Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - mtlhddoc2

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 23
181
Books / Re: My Read Through of Malazan Books of the Fallen
« on: June 23, 2009, 12:14:54 PM »
Well, side from Warren, there are also Holds.

Possible Spoiler, going to try and white text it:
The Warrens are formed from the blood of Krul. While the Holds are different and precede the Elder gods. There is also "earth magic" as used by Samar Dev, and another "witchy" kind of magic as used by Quick Ben (the one using the stick figures) and neither of those have anything to do with the Warrens. Plus, there is yet ANOTHER kind of magic using the tiles and a 6th, utilizing a Deck of Dragons. and we have not even started with "god magic" yet, such as the magic of Chaos, as used by the Crippled God, and the magic used by the Redeemer and the Dying God does not conform to any of those either.

Ok, no white text on this board, put it in yellow to make it more difficult to just "read".

182
Books / Re: Sci-Fi key authors
« on: June 23, 2009, 02:47:30 AM »
Kaz: you are right... oops.... would you consider Zelazny a key author? I thought the Amber series was rather pedantic.

183
Books / Re: My Read Through of Malazan Books of the Fallen
« on: June 23, 2009, 02:45:13 AM »
Andrew, I understand all of what the author has explained, but the problem is that it doesnt really make any sense until, say, book 5, and then he starts contradicting it. And yes, 5 magic systems. Cant say much more withoiut spoiling it for those on earlier books. But Quick Ben utilizes at least 3 of these.

184
Books / Re: Sci-Fi key authors
« on: June 22, 2009, 06:24:41 PM »
Surprised noone has mentioned Asimov, Chalker or Herbert when talking sci-fi. Really, does sci-fi get any better than Dune, or I, Robot, or Well of souls? Or how about Pohl? space Merchants was great fun.

I am in line with most others on the fantasy side, but would not put Erikson as a "key" author, nor Sanderson. they have really yet to make their mark the way Jordan, Feist, Eddings, tolkien, Donladson, and yes, McCafferty have all done. (I cannot stand McCafferty, but she is influential, and would be considered a "key" author). Throw in CS Lewis and Ursula LeGuin and I think we come close to a complete set.

some people would argue that Terry Brooks should be in there too, but I dont believe so, his books are not considered "must read" books.

185
Books / Re: Malazan Book of the Fallen
« on: June 22, 2009, 06:04:47 PM »
I would wait until books 9 and 10 are published before starting them up. I finished through book 8 and the lack of finality to alot of the storylines has me rather perturbed.

186
Books / Re: My Read Through of Malazan Books of the Fallen
« on: June 22, 2009, 06:03:05 PM »
just found this thread...   I powered through this series in about 6 weeks. Just sent Toll the Hounds back to the library this weekend.

And I am still confused. And not a good confused either. I like the books, I like the author, love alot of teh charachters, but there are no less than 5 magic systems and none of them really make any sense.

biggest complaint is the overabundance of words. Really, he does not need to descibe the chair, the jacket on the chair, and the length of time the jacket has been on the chair, for two paragraphs, and then have the chair mean absolutely nothing to the story, or even the scene.

187
Books / Re: What are you reading, part 3
« on: June 22, 2009, 05:57:30 PM »
Just finished Toll the Hounds by Erikson...   the whole series is just weird, I mean, I like the books, but he is long winded, often descibes things in incredble detail, and then have them not matter a whit. A friend of mine called it "Ann Rice Syndrome".

The big issue for this whole series for me is that the magic systems are a mess. It is like he makes it up as he goes along.

188
Rants and Stuff / Re: General Religious discussion
« on: June 15, 2009, 08:24:18 PM »
it is people like him that make athiests look bad. Most athiests are not hostile jerks towards anyone with a religious belief.

189
Rants and Stuff / Re: General Religious discussion
« on: June 09, 2009, 05:30:57 PM »
ainge: wholeheartedly agree. People are what they are, gay straight bi, whatever, it takes all types.

190
Rants and Stuff / Re: General Religious discussion
« on: June 03, 2009, 05:28:49 AM »
Renoard: just to make a historical point here. Books have already been added and deleted at least once in the history of the Christian faith. The Emperor Constantine's Council of Nicaea in the 4th Century removed dozens of books they thought were not of value, or did not deal with Christian philosophy. Plus a host of other "decisions" were made as to who Jesus was and what his relationship with God was. In effect, the bible was actually re-written.

191
Rants and Stuff / Re: Would you have a second wife?
« on: May 11, 2009, 05:01:15 PM »
I woudlnt say "no problem" but less of a problem.

for inbreeding, one needs only to look at the monarchies of Europe to see how long term inbreeding can directly effect development. after a few generations, there was significant degredation of the lines. Hemophilia in Russia, mental disorders in Spain, among others. Most of those lines routinely married first or second cousins.

192
Rants and Stuff / Re: Would you have a second wife?
« on: May 11, 2009, 03:28:12 PM »
Eerongal: Did you know that "cousin marriages" are only illegal in a few states? Most of them are down south as well. in most northern  states, you can marry your first cousin. but not your ex-stepsister.

193
Rants and Stuff / Re: General Religious discussion
« on: April 30, 2009, 06:00:37 PM »
dictionary.com is Webster's Dictionary isnt it? ???

194
Rants and Stuff / Re: General Religious discussion
« on: April 30, 2009, 03:31:37 PM »
disbelief is basically not accepting something which has been nproven to be a fact, as a fact:
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief. 
Whereas non-belief does not have a dictionary reference. but basically. It means, to me, "I do not believe that" period. It is skepticism, but not denial. I am not a "fact denier", I am just a non-believer.

As far as proof required. Well, It would have to be something where, if I could fact check it, I could come  to the same conclusions. It couldnt hurt if I could see it myself. I am just as skepitcal of "science" as I am religion. Since much of the fringe sciences, like astrophysics, is leaps of faith and sometimes just making stuff up.


195
Rants and Stuff / Re: Would you have a second wife?
« on: April 30, 2009, 03:19:46 PM »
murder was illegal in most societies before the bible became rote.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 23