OT-Black Company

[Wrana]

And the last one, probably - thought to do it on Sunday, but wasn't up to it, sorry to all...

nordlys:
Places, events, people.. In novels they are displayed more vividly than in rules-filled proper accessories, so I read them just for that. Exploring the development of gaming universes (many ones) is sort of a hobby of mine, and novels do fill a lot of gaps the dry rulebooks leave behind. They don't have to be talented, they only have to be canon!

Unfortunately, T$R didn't give a damn about what is canon and what is not. Which caused many contradictions between authors describing their worlds. And I don't mean fiction only - there were quite a few contradictions in their accessories!

I've read some WH40k novels, and didn't found them any better than typical D&D fiction. I guess there is a reason half of those real writers used pseudonyms while writing for GW

I didn't mean those - just because I don't play 40K and so wasn't interested in those books. Maybe they are quite bad - I'd only read one which wasn't bad for trash literature... I believe I named authors I meant - Jack Yeovil in particular and he never written in 40K series. He was reprinted some time ago, though...

As for Dominions fluff, it is fascinating enough, but a single paragraph copypasted between related units hardly describes an universe in detail in space and time... as a matter of fact, it could use a solid shelf of Dominions fiction to fill the rest in!

Can only agree at the latter! But unfortunately it seems the only way to have it is to write them ourselves! aNd yes, copypaste isn't very tasteful, but general quality of texts is high - especially when it's not about low-end units.

HoneyBadger:
I'm actually agreeing with you, Wrana, in case you missed that part.
I'm just explaining that first of all, getting people interested in reading is probably a good thing.

And I also agree with most you've said! However, what I don't agree with is that reading *something* is necessarily better than reading nothing. Some reading can quite surely deaden the reader's brain just as TV can. And he remains thinking that he's (or she, as the case often is) a "man of books". Which can be quite pityful...
Considering earlier and later reading I think we agree of - though I think that to recommend some reading should be done with caution as trash can either make the person in question drop reading completely or make him/her trash reader only - a pity in both cases.

...if you could recommend some works that have been translated, or better yet, translated, and made freely available on the internet (it's great advertizement, especially for relatively unfamiliar authors, and testing shows that it increases, rather than reducing, sales of hard copies), then I'd happily spend time seeking them out. Until then, it does little to *say* that the Russians have a better space-program, er novel, until it can be quantified with proof

Generally can only agree. But I wasn't interested about who was translated into English. I'll try to find out. Considering Nightwatch mentioned here - its author is popular in the way J Rowling is. What can be said for him is that he writes really a lot. Also, he had some school (meaning both specialized education and writers' seminars) so his language is smooth and he doesn't make many stupid mistakes. What I HATE him for is that he doesn't have one fresh idea in all his books! Nightwatch in particular wasn't fresh even when Polotta had written his Bureau 13. Polotta didn't pose as great writer, though - unlike the guy in question.
Generally, if you find one of the following names: V.Sverzhin, M. & S. Dyachenko, M. Uspensky, G.L. Oldi (or Gromov and Ladyzhensky), S. Vartanov, E. Ratkevitch, O.Gromuko - they are generally worth reading. There are others, too... And when I find whether any of them were translated into English, I'll notify you.
Considering translations - well, I generally agree with what JimMorrison said. But this fortunately doesn't stop people from making translations of what they want their countrymates to read. Sometimes it's quite successful - I've read a really good translation of Jasper Fforde (!) in Russian not very long ago. It takes time and effort, of course - but is hardly impossible.
Considering Pierce Anthony - his afterwords to Avatars series I consider to be actually the best things I've read from him. They were quite interesting material and I'm thankful for them. And generally I see him as better SF than fantasy writer. Though, of course, series become stale quite soon in any case.
There is one more thing I would like to mention considering quite common drop of quality which was discussed here - the so-called "gritty realism". This means naturalistic descriptions and general "weary-of-the-world cynicism" approach - quite laughable from people who generally live very sheltered lives in wealthy civilized countries. Of course, this isn't the cause of bad writing, but merely one of its symptoms. I don't mean that naturalism is bad in and of itself, but it's often used to mascuerade total lack of knowledge on the subject of writing...

[Aezeal]

still... Jordan was doing a great job , so is martin btw... and Erikson.

Erikson has a nice gritty realism series.

PS locke lamora > grey mouser and I said con-man not criminal

[Renojustin]

Aezeal said:
still... Jordan was doing a great job

Apparently you have the attention span of a god if you got past the fourth or fifth book in the monstrosity that it became.

[JimMorrison]

So, you are relating the writed of Nightwatch to..... Harry Potter? Ouch man, just ouch.

There were some interesting things portrayed in those films. Not immensely thought provoking for someone who likes to spend much time deep in thought, but still not mindless, either. Though I do have to say, I mostly just found it very weird. But again, most of that comes from translation. I can only imagine that typically the people hired to subtitle movies, are a level of skill lower than those people who translate entire novels, who are generally a level of skill lower than they need to be in order to accurately portray the beauty of the original writing.

It's a tricky equation, where generally the way a book is written, is as important as what it is about. One is incomplete without the other, and in the process of translation, it's as if taking an oil painting, and redoing it as a water color. The brushstrokes are different, the colors are different, and the overall feel is going to simply be different, even if what it portays is still the same.

Ultimately, I think this is what is so great about foreign movies, games, music, etc. The only part that needs good translating is the dialogue, as long as the content is portrayed accurately in the more visual and/or interactive form, then it sidesteps the issues of language.

[Ballbarian]

Wrana said:
However, what I don't agree with is that reading *something* is necessarily better than reading nothing. Some reading can quite surely deaden the reader's brain just as TV can. And he remains thinking that he's (or she, as the case often is) a "man of books". Which can be quite pityful...
Considering earlier and later reading I think we agree of - though I think that to recommend some reading should be done with caution as trash can either make the person in question drop reading completely or make him/her trash reader only - a pity in both cases.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

If considering oneself a "man of books" means limiting one's reading to works of literary art (however you might define art) and belittling the work of others, then I will never be more than the common, dead brained, pitiful fool that you have described.

Sorry if that comes across sounding flamey as that is not my intention. It has just always struck me as incredibly wrong when someone puts down a different style as being trashy and those who appreciate that style as pitiful or otherwise deserving only sympathetic dismissal as poor ignorant fools.

All of that said, I wanted to point out that I really appreciate all of the great suggestions for reading in this thread from Wrana and others. Many of the books that I have enjoyed through the years were suggested by friends and family.

[Wrana]

To Aezeal: of course, you can continue to repeat youself. It's pretty effective way of discussion, actually, if cheap. But anyway that doesn't make truth of nonsense. And I ask you another time: what you can state as the "greatness" in question? As for con-man - that particular one is certainly not criminal. He's a fool, just as I said.

JimMorrison:
So, you are relating the writed of Nightwatch to..... Harry Potter? Ouch man, just ouch.

They occupy the same niche anyway. Meaning they owe as much to advertising. As for book itself, I actually related it to old Polotta's Bureau 13. Though this isn't the only book this guy has looted for ideas... And by the way - movies I hadn't seen, due to the fact that I don't like the books author (there are 5-6 of books now, by the way, and counting ).
About both problems and great gain of translation I can only agree.

Ballbarian:
If considering oneself a "man of books" means limiting one's reading to works of literary art (however you might define art) and belittling the work of others, then I will never be more than the common, dead brained, pitiful fool that you have described.

Well, you don't look like the part to me. Good masking?
And I DO NOT consider myself a "man of books" - actually a good way to get deadbrained in my book. For one thing, I do not qualify by old standarts. And another thing is I just don't think that reading itself makes a man better which was the point.
As for "different style" - you either missed the point OR try to use the common line of "different is beautiful, small is beautyful, etc., etc." And I see it's already advertised enough, thanks. So I reiterate. The point was not about "different style", but about lack thereof. And I do NOT define the art. I just prefer to not take or PASS trash for quality. And may I hope that other party do not do this, either. Especially the second part. Of course, modern "critics" tradition just loves to do it. And with enough word equilibristics can even be quite successful in the task. Do you want to make their work for free? Or will you agree to the obvious fact that there are books (for example) which are worth reading and those which are not?

[Aezeal]

No your way of discussion isn't cheap lol... ask balb about that

PS no dissing harry potter.. I'd not call the books good in many ways but they where fun to read (ways in which it was good: mostly character development which was much better than in most fantasy books)

[Endoperez]

It isn't hard to be better than most fantasy books, though.

[Aezeal]

well I mostly see only those who get published in the netherlands, I read them english though.. but still I guess that is quite a selection already (for example.. never seen the books this thread started about )

[nordlys]

Wrana said:
Unfortunately, T$R didn't give a damn about what is canon and what is not. Which caused many contradictions between authors describing their worlds. And I don't mean fiction only - there were quite a few contradictions in their accessories!

Well, [censored] happens. Not a single "shared world"-type work of fiction is guaranteed to be contradiction-free. Hell, even single-author series occasionally slip. I remembed having a huge flame with some Tolkien fan over the issue of orcs' intelligence, as he referred to some obscure late letters where Tolkien decided orcs are some kind of mindless beings, thus assumedly "overriding" their obvious sentience of published novels.

At least TSR didn't have to retcon whole accessories as insane ravings, like White Wolf had to do with "Dirty secrets of black hand" and some other 2ed stuff, essentially "replacing" it with another accessory and erasing most traces of its lore in 3ed. I only remember them to officially rule non-canon the "Lord of the Necropolis" Ravenloft novel, dissing its revelations on Dark Powers as Azalin's hallucinations. They also removed the references to Soth from Ravenloft by the end of 2ed, and various Forgotten Realms references in 3ed, when Ravenloft was licensed to Swords&Sorcery, but that was for legal reasons, and they just changed names to generic crap like "Dark Knight" or "Morninglord".

...Not to mention that finding bugs and contradictions in such works is an entertainment in itself

I didn't mean those - just because I don't play 40K and so wasn't interested in those books. Maybe they are quite bad - I'd only read one which wasn't bad for trash literature... I believe I named authors I meant - Jack Yeovil in particular and he never written in 40K series. He was reprinted some time ago, though...

I haven't read the Genevieve novels if that's what you mean. Yeovil is a pseudonym, I saw him/her mentioned in an article by some other early GW writer I've recently read as one of those who used pseudonyms as to keep their reputation untarnished by gaming fiction