2/8/2008

2/8/2008

matthew: karen traviss. matriach.
1. verdict: none (yet?)
2. review:
  
  was recommended, turned out to be the fourth book in a series, which
  was not mentioned ANYWHERE on the cover. the book turned out to be
  incomprehensible without reading the other three, so he gave up
  reading on page 50. seems like it could be good, though, and he might
  consider going back to read the series.
chad: vernor vinge. rainbow's end.
1. verdict: --
2. review:
  
  overview of singularity crap. chad hates this book. guy is cured of
  alzheimer's, which provides the perfect excuse to constantly ask
  everybody to explain everything. guy goes from being mean luddite to
  being nice technophile for no apparent reason. blah blah, flat,
  two-dimensional, unmotivated characters... lots of people love this
  book, chad can't see why and hates it. chad selected a quote to
  summarize the entire book, from near the end: "he is afraid to try new
  things, even as he brags about the future." chad likes style, or
  interesting ideas, and this has neither.
brandon: vernor vinge. a fire upon the deep.
1. verdict: ++ (corroborated by marko and chris)
2. review:
  
  brandon thinks this is just what we were looking for, only from
  1992. (too bad.) way far future, galactic civilization, etc., lots of
  races, blah blah. imaginative cosmology, imaginative races,
  etc. basically brandon really liked it: "awesome book." admittedly the
  characters are flat and two-dimensiona, especially the girls.
  both brandon and chad believe the other's review, and suspect the
  books are just very different.
interlude

much discussion about near-future sci-fi, and whether it's good or
bad. a lot of us hate it, a few like it. also discussion about cory
doctorow and whether he sucks. no consensus.
jeff: karl schroeder. sun of suns.
1. verdict: +
2. review:
  
  discovered the book from a review by cory doctorow (w00t). imaginative
  world, artificial orbital world with artificial sun in the
  center. pretty good story. interesting ideas of human-enacted ai, how
  a low-tech society would function in a zero-gravity environment,
  etc. would recommend it, will read more.
  also read more alastair reynolds books (revelation: space, etc.)
  generally liked them, recommended.
jeff again: john c wright. orphans of chaos.
1. verdict: none yet
2. review:
  
  kids in an orphanage, blah blah, like a mix of harry potter and the
  x-men. mysteries ensue. he's only half done, but would issue
  preliminary recommendation. bad cover. really bad cover.
interlude

adam only read foundation books. some dicussion about the changes in sf
since those days, blah blah.
marko: william gibson. spook country.
1. verdict: + (corroborated by matt)
2. review:
  
  thinks it's really good, despite terrible reviews on amazon. gave a
  summary, etc., etc. much discussion ensues, relating gibson to other
  stuff we've read. matt and marko like and highly recommend this book.
matt: charles stross. halting state.
1. verdict: --
2. review:
  
  this was mine, so i won't write everything i'm saying. suffice to say
  i really didn't like it. didn't didn't didn't. marko thinks i should
  have, but i didn't. oh well. some discussion ensues about near-future
  stuff, whether this is a genre, what this is. chad and i, in any case,
  don't like it. anyway i kind of want to read another stross book and
  see whether it's just "this genre" that i dislike. i suspect i might
  like another of his books.
josh: matthew jarpe. radio freefall.
1. verdict: +
2. review:
  
  everything chad and i didn't like about our books was in this book,
  but he really liked it. well, really liked the first part, liked the
  second part fairly well. this is a first novel. josh liked it, but
  he's not sure whether it's different from the stuff chad and i
  dislike. he liked it, it was fun and a little pulpy and
  good. recommended.
interlude

more long discussion about near-future sf and what the different kinds
are and whether it's any good, whether it's ok to like it/not like it,
etc.
josh again: baltimore. (started last time)
1. verdict: -
2. review:
  
  finished it. it was ok, not great. wouldn't really recommend it.
chris: joe abercrombie. the blade itself and before they are hanged.
1. verdict: ++
2. review:
  
  read the blade itself and has subsequently secured an uncorrected
  advance reading copy of the sequel (strong work, chris!). chris has
  tried to sample the range of the genres, having sampled hard sf and
  "weird" sf, now he's gone straight for sword & sorcery fantasy. this
  is the real deal. powerful wizard, midieval-style stuff, it's "trash"
  for sure, but it's great. it's fast-paced, it's cheesy, characters are
  exaggerated (the hero from the north, unspeakably ugly on account of
  his entirely battle-scarred physique, etc...). these are his first and
  second books. he says "it hits me the way david eddings hit me when i
  was a kid. but i'm grown up now. this is written much better. wait,
  maybe it's not. maybe i shouldn't say that." anyway chris thinks this
  is everything we were looking for in a new fantasy novel. highly
  recommended!
coda: brandon "has some things to say" about philip pullman

"not bad, but he makes jk rowling look like a freaking genius." she is
"one of the greatest writers of a detailed outline that we have, or
maybe have ever had." discussion ensues.
that's all, folks.