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...