Timewaster's Guide Archive

Have to agree on the David Eddings thing. The fact that he actually listed his basic formula in the start of the compnion book the Rivan Codex (including stereotypical elements like quest, people in the quest, item quested after ect) ... You'd think he'd snap at that point and make extra sure that his books didn't all wind up being too similar you know? especially since he has also said how when he's writing one character he feels like he's writing Sparhawk (etc...).

And it's sad how when he started listing his wife as a co-author it was for the dreamers series which was a bad average of every similar element and character in all his other stories - one hoped this would have meant new life into his work or whatever or maybe it was just an attempt to try and inspire new interest. I know I sound cynical, but I just really feel betrayed when he's clearly laid out and realised it seems the similarities of his stories and then does nothing about it.

*le sigh*

And yes, Terry Pratchett's work can be a little hit or miss sometimes, but it's still more consistent than most authors and he's created a laregly enjoyable and interesting world.
Mort, Going Postal and a number of others are stand out favourites.

My darling friend who introduced me to his books recommended starting with MORT and I have always found that to be a very good startign point to recomment to others as well.


And if you think your High school reading sucked, try living in Australia. In English (though not english lit as much - which is the other english option for years 11 and 12 - THANKFULLY!) they conctantly try to pawn off australian authors onto you.
.
.
.
Tim Winton sucks and is a pervert. The fact that every australian who has been through highschool can say that is a testement to this fact.
There were a couple others who are bad too, I think they had the common decency to oublish fewer texts though.

Sadly the good authors in australia (such as Emily Rodda and Graeme Base) tend to right more children/young adult and fantasy.

Huh, well, ah, how to descibe my own views and takes on things without sounding like an uneducated prawn next to everyone else's stimulating and articulating comments...

I don't believe the His Dark Materials trilogy is child friendly- I really have to wonder about the author when I read his series, the underage drinking, smoking, the protaginist's warped attraction to father figures and murderers? I found it rather distasteful and disappointing myself even though I'm a flexible minded functioning aethiest*.

 (*who is still spiritual, believes that things like god/s and past lives may exist but mainly just follows ideals like zen and keeing karma good)

I think Pullman's own creator and church themes completly overwhelmed the trilogy. Even if the themes had been completely pro-god or pro-church (which wouldn't have bothered me either way but might have appeased more people) I think they occupied a completly disproportionate amount of words in the novel when you consider how his literary focus could (possibly) have been better spent.

All in all, my whole experience reading the trilogy, while it did have some interesting points, was a general feeling left in the wake of  "What the h---?*"                                 (*I promise you, those bleeps say "eck"~!)

I mean, it was just very frustrating to me the way the books seemed to hop from point-to-point like a flea on little blood-borne-crack or whatever, erratically zig-zagging about from one fantastical course of action to the next testosterone filled leap.

There really is no "putting things into perspective" in terms of giving, say, Asriel a backstory as to why he is suddenly able to take on someone with a Diety-ic like army.

How did he get his prince-level wealth way back when? Did he general holy orders of soldiers, thereby leaving him with fantastical tactical experience and also insight into the heart of bonafide spiritualness or whatever? What is it that drives him to go so far over the top anarchist-style and where did he manage to pick up the practical know-how to go about demi-god toppling anyway?

I assume there wasn't a course on that, as there seemed to be only one deity-like-figure so he could have hardly had practice. There's not even a logical explanation provided, like, he slew his way through a long line of the angels throughout some period of time, a la, woking his way up to the top by smiting the big-bosses of each level.  - Not that people need to always work their way up from the bottom, but it might've been a bit more logical that he, maybe, started figting from a level of a *few* pegs from the top, maybe?

There are just many points where things happen, or a character does something, or is in a situation and there seems to be no logical explanation of why they act or respond to something in a certain way.

It's like Pullman was so busy trying to march out these characters into this gradoise play and forgetting in his haste to include the basic character structuring tidbit here and there, that if he'd slipped in could maybe have better smoothed through the major action-point zig-zags.


At the end of the day I just wouldn't recommend this series to children anyway because there are just so many other books out there that would be not only a little less ("I have a daddy complex and like murderers too *especially*, because my absentee-uncle-cum-absentee-father is a jerk and acts in unexplainable ways...") but also just more lovingly sculpted, with more fleshed out characters.


Sorry if I caused any raised eyebrows or pluffed up feathers, tried to keep it clean and coherently typo-free.
Have a nice day~!  And may you all get into even more intellectually satisfying discussions!