Whats everyone reading?

[pauljholden]

Currently reading Lovecraft Country, after picking up Lee Child's Killing Floor (on the back of the fact I sort of enjoyed the slightly goofy tv show) but in a fit of annoyance I chucked it across the floor (I'm prepared to put up with the odd coincidence, but a coincidence so screaming insane that requires the writer to hang a lantern on it and then tell you not to worry about it in the book just drove me nuts) so I turned to the other tv show I'd really enjoyed and since there's a new(? is it new, maybe I've just heard of it) sequel to Lovecraft Country, I'd thought I'd pick this up.

Not far in but a much, MUCH better book.

[JohnW]

I started on the Jack Reachers a while back. They were propulsive enough to keep me going through – I think – three books, but then the narrative stupidities got too much. I don't remember any specific coincidence that might have made be throw the book across the floor, but the little bits of wrong kept adding up until I lost patience.

Never read Lovecraft Country, but I've heard good things.

[JohnW]

I've been yearning for a story in which a bloke hijacks a submarine.
I know I'd only be disappointed, but it's such a strong concept.

Not sure if it would fully fit your tastes but there is an old Cold War novel, "The Gold Crew" by Scortia and Robinson.  One crew of a US missile submarine slowly goes insane ... Not read it in years but it is a passable piece of work.  IIRC they made a film version of it.

Unless the film version is called Submarine, or even better just Sub, with Gerard Butler as The Bloke, I might just give it a miss.

[Barrington Boots]

Nope. History all the way. My feeling at the time was that I just wanted to enjoy literature rather than study it. That's turned out to be one of the very few decisions of my teenage years that I can still stand behind. Whoda thought?

I've never been tempted by Tarzan, but I'm interested to hear your verdict.
Outside of comics, I'm rarely in the mood for pulp these days. However, ever since you mentioned your father-in-law's tastes, I've been yearning for a story in which a bloke hijacks a submarine.
I know I'd only be disappointed, but it's such a strong concept.

I might have some of his books in the house which includes said scenario. I will have a look! It will be generic tough guy nonsense.

Early verdict on Tarzan is that I may not be able to read 20 books of it. Burroughs is a good storyteller, but not a good writer. The book was written in 1912 so it's got an archaic style and some very outdated views, although it's better in that respect than 70s pulp. It lacks the zing of someone like Howard, but it was originally serialised so it's quick moving and full of interesting hooks.
I'm hoping they'll pick up once I get past the origin book, which is basically a story I know being told to me in a very dry fashion, and onto books with titles like Tarzan vs the Tiger Priestess or something.

[JohnW]

I might have some of his books in the house which includes said scenario. I will have a look! It will be generic tough guy nonsense.

You are too kind, but please don't root out anything on my account. I'm sadly convinced that no such book could ever live up to its central concept. I did go so far as to have a look for the Cold War story that Tjm86 mentioned above, but it's out of print, and I reckon that that brief hunt is as far as I'll go down this road.

Tarzan vs the Tiger Priestess would go perfectly on the shelf next to Bloke Hijacks Submarine, and the cover would be a gift to any illustrator with blood in his veins.

(Now that I think of it, they wouldn't need to be on a shelf, but maybe stuffed into the glove compartment of a van, or propping up the wonky leg of a work bench in the garage.)

[Bad City Blue]

Magic Order 3 today.

Looking forward to it

[Rara Avis]

Managed to finish 'Long Way...' in Feb and really enjoyed it. There are more in the series if I fancy diving back in which I may do at some stage.

I have struggled to build up the enthusiasm to read the Tad Williams book. Within the first few pages we find one of the minor characters sexually assaulting someone (he is depicted groping a young serving "wench" that has come to deliver the bad news that there is no more wine and to get back her boss, a wine merchant, he grabs her and holds her on his knee despite her struggles, rips her bodice open and fondles her breasts in the presence of several other men).

I understand that this standard scene in a lot of fantasy books but as I get older my tolerance for this low level misogyny / sexism has gone way down. It's a minor character and only a few lines of the text but it put me right off.

[JohnW]

as I get older my tolerance for this low level misogyny / sexism has gone way down.

I hear you. Thirty years ago I delighted in the Flashman books, but I'm reluctant to return to them now.
It's all well and good saying that these are stories narrated by a self-confessed cad in the glory days of empire, but that doesn't keep the racism and sexual exploitation from leaving a bitter taste.
Not helping is the sad fact that the writer turned into something of a right-wing old curmudgeon in his last years.

I'm not condemning the books—they're rollicking good reads. It's just a matter of my changing tolerance.

[pictsy]

I just finished the first published 40K book, Inquisitor (later renamed Draco).  I lost interest in 40K novels a while ago when I realised that the Horus Heresy series of books is a badly written mess of the same over-wrought melodrama - and was forgettable and boring.  I couldn't get into the Eisenhorn series either and I started thinking that maybe the 40K stuff was just a little bit crap, actually.

But someone said that Inquisitor was weird and horny - I could I resist?  I can certainly see why someone would describe the book like that.  It kind of is weird and horny in a derivative and juvenile way.  Plus there are couple parts that I can only describe as transphobic.
It doesn't really conclude satisfactorily, being the first part of a trilogy.  I don't think I'll be reading the other two books.
The prose were readable and flowed well enough, but often failed to grip me.

With that said, it's one the best 40K books I've read.  One thing going in it's favour is it is short.

[Barrington Boots]

'derivative and juvenile' I think covers a lot of 40k output. I have masses of these books and they're mainly dreadful. The early stuff is a bit more interesting as the books were a bit less corporate box-ticking exercises and so more exploratory of the universe and concepts, but they're also written for a target audience of teenage boys in the main.

Knowing the rate I go through paperbacks a friend of mine gave me a huge bag of early (late 80s- early 90s) D&D novels and I've found them to be similar - written for kids, so basically crap, as well as shot through with streaks of low level, ingrained misogyny that's sadly so prevalent in works of a certain type that makes them an uncomfortable read at times.

I haven't read any Tad Williams for a long time but I can imagine it's the same issue there. As a fan of pulpy / trashy paperbacks I read a lot of older work that's frequently problematic. Sometimes the problems are baked in but not a key part of the work, so you can enjoy the work whilst acknowledging its of its time (Howard and Lovecraft are the biggest examples of this, Fritz Leiber also springs to mind) and sometimes you can't. I think it's a good thing that if a book makes you uncomfortable you stop reading it. (I also think older, problematic works should be preserved as such and the recent rewriting of Roald Dahl was an awful thing, but that's a different discussion)

I hear you. Thirty years ago I delighted in the Flashman books, but I'm reluctant to return to them now.

This is an interesting topic for discussion. I'm a fan of the Flashman books but it can't be disputed that objevctively they're pretty awful in that sense.
Aside from the first one, which crosses a line for me, I've been able to return to them and enjoy them for what they are, and they really encouraged me to read around historical events I might otherwise have not.
I'm never sure if Fraser is masterfully crafted a horrible character to tell some great stories, or was sort of the literary equivalent of an internet edgelord. I think, for example, his own feelings on race can really be seen through Flashman: I know Fraser served in the army and had a lot of time for India and Indian troops, so they're often portrayed in a positive light although filtered through Flashman's appalling nature: the reader can see Flashman running them down, but knows he is wrong. His views on the Chinese however, and their depiction, is really at odds with that.

[JohnW]

they really encouraged me to read around historical events I might otherwise have not.

I'm the same.

As for the rest, I think the Flashman stories reflect both Fraser's army experience and his own taste in adventure stories growing up. Thus, because of Kipling and his own war service out east, all Indian and Central Asian characters are relatable.
Fraser's Native Americans are either savage or sympathetic (sometimes both), the same as in some of the more enlightened Westerns.
Africans and Chinese come off the worst. The Chinese are civilised and dangerous (like in Fu Manchu), and the Africans barbarous and dangerous (like in Tarzan and other such jungly pulp).
Most foreign women are gagging for a lusty big white man, whether they know it or not. If they don't, they are soon taught otherwise.

The stories are so much fun but, having itemised the above, I realise how distasteful I've made them sound.
I'm just going to cop out and say that they were of their time, and Fraser was riffing on commonplace prejudices rather than airing any bigotry of his own. If you discount his later rantings, he came across as a most reasonable fellow.

[Barrington Boots]

I'd not considered the Kipling connection, that's very likely.

I'm finding Tarzan hard going at the moment due to the prejudices of the time. Tarzan merrily kills off the native Africans left and right and there's some horrible stereotyping going on. It strikes me that Burroughs is writing less about race though and more about class - the artistrocratic characters, of which of course Tarzan is one, are all noble, intelligent and generally great whilst the commoners, be they the native villagers or sailors and servants, are far beneath them. He essentially cherry picks the best parts of the nature vs nurture debate and combines them into his central character.
I'm thinking of skipping far ahead to some of the more ludicrously titled books to see if they're better, because I wanted to read simple books about blokes fighting crocodiles and lost civilizations rather than this.

[Rara Avis]

I'm thinking of skipping far ahead to some of the more ludicrously titled books to see if they're better, because I wanted to read simple books about blokes fighting crocodiles and lost civilizations rather than this.

Have you tried any H. Rider Haggard? I read 'She' a few years ago and the main character is quite unintentional hilarious. It's maybe not *as* racist and sexist as other works of the time but only by a smidgen.

[Barrington Boots]

I've read King Solomon's Mines, but never read She! That feels like an oversight I should correct!

I'm also reminded of The Lost World by Arthur Conan Doyle, which is terrific and something I should also revisit.

[Hawkmumbler]

I'm also reminded of The Lost World by Arthur Conan Doyle, which is terrific and something I should also revisit.

One of the better entries in that Eurocentric explorer larks genre from the turn of the century, and holds up pretty well. The later Professor Challenger stories are hysterical, and document in real time Conan Doyles decent into born again Christianity, The Land of Mist in particular feels like Doyle wanted an excuse to espouse his radical mysticism and lent heavily into his obsession with the then ongoing Cottingley Fairies hoax, of which he was a huge proppant.