Retros_x
Hero
This how it was always for me. I like listen to podcasts etc, but fiction audiobooks I just cant stand. I don't know if it is the same for you, but I think its because the narration takes too much away from my own imagination.
What are you reading in 2025?
- Thread starter Elodan
- Start date
I hit a DNF (did not finish), and don’t think it was primarily the books’s fault: Black Brane, by Michael Cisco. Cisco is an American writer of weird fiction at level of genius comparable to China Mieville and the like, though far less generally famous. I really like his work. This is his brand new novel, narrated by a guy hired for clerical services at the Temporary Institute for the Study of Holes, whose members are up to high weirdness in engineering, string theory, archeology, and sundry other disciplines. I tore through the first quarter in no time flat, and then hit a wall, barely able to manage 1d2 pages a day. After about ten days of that, I shelved the book for the time being.
But at least half the slowdown goes with some fresh family problems. When you’re helping care for a 95-year-old mother deep in dementia, things come up. I just don’t have the right kind of focus for it now; I can hope that next year, I will, and then I’ll gladly return to it.
Ramsey Campbell has a line about discovering Clive Barker, reading some of his more striking images, cocking his head, and thinking, “But…yes.” Cisco does that to me a lot, with lines like this:
“The throbbing in my leg and foot won’t let me read. I want to read a slow, neutral, long book where nothing happens in a straightforward succession of impressionistic scenes, so I can dump out my attention on a nice even surface and let it spread, thicken in all directions, with nothing abrupt, no jolts, no highs or lows, nothing but intensely numb interest.”
Just like Mr. Campbell said, “But…yes.” I may schedule some reading of more of his short stories while waiting for things to settle down some.
But at least half the slowdown goes with some fresh family problems. When you’re helping care for a 95-year-old mother deep in dementia, things come up. I just don’t have the right kind of focus for it now; I can hope that next year, I will, and then I’ll gladly return to it.
Ramsey Campbell has a line about discovering Clive Barker, reading some of his more striking images, cocking his head, and thinking, “But…yes.” Cisco does that to me a lot, with lines like this:
“The throbbing in my leg and foot won’t let me read. I want to read a slow, neutral, long book where nothing happens in a straightforward succession of impressionistic scenes, so I can dump out my attention on a nice even surface and let it spread, thicken in all directions, with nothing abrupt, no jolts, no highs or lows, nothing but intensely numb interest.”
Just like Mr. Campbell said, “But…yes.” I may schedule some reading of more of his short stories while waiting for things to settle down some.
I love that bit of text you quote. Never heard of Michael Cisco, will keep my eye out at the local bookmongers.
Also, sorry to hear about your mum. Dem impacting parents is like about as far from fun as I can imagine.
It’s hard, and I’m really fortunate in many ways, including Mom retain her sunny nature, without any of the bitter mean attitude that hits a lot of people get with dementia.
As for Cisco: his novel The Divinity Student is a common, good starting point, and so is his short story collection Antisocieties. But any blurb that appeals to you is a good sign, too.
As for Cisco: his novel The Divinity Student is a common, good starting point, and so is his short story collection Antisocieties. But any blurb that appeals to you is a good sign, too.
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
I am currently reading Fantasy Express by Firehawk Games. A neat game that hits many of the same notes as Rolemaster (unsurprisingly, it is developed by former longtime ICE employee Tim Dugger), but with less rules overhead and a lite version (Fantasy Express Lite) for people who want a taster before buying into the full system.
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
I started reading Triplanetary, the first Lensman book, by E. E. “Doc” Smith. Almost immediately stopped and read the wiki only to discover the first two books by internal chronology are prequels. Grabbed Galactic Patrol, the third book by internal chronology but the first actually written. And that’s a banger so far. Incorruptible space cops protecting Civilization with an almost magical trinket? Green Lanterns with telepathy instead of telekinesis. Yes, please.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
I wouldn't not read Triplanetary. As I remember (I read them 40 years ago, so I am a little hazy) it was one of the better ones.
I'm starting up Rage, the first novel in a follow-up series to Jonathan Maberry's Joe Ledger series. After 10 novels in the original series, the Department of Military Science - the Delta Force-like group the US sends out to deal with zombie outbreaks, vampires, aliens, and the like - has disbanded, but it's rebuilt itself as an international organization. This one deals with a bioweapon that causes its victims to go into fits of murderous rage - kind of like a "Hulk out" switch. It should be good.
Johnathan
Johnathan
Automatic Noodle by Annalee Newitz is a lovely little sci-fi novella about authenticity, prejudice, identity, and robots. There’s just a lot there, set in SF in the near future after California has successfully seceded from the US and given rights to robots, some of whom decide to try running a biang biang noodle shop. Thoroughly recommended.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I just finished reading Andrzej Sapkowski's The Last Wish, the first (sort of) book in The Witcher series of novels.
While I've been aware of the Witcher series for some time, I'd never actually partaken of any of its media prior to now, not having played the games nor having watched the Henry Cavill series. In the case of the former, it's because I've largely grown out of video games; for the latter, it was because I had a vague impression that I wanted to read the books rather than watch the live-action adaptation, since the books are—as a general rule—(almost) always better, and so are how I prefer to form my first impression.
(Apparently this is more of a guideline than a rule for me, as I've seen the totality of Tom Cruise and Alan Ritchson's takes on Jack Reacher without ever having read any of Lee Child's novels...and yet still picked one up when I came across it in a Little Free Library the other day).
Having read this through, I'm quite impressed. Sapkowski's protagonist, Geralt of Rivia (the eponymous witcher—i.e. professional monster slayer—after whom the series is named) cuts an interesting archetype. While his stoicism, perseverence in the face of both moral and mortal danger, and refusal to compromise on his beliefs are all archetypal in their presentation, Sapkowski never overcompensates for this by having Geralt lapse into angst or introspection. It wouldn't have taken much for Geralt to turn into another Byronic hero a la Drizzt Do'Urden, quietly resigning himself to a sense of isolation even as he performs a job that he knows must be done all while still nursing a faint hope that perhaps one day he might find fulfilling companionship. Instead, Geralt comes off as more down-to-earth, willing to engage in the irregular bouts of laughter when something seems ridiculous and the ocassional fling with a beautiful woman. It's a nice change from wistfully envying those who have a normal life and bemoaning fate for not having one.
On a slightly more technical note, I can't help but notice that Geralt also seems to exist as an archetype opposite that of the "spell-less ranger" which every so often sweeps through the D&D(-adjacent) community. Unlike Aragorn, Geralt uses magic regularly as part of his fighting style, along with various minor magical charms and trinkets.
What's interesting is that he's apparently the only one who does so. While the book makes it clear that there are other witchers—though it establishes early on that even among them he's special (witchers being made by taking young children and inducing artificial mutations that make them tougher, faster, and have sharper senses than ordinary humans, with Geralt having taken to the process better than most)—we never see one in the course of this story (or rather, any of the stories herein, as this is actually several tales told within a framing narrative).
The result is that Geralt is, essentially, a gish/red mage/magic knight-style character in a world where everyone else is either a mundane fighter or a full-on wizard or cleric. His magic lets him dance rings around the former, and his fighting prowess lets him overwhelm the latter...mostly, as Yennefer, the seductive enchantress who's set up as his love interest near the end of the book, showcases.
As for the world itself, it's notable how little we see of it here, and yet how much is suggested. Sapkowski is smart enough to understand that place names and politics are only as important as how well they serve as backdrops, i.e. how they set up the state of things that Geralt has to work within. To that end, being told a little goes a long way; I've often heard it said that bad GMs who dump too much information about their setting on their players are "frustrated novelists," but the implication that all of that worldbuilding belongs in a novel is put to the lie here. I've ranted before about writers who go too far in avoiding exposition, but Sapkowski is a person who knows how to do that without compromising the integrity of his work.
All in all, I can understand why this series became a hit, and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what becomes of The Witcher.
While I've been aware of the Witcher series for some time, I'd never actually partaken of any of its media prior to now, not having played the games nor having watched the Henry Cavill series. In the case of the former, it's because I've largely grown out of video games; for the latter, it was because I had a vague impression that I wanted to read the books rather than watch the live-action adaptation, since the books are—as a general rule—(almost) always better, and so are how I prefer to form my first impression.
(Apparently this is more of a guideline than a rule for me, as I've seen the totality of Tom Cruise and Alan Ritchson's takes on Jack Reacher without ever having read any of Lee Child's novels...and yet still picked one up when I came across it in a Little Free Library the other day).
Having read this through, I'm quite impressed. Sapkowski's protagonist, Geralt of Rivia (the eponymous witcher—i.e. professional monster slayer—after whom the series is named) cuts an interesting archetype. While his stoicism, perseverence in the face of both moral and mortal danger, and refusal to compromise on his beliefs are all archetypal in their presentation, Sapkowski never overcompensates for this by having Geralt lapse into angst or introspection. It wouldn't have taken much for Geralt to turn into another Byronic hero a la Drizzt Do'Urden, quietly resigning himself to a sense of isolation even as he performs a job that he knows must be done all while still nursing a faint hope that perhaps one day he might find fulfilling companionship. Instead, Geralt comes off as more down-to-earth, willing to engage in the irregular bouts of laughter when something seems ridiculous and the ocassional fling with a beautiful woman. It's a nice change from wistfully envying those who have a normal life and bemoaning fate for not having one.
On a slightly more technical note, I can't help but notice that Geralt also seems to exist as an archetype opposite that of the "spell-less ranger" which every so often sweeps through the D&D(-adjacent) community. Unlike Aragorn, Geralt uses magic regularly as part of his fighting style, along with various minor magical charms and trinkets.
What's interesting is that he's apparently the only one who does so. While the book makes it clear that there are other witchers—though it establishes early on that even among them he's special (witchers being made by taking young children and inducing artificial mutations that make them tougher, faster, and have sharper senses than ordinary humans, with Geralt having taken to the process better than most)—we never see one in the course of this story (or rather, any of the stories herein, as this is actually several tales told within a framing narrative).
The result is that Geralt is, essentially, a gish/red mage/magic knight-style character in a world where everyone else is either a mundane fighter or a full-on wizard or cleric. His magic lets him dance rings around the former, and his fighting prowess lets him overwhelm the latter...mostly, as Yennefer, the seductive enchantress who's set up as his love interest near the end of the book, showcases.
As for the world itself, it's notable how little we see of it here, and yet how much is suggested. Sapkowski is smart enough to understand that place names and politics are only as important as how well they serve as backdrops, i.e. how they set up the state of things that Geralt has to work within. To that end, being told a little goes a long way; I've often heard it said that bad GMs who dump too much information about their setting on their players are "frustrated novelists," but the implication that all of that worldbuilding belongs in a novel is put to the lie here. I've ranted before about writers who go too far in avoiding exposition, but Sapkowski is a person who knows how to do that without compromising the integrity of his work.
All in all, I can understand why this series became a hit, and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what becomes of The Witcher.
Similar Threads
