What are you reading?

[Scattercat]

Butcher does spin a bunch a lot of plot threads and then does a great job of weaving them together in the second half (at least of this book) with lots of action and carnage and making it all go BOOM.

Oh yeah!! I reckon that's possibly one of his best writing skills.

Y'know, I haven't noticed a lot of the writing "mistakes" others have mentioned. This concerns me. Does it mean that, if I really really do try to be a writer I'll enjoy other people's work less?

It may.  On the other hand, I've always been very attentive to the details of writing and the specific structure of grammar and word choice, even back when I was a preteen just getting into fantasy novels.  It's gotten more acute since then; I used to be able to plow through anything, but now I can't bear to finish books that are too poorly written.  I'm a snob, though, so there's that.

Once you train yourself to be an editor (and that's definitely a part of being a good writer), it's almost certain that you'll *notice* more errors.  Whether they ruin the book for you is kind of up to you, I think.

---

Just finished Lev Grossman's "The Magicians" and am very enthused.  I may write up a full-fledged discussion of it, even.  Definitely recommended; the book cover makes it sound totally not like what it actually is.  (The blurb gives the impression it's some sort of satirical deconstruction of Harry Potter, when really it's more like if someone wrote Harry Potter and Narnia's plot into "A Separate Peace.")

[Boggled Coriander]

Finished Boneshaker.  It picks up considerably in the final third, but my feelings about the first two-thirds still stands.

Writing style aside, I wonder if I'd been more receptive to the book if I was familiar with Seattle.  I've never been there, and while Cherie Priest doesn't go so far as to assume her readers have a full knowledge of the city, the urban geography of Old Seattle does have a very large role in the story.

[stePH]

Finished Boneshaker.  It picks up considerably in the final third, but my feelings about the first two-thirds still stands.

Writing style aside, I wonder if I'd been more receptive to the book if I was familiar with Seattle.  I've never been there, and while Cherie Priest doesn't go so far as to assume her readers have a full knowledge of the city, the urban geography of Old Seattle does have a very large role in the story.

...wait, what? 
Never heard of this, but I have to read it now. I enjoy stuff set in locales I'm familiar with (like, most recently, The Lathe of Heaven which is set in my current city of Portland), and the only SF novel set in Seattle that I've ever read was Megan Lindholm's Wizard of the Pigeons.

[Boggled Coriander]

...wait, what? 
Never heard of this, but I have to read it now. I enjoy stuff set in locales I'm familiar with (like, most recently, The Lathe of Heaven which is set in my current city of Portland), and the only SF novel set in Seattle that I've ever read was Megan Lindholm's Wizard of the Pigeons.

Well, Priest admits she fudged the history for storytelling purposes (creating a far more developed nineteenth-century Seattle than actually existed and moving up the dates of construction of several landmarks by decades), so if you're a stickler for historical accuracy you might be disappointed. But in terms of spatial urban geography, Priest was largely true to her own familiarity with the city.

[DKT]

Y'know, I haven't noticed a lot of the writing "mistakes" others have mentioned. This concerns me. Does it mean that, if I really really do try to be a writer I'll enjoy other people's work less?

Maybe some? I think for me it's just cemented what I like more in my own reading experiences, and I'm conscious of some of that when I'm writing. And I'm hesitant to call them "mistakes" (although - I dunno, I might have called them that) because, as in Butcher's case, it obviously works for a lot of people. But I think of it more as a writing tick that's not my style. Does that make sense?

[kibitzer]

Y'know, I haven't noticed a lot of the writing "mistakes" others have mentioned. This concerns me. Does it mean that, if I really really do try to be a writer I'll enjoy other people's work less?

Maybe some? I think for me it's just cemented what I like more in my own reading experiences, and I'm conscious of some of that when I'm writing. And I'm hesitant to call them "mistakes" (although - I dunno, I might have called them that) because, as in Butcher's case, it obviously works for a lot of people. But I think of it more as a writing tick that's not my style. Does that make sense?

Makes perfect sense. Yup, the "tic" thing happens to me in real life. Some people bug me by the way they talk or rely on stock phrases. Some authors' work does the same, though I can't think of one right now.

[DKT]

I've been reading The Midnight Folk by John Masefield which is fun, classic children's romp - although having no chapters also makes it kind of dizzying. But I'm more or less enjoying it.

On a whim, I picked up the audio version of Star Wars: Death Troopers. I'd read an interview in Weird Tales with the author and my initial thougths about a "zombies in Star Wars" book quickly went from "Eh, sounds too gimmicky" to "Huh. That actually could be cool."

I have to admit, it's been a looooooooooooooooooooooooong time since I've read a Star Wars book, but this one is generally an ace. The sound production and narration is excellent - and it's actually kind of scary and awesome. All of a sudden, Star Wars is fun again in a very dark way. So yay!

[Boggled Coriander]

Read Scott Westerfeld's So Yesterday in its entirety last Sunday.  I hugely enjoyed it and am now eager to read more Westerfeldian goodness.

[Listener]

I read Dreadnought recently (Cherie Priest) and liked it a LOT more than Boneshaker. I thought the style was better, the characters were more interesting (and less whiny), and it didn't depend upon a deus ex machina (the identity of the Big Bad) because it was set out right in the first act.

Read A Princess of Mars (Edgar Rice Burroughs) and have a review of it coming up on the EP blog at some point.

Read Special Topics in Calamity Physics (Marisha Pessl) -- non-genre but interesting, if you don't mind a really terrible non-resolved ending with a plot twist that makes you think "WTF" rather than "oooh, she's totally been building to that the entire novel".

Now reading Gods of Mars (Edgar Rice Burroughs). Not bad.

[Gamercow]

Currently reading "Orcs" by Stan Nicholls.  Heard good things about it.  Only 20 pages in, but so far, so good.

[Scattercat]

Finished up "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre.  He's more than a little arrogant, but he carries it off so well that I didn't mind, and I did actually learn a few new things about statistical calculations.  Currently working on "How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker.  Fascinating stuff, in my opinion.  Next up, Oliver Sacks' new book, "The Mind's Eye," about perception and perceptual disorders, and "Foundling" by D.M. Cornish for when I'm worn out on neuroscience. 

"Foundling" is the start, by the way, of a super-awesome book series that for some reason is shelved in the YA ghetto of the already ghetto-ized genre fiction section.  It has some awesome worldbuilding and a fabulous way of playing with language. 

[DKT]

Good to hear about Dreadnought. Trying to decide if I want to read it or listen to it now...

Picked up The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros from my library to listen to. I'd read it once before (maybe 8 years ago or so, when I was getting a teaching credential?) and read Woman Hollering Creek back in college, and wanted to listen to something non-SF/F/H. It's a short listen - only two hours - and people who want solid plot will be disappointed. But the language is beautiful, the story feels like it was meant to be read aloud, and I'm tempted to see if I can't convince my library to pick up Woman Hollering Creek on audio, too. (They do have Caramelo.) Also - I have to admit Cisneros sounds nothing like I imagined her to, but she sounds exactly like the narrator of this story should.

[birdless]

I'm reading Lovecraft for the first time. I'm on At the Mountains of Madness. I'm also reading And Another Thing. I think my opinion of it is it's like good fan fiction, so… yeah.

[CryptoMe]

I'm reading "Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang" by Kate Wilhelm. I'm about a third of the way through and confess I'm underwhelmed. Also, the 70's-ness of the book shows in oh-so-many details, which is a bit distracting.

[stePH]

I'm reading "Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang" by Kate Wilhelm. I'm about a third of the way through and confess I'm underwhelmed. Also, the 70's-ness of the book shows in oh-so-many details, which is a bit distracting.

Hm. I loved that book.

[kibitzer]

Finished Christopher Priest's Inverted World -- liked it a lot. It's not "hey wow BAM BIG ACTION" but it has a killer premise. Most enjoyable.

Now reading China Mieville's King Rat, his first book. Gotta say, not really enjoying it. It's clever but I'm finding it rather tedious and wordy.

[birdless]

Now reading China Mieville's King Rat, his first book. Gotta say, not really enjoying it. It's clever but I'm finding it rather tedious and wordy.

That was my first (and so far only) Mieville book. I didn't realize it was his first. It wasn't spectacular, but it wasn't the worst thing i've ever read, either. I agree with your critique "clever but tedious."

[Boggled Coriander]

Now reading China Mieville's King Rat, his first book. Gotta say, not really enjoying it. It's clever but I'm finding it rather tedious and wordy.

That was my first (and so far only) Mieville book. I didn't realize it was his first. It wasn't spectacular, but it wasn't the worst thing i've ever read, either. I agree with your critique "clever but tedious."

My only Mieville book so far has been The Scar, which I found hugely, brilliantly enjoyable.  It made me actively look forward to my next Mieville.  I guess you're saying, that book shouldn't be King Rat?

[Scattercat]

Now reading China Mieville's King Rat, his first book. Gotta say, not really enjoying it. It's clever but I'm finding it rather tedious and wordy.

That was my first (and so far only) Mieville book. I didn't realize it was his first. It wasn't spectacular, but it wasn't the worst thing i've ever read, either. I agree with your critique "clever but tedious."

My only Mieville book so far has been The Scar, which I found hugely, brilliantly enjoyable.  It made me actively look forward to my next Mieville.  I guess you're saying, that book shouldn't be King Rat?

I liked "King Rat" a lot, personally.  It didn't leave me with quite the "kill yourself now" vibe of "Perdido Street Station," and if I were going to pick any of his books as "clever but tedious," it would have to be "The City and the City," which was interesting but didn't quite manage to stay compelling the whole way through.

[birdless]

Now reading China Mieville's King Rat, his first book. Gotta say, not really enjoying it. It's clever but I'm finding it rather tedious and wordy.

That was my first (and so far only) Mieville book. I didn't realize it was his first. It wasn't spectacular, but it wasn't the worst thing i've ever read, either. I agree with your critique "clever but tedious."

My only Mieville book so far has been The Scar, which I found hugely, brilliantly enjoyable.  It made me actively look forward to my next Mieville.  I guess you're saying, that book shouldn't be King Rat?

Yeah, I'm sure YMMV. As i said, i didn't hate it, though i realize that's not a glowing recommendation. I enjoyed it okay, i just doubt i'll read it again. I've had several people recommend The City and the City, but it hasn't made it into my queue, yet.

[Sgarre1]

I just finished THE MAMMOTH BOOK OF BEST NEW HORROR #18 (no actual Mammoths were hurt - I really wish I could publish a THE MASTODON BOOK OF BEST NEW HORROR someday) and the usual enormously detailed review is on Goodreads here http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/101912008.

Also finished the entertainingly lurid collection of cheap bottom-rung 70s horror comics called  ZOMBIE FACTORY: 27 TALES OF BIZARRE COMIX MADNESS FROM BEYOND THE TOMB.  Insanely in-depth review is also on Goodreads here: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/119389129.

I'm taking a break from Horror for the moment, so I've lined up BROOKLYN NOIR 2: THE CLASSICS collection, which promises a greater overall level of solid storytelling than the modern volumes in the NOIR series, as these tap the rich vein of previously published fiction.

"No person dares to think what foul and unnatural horrors lurk beneath the black surface of the earth awaiting to crush human life between their slimy fingers... yet of all of these monsters, none are so appalling, so terrifying as THE SLIMY MUMMY!" - THE ZOMBIE FACTORY

[CryptoMe]

I'm reading "Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang" by Kate Wilhelm. I'm about a third of the way through and confess I'm underwhelmed. Also, the 70's-ness of the book shows in oh-so-many details, which is a bit distracting.

Hm. I loved that book.

I would love to hear your reasons for that, stePh. I know it's a classic, but I am still underwhelmed (having finished it, now). So I would love to hear somebody else's positive opinions. Who knows, maybe I missed something.

[stePH]

I'm reading "Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang" by Kate Wilhelm. I'm about a third of the way through and confess I'm underwhelmed. Also, the 70's-ness of the book shows in oh-so-many details, which is a bit distracting.

Hm. I loved that book.

I would love to hear your reasons for that, stePh. I know it's a classic, but I am still underwhelmed (having finished it, now). So I would love to hear somebody else's positive opinions. Who knows, maybe I missed something.

Would have to re-read it; it's been over ten years and all I still have is a general impression of greatly enjoying it. But I will admit that I'm hardly the most critical of readers, and I rarely notice a work's "dated-ness".

[RedEyedGhost]

I'm nearly finished with Felix Gilman's The Half-Made World, this is one of those truly rare books that I avoid reading because I want to prolong the experience. It's very well writeπ and wonderfully imagined. The pace is also deceptively fast.  Great book so far. 

[Boggled Coriander]

Reading Gerry Bowler's Santa Claus: A Biography, a very readable popular history of the Santa Claus character.  Picked it up in a used bookstore just in time for the season.