Hey!! Let's get some action going! What are we reading?

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by Luffy

Hmmm, it always seems wistful to me that someone likes both YA and urban fantasy. I've read only one UF though, Moon Called by Patricia Briggs. What puts my nose out of joint is the way people describe evil in these books. But also the way people fall in love. These things distract me from the adventure present in the book.

I'm not sure what you mean by "wistful" in this context?

Anyway, I've not read Patricia Briggs (I'm not into shapeshifters or werewolves, so I avoid UF series that seem to have a heavier focus on those kinds of supernatural beings), so I have no idea how "like" other UF it is, but I'm pretty sure you can't generalise a genre based on just one book.

There's a wide variety of urban fantasy out there, some with more romance and some with less, some more black-and-white than others and some with more grey morality than others, so it's likely you just tried a book that didn't suit you. I like UF as a genre but that doesn't mean I've enjoyed everything I've read. But then it's also possible UF just won't be your thing - not a single genre suits everyone!

[Hampshire Nanny]

Originally Posted by Hampshire Nanny

I'm currently reading Forbidden Fruit by Kerry Greenwood and listening to King and Maxwell by David Baldacci. I've been knitting and listening each evening instead of turning on the TV, so I should finish King and Maxwell tonight.

I did. I found that I like doing some kind of craft while listening to an e-book. It's a nice break from reading text, and while I'd start getting fidgety if I were *only* listening, it's nice to listen while doing something else that doesn't require any concentration.

Finished both of the above books and also quickly read Miss Tonks Turns to Crime, a sweet historical novel by M C Beaton, 2nd in a series of 6. Now I'm reading the last 3 short works in Beginnings, a Worlds of Honor anthology. Also reading the last of the Corinna Chapman mysteries by Kerry Greenwood, Cooking the Books. I'm also listening to Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

I'm not sure what you mean by "wistful" in this context?

Anyway, I've not read Patricia Briggs (I'm not into shapeshifters or werewolves, so I avoid UF series that seem to have a heavier focus on those kinds of supernatural beings), so I have no idea how "like" other UF it is, but I'm pretty sure you can't generalise a genre based on just one book.

There's a wide variety of urban fantasy out there, some with more romance and some with less, some more black-and-white than others and some with more grey morality than others, so it's likely you just tried a book that didn't suit you. I like UF as a genre but that doesn't mean I've enjoyed everything I've read. But then it's also possible UF just won't be your thing - not a single genre suits everyone!

You got me there, I had typed an aggressive word but replaced it with 'wistful'. I don't want to get banned, not now not ever.

The thing with UF is that once some formerly evil beings have been humanized, true evil's definition is arbitrary and unconvincing. That is, for me, a deterrence.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Cleopatra 7.2 by Elizabeth Ann Scarborough. I find that this is the second in a series, but since I've read the prologue which essentially recaps the first book, and the first book doesn't seem to be available as an ebook, I'm just going to read it. I suspect that I shall get cross at the lack appreciation of the general application of the individual case. But let's see.

Hmm... well. I can't recommend this book. It has a very unlikely premise (which is OK, I can give a book one impossible thing to hang a story on), but then continues to add ever more unlikely things. Combined with thin unconvincing characters, irrational actions and... just no.

2/5 at best.

Next up: Legions of Space by Keith Laumer. My oldest unread purchased ebook, from 15 September 2004.

[Joy736]

Hey, I'm back after being gone for a while.
And I'm currently reading Pride and Prejudice for the first time. I'm about 3/4 through and I totally regret not reading this sooner. I'm sooooo in love with it!
Ofcourse it's not an easy read, especially since English is not my mother tonge. But I understand it fine enough to enjoy it so much. Along with it I'm watching the '95 BBC mini-series on Netflix and I also love that.

[Yapyap]

I realised one of the ARCs I'd asked for and received was actually book three in a series I wasn't familiar with, so I ended up buying the first book - I don't usually care to jump into a series in the middle of it.

That first book is Itch by Simon Mayo - probably more children's than YA, but right up my alley, so I'm really rather pleased so far about the way this unplanned purchase is turning out. It's exactly the kind of contemporary school-kid story / adventure (with a bit of science thrown in) that I'd have adored as a ten-year-old; as someone a few times that, it's probably not going to make my all-time top ten of favourite books (although, to be fair, most of them are MG/YA adventures), but in any case, I'm enjoying it a great deal so far.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Luffy

Hmmm, it always seems wistful to me that someone likes both YA and urban fantasy.

Originally Posted by Yapyap

I'm not sure what you mean by "wistful" in this context?

Originally Posted by Luffy

You got me there, I had typed an aggressive word but replaced it with 'wistful'. I don't want to get banned, not now not ever.

I'm still lost on what you're trying to say, "aggressive word" or not. You seem to be judging people who happen to enjoy two specific genres - YA and UF - without actually spelling that judgment out in a coherent way. I get not wanting to be banned, but at least express yourself clearly. Don't substitute a word that makes no sense in that context; "wistful" is no more meaningful than "orange" in your statement. Nothing says you have to be abrasive, but you should at least be clear.

For the record, I read quite a bit of YA and UF - and YA UF, for that matter, like the "Paranormal Public" series. But then, I also read SF, horror, comic fantasy, superhero fiction, UF-powered mysteries, political commentary...whatever looks good, really.

Originally Posted by Luffy

The thing with UF is that once some formerly evil beings have been humanized, true evil's definition is arbitrary and unconvincing. That is, for me, a deterrence.

I certainly can't argue that the humanization of monsters has been going on since at least 1975, when Fred Saberhagen published The Dracula Tape - a retelling of Stoker's novel from Dracula's point of view, painting the humans as boorish busybodies and bad guys. (Other people will hearken back to Anne Rice, but Interview with the Vampire came out the following year, in 1976.) Arguably, you can even go back to Robert Louis Stevenson's depiction of Jekyll and Hyde, where a sympathetic character has an evil persona that can't be dispatched without killing his innocent side...which, if you think about it, is also a key part of the werewolf legend.

More recently, zombies have been getting the same kind of "makeover" that vampires got forty years ago, transforming from repulsive corpses who feed on living humans to decent folks who happen to have acquired a severe dietary restriction upon dying and have to take special care with their grooming.

Ultimately, to me at least, it's all fiction, and one take is as valid as any other. Fright Night and 'Salem's Lot can have their evil vampires, Dakota Cassidy can have her lovably snarky ones, and I can enjoy both kinds, because supernatural monsters aren't real. The Walking Dead has its mindless shamblers, Mark Henry's Amanda Feral is a literal maneating "glam zombie" who's more self-absorbed than evil, and Kevin J. Anderson's Dan Shamble is a P.I. who won't let a little thing like death prevent him from solving his cases. If I want to think about true evil, I'll turn on the news and see what ISIS is up to or what's happening in Ferguson, MO; witches and werewolves and ghosts and ghouls don't even make the list.

But then, as mentioned earlier, no genre's for everyone. I can't stand historical romance, for instance, and I'm not particularly keen on traditional Epic Fantasy. That's why there's a variety out there.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

I'm still lost on what you're trying to say, "aggressive word" or not. You seem to be judging people who happen to enjoy two specific genres - YA and UF - without actually spelling that judgment out in a coherent way. I get not wanting to be banned, but at least express yourself clearly. Don't substitute a word that makes no sense in that context; "wistful" is no more meaningful than "orange" in your statement. Nothing says you have to be abrasive, but you should at least be clear.

For the record, I read quite a bit of YA and UF - and YA UF, for that matter, like the "Paranormal Public" series. But then, I also read SF, horror, comic fantasy, superhero fiction, UF-powered mysteries, political commentary...whatever looks good, really.

I certainly can't argue that the humanization of monsters has been going on since at least 1975, when Fred Saberhagen published The Dracula Tape - a retelling of Stoker's novel from Dracula's point of view, painting the humans as boorish busybodies and bad guys. (Other people will hearken back to Anne Rice, but Interview with the Vampire came out the following year, in 1976.) Arguably, you can even go back to Robert Louis Stevenson's depiction of Jekyll and Hyde, where a sympathetic character has an evil persona that can't be dispatched without killing his innocent side...which, if you think about it, is also a key part of the werewolf legend.

More recently, zombies have been getting the same kind of "makeover" that vampires got forty years ago, transforming from repulsive corpses who feed on living humans to decent folks who happen to have acquired a severe dietary restriction upon dying and have to take special care with their grooming.

Ultimately, to me at least, it's all fiction, and one take is as valid as any other. Fright Night and 'Salem's Lot can have their evil vampires, Dakota Cassidy can have her lovably snarky ones, and I can enjoy both kinds, because supernatural monsters aren't real. The Walking Dead has its mindless shamblers, Mark Henry's Amanda Feral is a literal maneating "glam zombie" who's more self-absorbed than evil, and Kevin J. Anderson's Dan Shamble is a P.I. who won't let a little thing like death prevent him from solving his cases. If I want to think about true evil, I'll turn on the news and see what ISIS is up to or what's happening in Ferguson, MO; witches and werewolves and ghosts and ghouls don't even make the list.

But then, as mentioned earlier, no genre's for everyone. I can't stand historical romance, for instance, and I'm not particularly keen on traditional Epic Fantasy. That's why there's a variety out there.

Sorry for all that mess. I'm used to expressing my opinion without anyone (on other sites) noticing my presence. I'll try to spruce up. I did think wistful was a relevant word somewhat. Not that I do.

My secret inclination is to be judgmental against members that don't share my taste in books. It's a tendency I try hard to fight. I didn't intend to ruffle any feathers.

You seem to agree with me about evil in UF books. One author went like "a shark is not evil because when they hunt its blah blah blah". Then the author will take time to lambaste evil vampires, and how creepy and scary they are".

I rebel against the same juvenile writing that maybe you find in chick lit. I also tried to read the Mortal Instruments. I had some hopes because the books are hefty. Big mistake. Anyway thanks for replying to my post.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by Joy736

Hey, I'm back after being gone for a while.
And I'm currently reading Pride and Prejudice for the first time. I'm about 3/4 through and I totally regret not reading this sooner. I'm sooooo in love with it!
Ofcourse it's not an easy read, especially since English is not my mother tonge. But I understand it fine enough to enjoy it so much. Along with it I'm watching the '95 BBC mini-series on Netflix and I also love that.

I didn't like P&P. It was difficult. And it's a hated book that has impressed on a few former students' minds till their adulthood. It's both respected and disliked equally, IMHO.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Luffy

Sorry for all that mess. I'm used to expressing my opinion without anyone (on other sites) noticing my presence. I'll try to spruce up. I did think wistful was a relevant word somewhat. Not that I do.

My secret inclination is to be judgmental against members that don't share my taste in books. It's a tendency I try hard to fight. I didn't intend to ruffle any feathers.

Imagine that I came up to you and called you a squonk. What does that mean? Is it an insult, a compliment, or a simple description? You ask me, and I say I didn't want to use a more aggressive word, but "squonk" is relevant to what I meant. Would that be at all enlightening?

In short, you still haven't said what you mean, and that's what's starting to ruffle my feathers. I would rather someone insult me to my face than tap-dance around dropping vague hints.

Originally Posted by Luffy

You seem to agree with me about evil in UF books.

I'm not so sure about that. See, I classify books based on content and intent. Dracula is horror, because it intends to horrify. The title character is an evil, scary, supernatural force that opposes and preys upon the human heroes. The Dracula Tape is urban fantasy, because it happens in the (relatvely) modern day and the title character is a supernatural being with a sense of honor and a rough way of handling those who oppose him. Same story, same events, two different intentions, two different genres. Recast the latter book so that it takes place in the Middle Ages, and it switches from urban fantasy to dark fantasy.

Thus, saying that UF features sympathetic supernaturals seems axiomatic to me. If they're not sympathetic, it's not UF - it's horror. (And yes, for this purpose, I'm lumping UF and Paranormal Romance together. It's a blurry, subjective line anyway; for me, it's a question of how important the romance is to the story.)

Originally Posted by Luffy

I rebel against the same juvenile writing that maybe you find in chick lit.

There is a difference between juvenile writing (an immature prose style), writing for an audience of juveniles (YA), light writing (breezy rather than heavy), and bad writing (incompetent).

I can't stand bad writing, such as when someone mixes up homophones or can't use punctuation. The book I'm reading right now has a decent story but suffers from that sort of technical problem; the (self-published) author needs to hire a copyeditor to go over her manuscript. Juvenile writing can grate on me unless it fits the story, such as when a book's written in first person from the point of view of an immature character. I see nothing wrong with the other two options, and usually associate light writing with chick lit. (As opposed to dense or heavy writing, which I associate with nonfiction and Tolkienesque fantasy.)

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

In short, you still haven't said what you mean

I meant " unfortunate for me". That's what I meant. And when I find that so many books are barred from me enjoying them, I get the feeling of missing something.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Luffy

I meant " unfortunate for me". That's what I meant. And when I find that so many books are barred from me enjoying them, I get the feeling of missing something.

That still doesn't make sense in the original context ("it always seems [unfortunate for me] that someone likes both YA and urban fantasy"), but I'll take it at face value...

In all honesty, reading one [insert genre here] book does not qualify someone to judge the entire genre - no matter what that book or genre is. Suppose someone said that they know they hate disaster movies because they saw Sharknado and didn't care for it. Would you consider recommending The Poseidon Adventure or Airport as other examples of the genre, or just write them off?

Remember that Sturgeon's Revelation applies to all genres, not just SF and not only in written form. There's a lot of crud out there, and the boom in UF and YA means that there's a lot of it in those genres...but the flip side of that is that there's also a decent amount of good stuff to be found.

Now, it may well be that a certain genre is not to your taste because of something inherent to the genre. I have no interest in Regency romances, none at all. I prefer my romantic storyline to be the B-plot (or lower), not the A-plot, and I have no interest in that setting, so no matter how well-written an RR book may be, I'll pass. Contrariwise, I like the contrast of a modern-day setting with magical elements, so I'll forgive some flaws when reading UF. Sometimes I'll even "cross the aisle" into paranormal romance, if there's something particularly compelling about a book. (Or, rarely, a series. Dakota Cassidy insists that her "Accidental" books are PR, where I enjoy them as comic UF that happens to have a romance A-plot. The romance A-plot would normally take 'em off my list, but the concept and comedy outweigh that "flaw" for me.)

All I'm saying is, since (part of?) your objection seems to be rooted in the level of the writing, don't miss out on a whole genre based on a single-book sample. Yes, I do happen to read and enjoy Patricia Briggs's "Mercy Thompson" books, but I also love Jim Butcher's "Dresden Files" series. For that matter, I like Ilona Andrews's "Kate Daniels" series but don't really care for their* "The Edge" series - and they're both UF. I loved Kelley Armstrong's "Otherworld" books but couldn't stand the YA UF trilogy she wrote.

Tastes vary. Make sure you give yourself a fair shot.

* Ilona Andrews is a single name for a husband/wife writing team, hence "their" instead of "her."

[Yapyap]

^ agreed with everything Rev. Bob has said. And especially "don't judge a genre based on one book". And especially don't judge the writing quality in an entire genre based on just one book in that genre.

(For the record, I like YA but I haven't read the Mortal Instruments either, as the description never really appealed to me, I've heard enough about it that I have a pretty good idea that it's not my thing, and I tend to stick to books that sound like I might like them. But a lot of people, young and less young, love the various series Cassandra Clare has written in that universe, and I'm happy for them!)

That said, yeah, we all have entire genres we're not keen on. I don't read romance (of any sort, including historical or paranormal) or erotica. I do read books that have romance in them - I've gone through a period of reading a lot of chick lit, which often has some focus on relationships, and many books in any genre have some romance included - but genre romance is just not what I'm after, not because I look down on them as somehow less good, but largely because I'm more into action/adventure/mystery plots, and not the least because I have rather specific, picky tastes in fictional men and love stories and it's incredibly rare that I find a male love interest appealing enough to want to read a romance-focused book.

But of course then I also enjoyed Pride & Prejudice (not as much as Sense & Sensibility though, which remains my favourite Austen book) and didn't find it too difficult, in spite of reading it first as a 17-year-old non-native English speaker, so my tastes are clearly deserving to be judged.

Originally Posted by Luffy

I meant " unfortunate for me". That's what I meant. And when I find that so many books are barred from me enjoying them, I get the feeling of missing something.

Thank you for clarifying. I do get that feeling (and now I understand that you meant it in the sense of you feeling wistful about others enjoying genres you don't!) - I'm still planning to give a good go and tackle some epic/high/non-urban fantasy I've heard a lot of good things about, also because I want to know what I'm missing.

My plan (and yes, I keep putting it off) is to try at least a handful of books in the genre that are a) as different from one another as possible, b) written in different styles, so that I won't, say, write off the entire genre as something "not for me" when I've tried, say, only Mistborn or only The Blade Itself or only The Belgariad. I'll write it off only when I've read all of those + some other highly recommended more recent fantasy books that also sound like they're something that might offer something of interest to me.

If you're really feeling wistful about missing out on entire genres, and wish you could enjoy more books, I'd advise you to try at least a handful of books in the category (I don't really want to call YA a genre - it's a category that includes YA UF, YA fantasy, contemporary YA, YA romance, YA mystery, YA action/adventure etc), making sure that they're pretty different from one another.

Since you've tried UF and YA UF with female protagonists, try UF and YA with male protagonists? They tend to be grittier and more plot-focused, with a little less romance (I'm aware this is a generalisation, with plenty of exceptions, but in those categories, books written by male authors and featuring male protagonists do tend more towards gritty than romance-oriented). Perhaps that might suit you better, at least to start with. But of course if it still doesn't work, it's just not your thing, or at least not at this point in your life, and that's perfectly fine.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

I'm still planning to give a good go and tackle some epic/high/non-urban fantasy I've heard a lot of good things about, also because I want to know what I'm missing.

One thing that helps me get into "classical" fantasy is some kind of a twist. Comedy works really well, as with Robert Asprin's "Myth" books, but so does the old "modern-day character sucked into a fantasy universe" trick - like Rick Cook's "Wiz" books or Joel Rosenberg's "Guardians of the Flame" saga (in which a role-playing group becomes their characters in the game world, and they never go home). Just as long as it's not the same old story - a carefully balanced party goes on Quest X, each character getting their specific moment to Save The Day (often by demonstrating or defying Stereotype Y), then they come home to Defeat The Evil One and restore peace to the realm. Man, that gets OLD.

[Yapyap]

Thanks for those mentions - I haven't heard of either Rick Cook or Joel Rosenberg, but the "modern day character gets sucked into a fantasy universe" thing sounds like a good "bridge" from contemporary to epic/high/"classical" fantasy indeed. I'll look them up and add to my "list of different fantasy to try when I get around to it".