If you liked the Da Vinci Code, you will absolutely love Angels & Demons. I thought Da Vinci Code was the best book I read until Angels & Demons a couple of months later. Finished it in 3 weeks, which is impressive by my standards. I remember a day at work I read 175 pages. Addicting. Great thread by the way. I need to get to a couple of books myself when winter comes around.
really? I loved Da Vinci Code, and i did NOT like Angels & Demons much. I guess everyone is different.
It really hit on the Religion vs. Science debate which I completely love to read and talk about. It actually helped me clarify a couple of things about the role of religion since I'm more of a science guy. Great book.
To me, Science Fiction was always about being able to convince the reader that some scenario was a real possibility. Like, within the context of our own world with rules that we know, by changing something in technology, they are able to create a believable story. Something like Jurassic Park or the Andromeda Strain, that's science fiction, or something like The Sound of Thunder or as far as movies go, Gattaca...whereas something like Dune or Star Wars is more fantasy. You just have to suspend your belief of what is real and isn't real, and engross yourself in some new world with a completely different set of rules. When Star Wars characters talk about the force, they are talking about somehting completely made up--fantasy...when Crichton talks about genetically modifying DNA to create dinosaurs, it's certainly a crazy idea, but it's generally bound within the reality of the world that we can accept. It actually really annoys me when I see Sci-Fi/Fantasy sections in book stores,or even just a Sci-Fi section where they have books about Dragons and Wizards...I'm not trying to denegrate Fantasy, I've read a lot of it in my time, it's just that the two are different things.
Yes, for sure. Each has it's qualities though. Where would you classify Lord of the Rings though, Fantasy or Mythology?
I think I'd def. say Fantasy...I mean it's grounded in mythology, obviously that's where a lot of its inspiration was from...but I think I'd still say fantasy.
The broad classifications are always going to be Space = SciFi, Dragons/Wizards = Fantasy. There's no way that Chrichton would be classified as SciFi either. Certainly there are some SciFi books that are mostly grounded in reality, but that is merely one sub genre.
reading these at the moment and loving them will read his other series next (memory, sorrow and thorn)
So, I ended up finishing "Foundation" and then bought a single volume hardcover of the trilogy off Amazon. I found "Foundation" to be interesting, but I didn't love it. I think the biggest issue I had was that there wasn't any real development of the characters. Hari Seldon is an intriguing character, but his appearances are few and far between. Then you get a interesting guy like Salvor Hardin and then his part is done. I've started "Foundation and Empire", which is pretty good so far. Overall, I think it is an ambitious undertaking. It also makes you think about how all empires come to an end and if we are starting to see some signs that America's supremacy is faltering. I'm glad I am reading it, but is not necessarily what I like, just because of the lack character development. DbJ
Good point about character development, but it's kind of difficult when the story takes place over such a long time period.
I had stopped reading this thread, but I happened to pick up angels and demons on thursday. I'm only about 120 pages into it, but its very good so far. However, some things about it bother me(just poor studying on Brown's part--Scramjet is not a Russian technology(my company works on it) and Catholicism is not a proponent of strict creationism. But it was cool to read someone write about matter and energy and whatnot the same stuff I've been saying for a while now--that matter could be created by two waves of energy 180* out of phase with each other.
Asimov's strength was never character development, but Foundation has even less of it, because it isn't really a book - it is four magazine pieces from the same universe (all published in Astounding), and therefore all fairly short (and written and published over a 2 1/2 year period). The two novellas that make up Foundation and Empire are considerably longer, and (especially in the second one), there is a good deal of character development. That same character appears again in the first novella that makes up Second Foundation. I think you'll find the latter two books in the trilogy more to your liking.
That series is well-written and well-conceived, and extremely detail-oriented, which I love, but it is way too cute for it's own good. I find this happens many times when an author tries to depict children as primary characters in a complex story. Maybe his writing style just doesn't work for me.
I also managed to get my hands on and read the first two books of the Foundation series. Now I'm casting around for the third. I enjoyed the books, but they are somewhat disjointed. I understood why when I read what Asimov wrote when he was about to begin working on the Foundation series again.
I just finished the last Hannibal book, dissapointed to say the least. People said this was the best out of the series. Am I missing something ?
I'm a little suprised they're continuing this series given the disaster that Hanibal was. I guess some people will buy anything with his name on the cover though.
Currently reading Ananzi Boys from Neil Gaiman. Its pretty decent, though wholly unremarkable. I imagine I'll forget it all in a few days.
