RE: [Fantasy_Books] Re: Philip Pullman
- I've been thinking about buying that one, do you think its a good read?? Has
anyone read Lyra's Oxford? If so is that good??
>From: "Sun Zi" <eljoloki@...>_________________________________________________________________
>Subject: [Fantasy_Books] Re: Philip Pullman
>Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:42:34 -0000
>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 "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:
> > > Well, I can see what Pullman means by stark realism
>because while the
> > > situations and the story in and of itself isnt based in reality
> > > characters, their struggles and thoughts and questions that
> > > raises,
> > > especially the ones that really make you stop and think about
> > > nature of
> > > humanity and its willingness to believe what its told about the
> > > wthout
> > > question, were written by someone wanting to write realism
>in a fantasy
> > > setting. The non-reality of the world that His dark Materials
> > > place
> > > 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 fantasy
> > there can be a 'reality' of another type imposed on the
> > It's also interesting to me that when a writer produces a work
> > characters have to struggle with legitimate issues, particularly
> > 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 living
> > 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. Seems
> > real to me...
> > Warren Ockrassa | Publisher/Editor | nightwares Books
> > books@n... | http://books.nightwares.com/
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
- On 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