read very quickly, but this book demands that you take the time to read every word:

"This tower, patched unevenly with black ivy, arose like a mutilated finger from among the fists of knuckled masonry and pointed blasphemously at heaven. At night the owls made of it an echoing throat; by day it stood voiceless and cast its long shadow."
"Her breast rose and fell, and she was both weak and strong. She could feel the blood flowing within her and she felt that she must die or break forth into leaves and flowers."
"Lingering is so very lonely when one lingers all alone."
"As I see it, life is an effort to grip before they slip through one's fingers and slide into oblivion, the startling, the ghastly or the blindingly exquisite fish of the imagination before they whip away on the endless current and are lost for ever in oblivion's black ocean."
Gravey wrote:
Oso wrote:

Suddenly we have a taxonomy argument.

So, if we say that Star Wars and similar works are Space Opera, does that mean that Space Opera is a sub-genre of science fiction, or is it on an equal level as Sci-Fi as a sub-genre of speculative fiction?

Heh, okay I'll bite.

I would argue that true science fiction is synonymous with speculative fiction. Seemingly the presence of any of the the attributes {aliens, the future, time travel, space, lasers} is a sufficient condition for a work to be called science fiction. But usually it's another genre, like fantasy (= space opera: Star Wars, Macross), horror (Alien, Sphere), or action (Aliens, Doom). But I'd say that the necessary condition for a work to be called SF is that it asks a question about us, either where we are now (Star Trek, Banks' Culture novels) or where we might end up (Neuromancer, 2001), "hard" SF vs. "soft" SF aside. Genre trappings are absolutely unnecessary (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, A Canticle for Liebowitz).

But because we hastily identify anything that looks like SF, i.e. has the cliches of SF, without considering if it really is (What is it about contra What does it look like), it dilutes the genre to a lamentable extent. So much so, in fact, that when something that is SF, and "looks like" SF (Battlestar Galactica, District 9) comes along and is well-regarded by the mainstream, it's as if it were the exception—"It's science fiction, but it's good." No no no! It's just SF! All that crap that looks like SF isn't SF at all, it's fantasy/horror/action.

Conversely, there's plenty of SF out there that doesn't look like SF but really is. But because it eschews the cliches, it's not recognized as SF or is given a free ticket out of the genre ghetto (Oryx & Crake, Solaris).

I like that breakdown a lot. However, I do think that genre expresses setting and plot tropes but shouldn't tell us anything about a book's quality. For example, both The Count of Monte Christo and Die Hard are in the action genre, both Anna Karenina and Harlequin's collection of construction worker stories are in the romance genre. Solaris and The Last Starfighter are both sci-fi. I don't buy the idea that genre fiction is, by definition, lesser than literary fiction. Pulp has its place, but genre boundaries start to get stretched beyond usefulness is they have to tell us how good the book is as well as what it is about. That said, I think I'd put space opera as a sub-genre of sci-fi, which is a sub-genre (along with fantasy) of speculative fiction.

Maybe we'd be better off by ditching the taxonomy and just tagging things. That way we could describe things without having to pidgin-hole them. Check out LibraryThing's sci-fi tag.

.

Gravey wrote:
Oso wrote:

Suddenly we have a taxonomy argument.

So, if we say that Star Wars and similar works are Space Opera, does that mean that Space Opera is a sub-genre of science fiction, or is it on an equal level as Sci-Fi as a sub-genre of speculative fiction?

Heh, okay I'll bite.

I would argue that true science fiction is synonymous with speculative fiction. Seemingly the presence of any of the the attributes {aliens, the future, time travel, space, lasers} is a sufficient condition for a work to be called science fiction. But usually it's another genre, like fantasy (= space opera: Star Wars, Macross), horror (Alien, Sphere), or action (Aliens, Doom). But I'd say that the necessary condition for a work to be called SF is that it asks a question about us, either where we are now (Star Trek, Banks' Culture novels) or where we might end up (Neuromancer, 2001), "hard" SF vs. "soft" SF aside. Genre trappings are absolutely unnecessary (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, A Canticle for Liebowitz).

But because we hastily identify anything that looks like SF, i.e. has the cliches of SF, without considering if it really is (What is it about contra What does it look like), it dilutes the genre to a lamentable extent. So much so, in fact, that when something that is SF, and "looks like" SF (Battlestar Galactica, District 9) comes along and is well-regarded by the mainstream, it's as if it were the exception—"It's science fiction, but it's good." No no no! It's just SF! All that crap that looks like SF isn't SF at all, it's fantasy/horror/action.

Conversely, there's plenty of SF out there that doesn't look like SF but really is. But because it eschews the cliches, it's not recognized as SF or is given a free ticket out of the genre ghetto (Oryx & Crake, Solaris).

While I agree with OSO's points about taxonomies breaking down, I also think that there's a point to be made here regarding the "my genre is better than yours" attitude that prevails among some fans of genre fiction. Is Star Wars a lesser work than Solaris because it's more of a fantasy than a science fiction film? Or is that certain genres have more prestige within fandom?

Oso wrote:

I like that breakdown a lot. However, I do think that genre expresses setting and plot tropes but shouldn't tell us anything about a book's quality. For example, both The Count of Monte Christo and Die Hard are in the action genre, both Anna Karenina and Harlequin's collection of construction worker stories are in the romance genre. Solaris and The Last Starfighter are both sci-fi. I don't buy the idea that genre fiction is, by definition, lesser than literary fiction. Pulp has its place, but genre boundaries start to get stretched beyond usefulness is they have to tell us how good the book is as well as what it is about. That said, I think I'd put space opera as a sub-genre of sci-fi, which is a sub-genre (along with fantasy) of speculative fiction.

Genre shouldn't tell us anything about quality, but unfortunately we use it for that shorthand. SF in particular suffers, in the mainstream, the twin problems of a pulp legacy and, as I described above, tropes borrowed by other genres that muddy exactly what is SF and what isn't. So good SF and bad SF are ghettoized together with schlocky monster horror and CGI action movies. You throw a B-list movie cast on a spaceship for a splatter horror, and they call it science fiction. That doesn't really give someone a lot of faith in the next science fiction film, whether or not it's Transformers or District 9.

Tanglebones wrote:

While I agree with OSO's points about taxonomies breaking down, I also think that there's a point to be made here regarding the "my genre is better than yours" attitude that prevails among some fans of genre fiction. Is Star Wars a lesser work than Solaris because it's more of a fantasy than a science fiction film? Or is that certain genres have more prestige within fandom?

Star Wars is a lesser work than Solaris because it has nothing profound to say about what it is to be human. Genre is an easy way to compare, but Star Wars is a competent if elementary adventure story. Solaris transcends genre (and fandom) to be a work of lasting artistic value. If someone is getting bogged down in a genre vs. genre (or sub-genre vs. sub-genre!) argument, maybe they should re-examine what it is they are defending! If a work is truly valuable and worth experiencing, its genre will be an attribute not the focus.

Anyway, I guess I really don't have a taxonomy for SF. I'm a lumper, not a splitter! What I would like to see is a disentangling of what is called science fiction, and what actually is SF, because the genre is still firmly "genre fiction" and not afforded a whole lot of respect as a general rule.

Gravey wrote:

Star Wars is a lesser work than Solaris because it has nothing profound to say about what it is to be human. Genre is an easy way to compare, but Star Wars is a competent if elementary adventure story. Solaris transcends genre (and fandom) to be a work of lasting artistic value. If someone is getting bogged down in a genre vs. genre (or sub-genre vs. sub-genre!) argument, maybe they should re-examine what it is they are defending! If a work is truly valuable and worth experiencing, its genre will be an attribute not the focus.

Anyway, I guess I really don't have a taxonomy for SF. I'm a lumper, not a splitter! What I would like to see is a disentangling of what is called science fiction, and what actually is SF, because the genre is still firmly "genre fiction" and not afforded a whole lot of respect as a general rule.

Right, ok, Star Wars vs. Solaris might not have been the best example in this case

And generally I'm a lumper as well, but sometimes being a splitter just does make sense, particularly when a work reflects and uses genre tropes in service of telling its story (Snow Crash, for example).

lostlobster wrote:

Just finished re-reading Titus Groan by Mervyn Peake. First time in years.

This is an amazing book. I read very quickly, but this book demands that you take the time to read every word:

"This tower, patched unevenly with black ivy, arose like a mutilated finger from among the fists of knuckled masonry and pointed blasphemously at heaven. At night the owls made of it an echoing throat; by day it stood voiceless and cast its long shadow."
"Her breast rose and fell, and she was both weak and strong. She could feel the blood flowing within her and she felt that she must die or break forth into leaves and flowers."
"Lingering is so very lonely when one lingers all alone."
"As I see it, life is an effort to grip before they slip through one's fingers and slide into oblivion, the startling, the ghastly or the blindingly exquisite fish of the imagination before they whip away on the endless current and are lost for ever in oblivion's black ocean."

Without looking up the general description, that prose makes the book damn tempting to read.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I finished up the Hyperion/Endymion series by Dan Simmons. So without getting too spoilery, here are my thoughts: The first book was fantastic. All these sub-stories, woven together so well. The second book is not quite as focused and not quite as good a story. Book three has a large time gap, some really "huh?" moments, starts introducing some really bizarre concepts you wouldn't have guessed from the first 2 books, and begins retconning things. Book four wraps most things up but definitely leaves some big questions unanswered, and has some pretty way-out-there concepts.

So I'll recommend then under the qualifier that you keep in mind the last 2 books get a little weird.

I enjoy the Hyperion books, although I've got a pretty good mental block separating the first and second pair of books as separate universes. Fall of Hyperion neatly closed the story and a sequel simply wasn't necessary, in addition...

Spoiler:

Endymion includes a character who was in the earlier books and claims to have written them. When something comes up that contradicts earlier events, the character says he lied when he wrote it.

In general, I recommend the first two books as a great and self contained read. While well written and a good story, the Endymion books actually detract from Hyperion/Fall of Hyperion.

I haven't read much Eco, but I truly enjoyed The Name of the Rose and highly recommend it.

I'm currently strolling through the Temeraire series of books by Naomi Novik again. They're Napoleonic historical fiction, plus dragons. I usually latch onto a series and read them several times in a row (my comfort books tend to rotate), and this is the flavor of the year.

Jayhawker wrote:

Jared Diamond is a really great writer. I first read an article by him in Discover Magazine when he wrote about Tasmania. He just does a really great job of explaining anthropology in ways that the average joe can really understand, and in style that easy and fun to read.

I would also recommend his book Collapse about how societies throughout history, and prehistoric have impacted their environment in ways that both helped and destroyed their chances for survival. It's an excellent read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...

Thanks, I queued Diamond's books. Collapse looks particularly delicious, I always been interested in topics like this.

wanderingtaoist wrote:

Superfreakonomics (and its predecessor Freakonomics) by Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner - finding hidden correlations and patterns in just about everything and trying to explain why is it so (does the education of the parents influence the education of the children?, how much do drug dealers really make?, is there a way to solve global warming for cheap?, how come legalizing abortion actually reduce crime levels? etc.)

Does it live up to hype? I keep hearing about Freakonomics in some so mainstream media that it's actually putting me off ;]

wanderingtaoist wrote:

The Logic of Life (and its predecessor The Undercover Economist) by Tim Harford - both are about the deeply economic motivations in everyday actions of people and not only people (did you know that monkeys actually barter food for sex?). Both books are simply a great read.

Bookmark'd!

Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy by Eamon Javers - true stories and business of corporate espionage. You'll meet Howard Hughes, Enron, former CIA operatives, spy planes and satellites. Fascinating stories about little-known subjects.

Have you read Confessions of Economic Hitman? I'm on the fence on which one to pick, Confessions or the one you've recommended.

I've been reading a lot of economy (or mostly economy-related) books recently (Klein, Taleb, Peter L. Bernstein's 'Against the Gods', some Polish guys) so these will have to wait cause other piles grown big in the meantime ;]

BTW economic stuff: any American readers reading new Michael Lewis's Big Short? Any good?

Superfreakonomics is definitely great. It's surprisingly very scientific and rigorous in its research and really makes you think and look at data (and political talk) more carefully and critically. Although I slightly prefer Tim Harford's books, they are simply a better read. And I also recommend Freakonomics Radio - a great economic podcast. It's yesterday's interview with Mart Laar is just great.

Confessions of Economic Hitman I've never heard of before, but it just made my list.