[kav]

A while back, a good friend of mine told me he had lost a lot of respect for my book recommendations after I recommended he read one of Jodi Picoult's books (I forget which one). Now, her books aren't the kind of thing I'd normally read - they definitely fit into the "chick-lit" category, albeit not quite as fluffy as some of the drivel you see clogging the shelves - but she has spinned one or two decent yarns. If you read more than a couple of her books, you'll soon come to realise that her writing is predictable and repetitive, but there are occasionally some interesting characters/storylines in there too.

Anyway, my point isn't Jodi Picoult specifically (I don't even like her that much, but it's a good example) - it's about how you read. Do you tend to stick to the things you know you like, such as specific genres, and avoid anything you consider "naff"? Or do you allow yourself to have a bash at books you wouldn't normally go near, just to see if there's something good in there? For example, some people will say they wouldn't touch Dan Brown's novels because they are written in such a pedestrian style, or their storyline is so predictable, etc - yet they could be missing out on three or four hours of decent mindless entertainment, if they weren't being so high-brow in their views. Brown's novels aren't literature, but they tell a decent story.

Stephen King says in his "On Writing" book, that aside from all the important structural elements a book has, the one thing that should rise above them all is story. Like the other thread talks about - LOTR is poorly written but has an amazing story. Some, like GRR Martin's books, have the best of both - great writing and great story.

So anyway, back to my point - have you ever read something that you might normally dismiss as gay/naff/rubbish and been pleasantly surprised? Would you even allow yourself to do this, or will you just stick to your tried-and-tested genres and authors?

I find that a trip to the local charity shop can unearth a few gems that I would normally have never gone near - it's how I discovered Richard Morgan, whose books are a brilliant fusion of film noir and sci-fi. I always think of Blade Runner when I read them. Okay, time to stop rambling...

[Alan CD]

Oh please, do ramble on.

Being an old-fashion sort of bloke I like books written by men. I have tried reading female authors over the years but cannot get to grips with their style or thought processes.

Genres: specifically historical or science-fiction or biography. I find ghost or murder-mystery stuff puts me to sleep.

So basically I stick to reading stuff I like!

[Smurfin]

Alan, have you read Robin Hobb?

[Alan CD]

No, I have'nt read any Robin Hobb books. She writes Fantasy novels and I can't get on with Fantasy stuff (except Lord of the Rings - but that's different).

I like pure Science Fiction novels by the likes of Iain Banks, Larry Niven, James Blish, Arthur Clarke, Frank Herbert etc.

[Smurfin]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

No, I have'nt read any Robin Hobb books. She writes Fantasy novels and I can't get on with Fantasy stuff (except Lord of the Rings - but that's different).

Have you tried any though (authors I mean, aside from Tolkein)? You might be pleasantly surprised

I like pure Science Fiction novels by the likes of Iain Banks, Larry Niven, James Blish, Arthur Clarke, Frank Herbert etc.

I have a couple of Iain Banks on my shelf, Read Consider Phlebas a while back and to be honest I wasn't impressed - excessive rambling, from what I recall quite a sloppy structure, and I didn't care a jot for any of the characters. That said, I hear it's one of his weakest, and I also have Player of Games on the shelf (which I hear is one of his best). Will give it a try sometime

[kav]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

I can't get on with Fantasy stuff

I thought the same until I started reading George RR Martin. I highly recommend you check out the A Song of Ice and Fire series of books - they're set in a fantasy world, but the plotlines are crafted like episodes of The Sopranos. Brilliant stuff.

[Alan CD]

@ Smurfin:

Strange you're read Consider Phlebas which you've heard is one of his weakest, but you have'nt read Player of Games which you've heard is one of his best!

@ Kavanf1:

I had a brief look in wikipedia about George RR Martin and am interested enough to sample a book of his. As per your recommendation I shall purchase the first novel in 'A Song of Ice and Fire' series.

Alan

[Smurfin]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

@ Smurfin:

Strange you're read Consider Phlebas which you've heard is one of his weakest, but you have'nt read Player of Games which you've heard is one of his best!

Why strange? You don't always have the knowledge before you begin.....

[Toasty]

I used to stick with what I knew, mainly Fantasy, Sci Fi and a splash of horror. However, I've found that has gotten old, to the point where I couldn't get through the last Pratchet book I started.

So, I changed tack and will read anything now that has had decent reviews and sounds interesting. I still have a preference for dark humour, but I'm so glad I explored a wider range of books, it's rejuvenated my love of reading.

[Steven]

When I was younger I had a thing for horror and crime. For the last year I have been going through a fictional historic/drama and romance drama phase (the only exceptions being President Obama's two books) (and I can take a little ribbing)

Although I do have two fantasy novels on my shelf which I cannot bring myself to as they are quite substantial

[johntheexpat]

If I were to believe a lot of the reviews I read, then the only conclusion I could reach is that I am not a book snob. For example, I read a lot of reviews that really panned Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. Repetitive, predictable shallow etc etc according to the reviews, but I found it to be a thumping good read. Not intellectually stimulating or anything high-brow, but it rattled along nicely and the plot was easy to follow.
But then two 'classics' which I have both tried several times and given up on are War and Peace and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Both apparently great books, but did nothing for me.
But I will give most genres a try, because if I don't then there are some classic reads which I would have missed out on.
So, I'll claim a place in the 'non-snob' category please.

[Steven]

I read through the Da Vinci Code as fast as I have read any book too. Just on a "Newsnight" snobbish level the writing was not particularly nuanced

[the_watcher87]

I read a broad range of genre's I enjoy the odd sci-fi and comedy books, the Red Dwarf series is brilliant for a combination of the two. Can't say I have ever read a book where I have had to stop reading so I can have a laugh as much before.

I do admit to enjoying Dan Brown's books but they have became very predictable and wasn't that keen on the Lost Symbol. I still think his best book has to be Angels and Demons.

When I was younger I would have read horror stories but now I just don't want to read that genre, I'm sure some day the desire will return though.

[Icm76]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

I like pure Science Fiction novels by the likes of Iain Banks, Larry Niven, James Blish, Arthur Clarke, Frank Herbert etc.

Read any Charles Stross? I've really liked everything of his that I've read: Singularity Sky, Iron Sunrise, Accelerondo, Glasshouse, Halting State, The Atrocity Archives, The Jennifer Morgue

[steford]

+1 for Da Vinci Code. Not my kind of thing yet it was a really good story. Awfully written in parts and clearly with the film in mind in others yet a really well researched and gripping story. Wouldn't go near anything else of Dan Brown's and not sure why I picked this one up in the first place but glad I did if only to get some popular airport fiction under my belt and to see what the masses are reading ;-)

[Alan CD]

Originally Posted by Icm76

Read any Charles Stross? I've really liked everything of his that I've read: Singularity Sky, Iron Sunrise, Accelerondo, Glasshouse, Halting State, The Atrocity Archives, The Jennifer Morgue

Charles Stross? Never heard of him!

I'll check him out though.

[drunkenmaster]

I used to be, mainly read non fiction and thought most fiction books are predictable, and most still are. Then I read a Ken Follett book - Pillars of the earth, which got me back into fiction reading. Books such as On Chesil Beach by Ian Mcewan, and the Book Thief by Markus Zusak have changed my views on writing and composition especially Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel by Susanna Clarke - oustanding novel

[UnGreat]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

Oh please, do ramble on.

Being an old-fashion sort of bloke I like books written by men. I have tried reading female authors over the years but cannot get to grips with their style or thought processes.

Genres: specifically historical or science-fiction or biography. I find ghost or murder-mystery stuff puts me to sleep.

So basically I stick to reading stuff I like!

I'm loath to admit it but I agree with you on the female author point.

I've tried (I really have) but many seem to have pages and pages of how people feel and my mind just drifts wondering if anything is ever going to happen.

There will always be exceptions and I would love to be proven wrong.

[DJMS]

Few mentions for Da Vinci code and agree with that but the Prequel, Angels and Demons is much better. Trouble is everybody reads them in the wrong order (or just Da Vinci).

Love early John Grisham especially The Firm and A Time to Kill

[genji]

I can't think of any books that I've read that are as much an insult to intelligence as Dan Brown's.

When I say 'intelligence' I'm talking about the kind of level Karen Mathews would have exhibited in secondary school.

James Herbert, Fred Forsyth, Stephen King - that's the type of writing that is at the bottom of the pile, and I've read enjoyed them all and worse besides, probably. Single-cell organisms like Dan Brown and G.R.R. Martin are barely human, let alone writers.

There's nothing snobbish about being evolved.

[Smurfin]

Originally Posted by genji

I can't think of any books that I've read that are as much an insult to intelligence as Dan Brown's.

When I say 'intelligence' I'm talking about the kind of level Karen Mathews would have exhibited in secondary school.

James Herbert, Fred Forsyth, Stephen King - that's the type of writing that is at the bottom of the pile, and I've read enjoyed them all and worse besides, probably. Single-cell organisms like Dan Brown and G.R.R. Martin are barely human, let alone writers.

There's nothing snobbish about being evolved.

I have to say, that is an incredibly snobbish comment

I love Stephen King as do millions of others, and Dan Brown writes enjoyable books imho.

[genji]

Originally Posted by Smurfin

I have to say, that is an incredibly snobbish comment

I love Stephen King as do millions of others, and Dan Brown writes enjoyable books imho.

I watched The Mist the other day. Never read that one, but it was an engrossing movie.

I wasn't dissing SK, btw, or FF or JH. Good pap is great. Dan Brown is bad pap, though.

Still, however badly he writes, Dan Brown had ideas that I wish I could have and coast into a multi-million dollar fortune.

[captainarchive]

Talking of book 'snobbery' consider those of us who grew up also reading comics. I recall the contempt exhibited by teachers and the ridicule from contemporaries as I continued being an avid comicbook reader in my teens.

[Alan CD]

OK - so you're a comicbook snob!

I went through a period of reading comics and books, think comics went out the window when I was about 10 years old.

It was Enid Blyton's books that caught my attention big time, "Castle of Adventure", "Sea of Adventure" etc. They also had lots of pictures in them so the transition to books wasn't all that difficult.

[captainarchive]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

I went through a period of reading comics and books, think comics went out the window when I was about 10 years old.

I still read them today and I'm in my 40's although they call them Graphic Novels a term I don't like as I think it's pretentious. Comics are what they are, they're not novels. It's like calling an episode of Eastenders a mini movie.

[genji]

Originally Posted by captainarchive

Comics are what they are, they're not novels.

Fundamentally, IMO, novels expose the reader to new ideas, and the ideas of the author. Personally, when I was a boy, 2000AD exposed me to ideas and concepts I don't think I could have picked up anywhere else.

[Sonic67]

Snobbery? JK Rowling writes children books and ripped off Tolkien. I would never touch one of her books. So yep.

[Alan CD]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Snobbery? JK Rowling writes children books and ripped off Tolkien. I would never touch one of her books. So yep.

My daughter has the full collection and talked me into reading Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone".

It's OK - good writing style (not my taste though) and very good story line.

It is not a Tolkien rip-off - that is for sure. Much more down to earth and populated by "real" people...and steam engines!

Rowling's depth of storytelling is about on par with Tolkien; it's just that Tolkien established his depth in very short time whereas Rowling required about 200 books about Potter before getting any depth!

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

It is not a Tolkien rip-off - that is for sure. Much more down to earth and populated by "real" people...and steam engines!

I’d expect one or two comparisons but some of it so unusual I can’t believe they’d both land on it by accident.

Frodo and Harry:
Both orphans
Both have something to make them invisible (ring/cloak)
Both are unwilling heroes who have greatness thrust on them
Both have scars/wounds given to them by the enemy.

Nazguls and Dementors:
Both give off a chill when near.
Similar hooded appearance

Both have large spiders:
Shelob fought by Frodo and Sam
Aragog fought by Harry and Ron

Grima Wormtounge and Peter Pettigrew:
Both are spies for the dark lord
Grima is called Wormtounge.
Peter is called Wormtail.

Dark Lords Sauron and Voldemort:
Both had human form and are now diminished, but not destroyed as a part of them remains in an object
Both are not named by other characters in the story out of fear.
Both are referred to as Dark Lords

Dumbledores:
Tolkien had an insect called a Dumbledor described as a ferocious winged insect.
Rowling named the headmaster of Hogwarts Albus Dumbledore

Trees that move:
Tolkien created Ents, Hurons and Old Man Willow
Rowling created the Womping Willow.

Both have a 'Good Wizard':
Gandalf
Dumbledore.

Both have a wizard that turned to evil:
Saruman
Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort

Dark forest that everyone fears:
Mirkwood, Fangorn
The Forbidden Forest.

The pensieve, mirror of Erised and Galadriels Mirror:
Similar appearances and functions.

Butterbur/Butterbeer:
One is a barman the other a drink which could be served by a barman.

Longbottom Leaf and Neville Longbottom:
One is a herb smoked by Hobbits the other is a boy who studies herbology.

Long lifespan:
Bilbo and Gollum possess the one ring and have an unusually long life.
Nicholas Flamel possesses the Sorcerer’s Stone and has an unusually long life

There’s probably a lot more but I discovered Harry Potter through the films as Mrs Sonic took me to them and I spent most of the time seeing the comprisons. There’s also bits from other stories like the Worst Witch stories or Terry Pratchett.

Harry Potter influences and analogues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Alan CD]

My word - consider me shot down in flames!

Sonic Boom!!