- I actually think that s why I enjoyed these books, they dealt with dark issues like death and separation from love. BUT....I ve managed to find a copy of TheMessage 1 of 41 , Jan 22, 2004View SourceI actually think that's why I enjoyed these books, they dealt with
dark issues like death and separation from love.
BUT....I've managed to find a copy of "The Science of Philip
Pullmans His Dark Materials" by Mary & John Gribbin. It seems
he's based a lot of his work on Quantum Physics, (the strange
cat that wanders through the doorway from Will's Oxford is
actually Schroedingers cat)
curious and curiouser
--- In Fantasy_Books@yahoogroups.com, Warren Ockrassa
> On Jan 20, 2004, at 8:32 AM, Morwen Melda wrote:because while the
> > Well, I can see what Pullman means by stark realism
> > situations and the story in and of itself isnt based in realitythe
> > characters, their struggles and thoughts and questions thatPullman
> > raises,the
> > especially the ones that really make you stop and think about
> > nature ofafter
> > humanity and its willingness to believe what its told about the
> > wthoutin a fantasy
> > question, were written by someone wanting to write realism
> > setting. The non-reality of the world that His dark Materialstakes
> > placeenough --
> > in, I think, brings out the reality of the characters
> Which is an interesting take on it. Reality being subjective
> flexible enough -- that even in the context of a clear fantasysetting,
> there can be a 'reality' of another type imposed on thecharacters.
> It's also interesting to me that when a writer produces a work
> characters have to struggle with legitimate issues, particularlyApparently
> internal ones, and not everyone might survive, it's called "dark"
> something, as in dark fantasy or dark SF or whatever.
> "regular" fantasy is all about sunshine, joy and everyone livingNasty
> happily ever after.
> I'd always considered that to be "escapist", myself.
> So I can also see why Pullman might call his books realistic.
> crap happens, people die, and there's a lot of misery. Seemsfairly
> real to me...
> Warren Ockrassa | Publisher/Editor | nightwares Books
> books@n... | http://books.nightwares.com/
- ... I ll have to re-read the series sometime, because I know I ll notice a lot of things I hadn t noticed on my first read through. I tried reading some of theMessage 41 of 41 , Jan 19, 2007View SourceOn 19 Jan 2007 at 12:38, Leigh L. wrote:
> >> Has anyone else gotten sucked into Steven Erikson's Malazan series?I'll have to re-read the series sometime, because I know I'll notice a lot of things I hadn't
> >> I was hooked after book one. Problem is that I feel like I can't
> >> read anything else until I get through all of the (published) books
> >> in the series because there are SO many characters and subplots.
> > I've read the first 6 books in the series. I like them a lot,
> > although Erikson does have some significant flaws as a writer.
> > Books 2 and 3 are the best so far.
> I'm up to four so far, with Midnight Tides hovering fairly high on the
> To Be Read list - I *want* to read it, but I know what you mean, it
> does feel like a big commitment. Especially as there's no summary,
> recap, timeline etc. in any of the books so I always feel like I'll be
> left floundering if I don't skim through the previous book to see where
> everyone is before starting the next...
noticed on my first read through. I tried reading some of the threads on the Malazan
forums talking about the books, but I couldn't remember a large proportion of the things
they were talking about.
By the way, "Midnight Tides" is a prequel to the previous 4 books and doesn't feature the
same characters (with a couple of small exceptions), therefore don't feel you have to re-
read any of the previous books to understand it. On the other hand, book 6 - "The
Bonehunters" is simultaneously a sequel to the different plot threads in books 3,4 and 5
and depends heavily on what happened in those books.
> Very good stuff though. I'd also agree with 2 and 3 being the best soI'd probably rater them 2, 3, 5, 6, 4, 1
> far (2 in particular).
> - Leigh--
http://www.voidhawk.com/ - Film and Book Reviews