Seriously, though Dune. Written in the sixties, but ahead of the standards of the genre in some ways, so it might read as a little more modern than you're looking for. It's still an awesome book.
Dude, I've been talking about the awesomeness of Dune since the last thread.
I'd say it is, because it really adds a lot to the style.
Most people would say I'm retarded and masochistic, though.
If you like it, it opens up a ton of authors that most people don't bother with unless they have to. If you don't you can forget pretty much anything written before 1900 that's more than a few dozen pages long.
Tolstoy is pretty super. I'm almost through Anna Karenina, after which it's onward to McCarthy and Chabon.
Svidrigailov on
Neither the whole of truth nor the whole of good is revealed to any single observer, although each observer gains a partial superiority of insight from the peculiar position in which he stands. It is enough to ask of each of us that he should be faithful to his own opportunities and make the most of his own blessings, without presuming to regulate the rest of the vast field.
Neither the whole of truth nor the whole of good is revealed to any single observer, although each observer gains a partial superiority of insight from the peculiar position in which he stands. It is enough to ask of each of us that he should be faithful to his own opportunities and make the most of his own blessings, without presuming to regulate the rest of the vast field.
0
Options
BusterKNegativity is Boring Cynicism is Cowardice Registered Userregular
I was thinking more 1950's onward type of sci-fi. I've never read any Clarke. I've never read any Asimov. I read Starship Troopers over ten years ago. I still haven't read The Man in the High Castle. Maybe I should check out that CS Lewis stuff.
I know this is from several pages back, but you really ought to read some Arthur C. Clarke. His characters are incredibly down to Earth, he based pretty much everything on legitimate science (well, the substantially less well-informed science of his time), and just writes incredibly engaging novels. His situations are fascinating - for a fantastic, entertaining science fiction story that smacks of realism and is often pretty thought provoking, you should try either A Fall of Moondust, The City and the Stars, The Sands of Time. Out of those, I'd say a A Fall of Moondust is the best manifestation of his sense of forward-thought.
I was thinking more 1950's onward type of sci-fi. I've never read any Clarke. I've never read any Asimov. I read Starship Troopers over ten years ago. I still haven't read The Man in the High Castle. Maybe I should check out that CS Lewis stuff.
I know this is from several pages back, but you really ought to read some Arthur C. Clarke. His characters are incredibly down to Earth, he based pretty much everything on legitimate science (well, the substantially less well-informed science of his time), and just writes incredibly engaging novels. His situations are fascinating - for a fantastic, entertaining science fiction story that smacks of realism and is often pretty thought provoking, you should try either A Fall of Moondust, The City and the Stars, The Sands of Time. Out of those, I'd say a A Fall of Moondust is the best manifestation of his sense of forward-thought.
Clarke is wonderful
Great characters, witty writing and he doesn't bullshit you.
Try Tales From the White Hart
A little more wacky but definately enjoyable
I love that somebody used your instead of you're in a book thread :P
your dumb
what about it?
I'm going to hazard a guess that responding like that is possibly the douchiest way to show that someone is using the wrong homonym.
No, it's more that pointing out typos is purely the realm of the Grammar Nazis, and you just lack the intelligence to join that 'club'.
Also, you should have put "your" and "you're" in quotes, since you were referencing the word itself. It's more a stylistic and clarity thing than an error, but you should still be more careful about that sort of thing if you're going to be like that.
laughingfuzzball on
0
Options
BusterKNegativity is Boring Cynicism is Cowardice Registered Userregular
I love that somebody used your instead of you're in a book thread :P
your dumb
what about it?
I'm going to hazard a guess that responding like that is possibly the douchiest way to show that someone is using the wrong homonym.
No, it's more that pointing out typos is purely the realm of the Grammar Nazis, and you just lack the intelligence to join that 'club'.
Also, you should have put "your" and "you're" in quotes, since you were referencing the word itself. It's more a stylistic and clarity thing than an error, but you should still be more careful about that sort of thing if you're going to be like that.
There's only one Grammar Nazi around here I take that kind of shit from and he's a lovable bear
I love that somebody used your instead of you're in a book thread :P
your dumb
what about it?
I'm going to hazard a guess that responding like that is possibly the douchiest way to show that someone is using the wrong homonym.
No, it's more that pointing out typos is purely the realm of the Grammar Nazis, and you just lack the intelligence to join that 'club'.
Also, you should have put "your" and "you're" in quotes, since you were referencing the word itself. It's more a stylistic and clarity thing than an error, but you should still be more careful about that sort of thing if you're going to be like that.
Sorry, that second sentence was supposed to be referencing my previous sentence, by the way.
I love that somebody used your instead of you're in a book thread :P
your dumb
what about it?
I'm going to hazard a guess that responding like that is possibly the douchiest way to show that someone is using the wrong homonym.
No, it's more that pointing out typos is purely the realm of the Grammar Nazis, and you just lack the intelligence to join that 'club'.
Also, you should have put "your" and "you're" in quotes, since you were referencing the word itself. It's more a stylistic and clarity thing than an error, but you should still be more careful about that sort of thing if you're going to be like that.
Sorry, that second sentence was supposed to be referencing my previous sentence, by the way.
your dumb
laughingfuzzball on
0
Options
BusterKNegativity is Boring Cynicism is Cowardice Registered Userregular
Posts
It's DUNE
Yes. If you think Dickens is too wordy and dense, though, you'll likely think the same about this.
Most people would say I'm retarded and masochistic, though.
If you like it, it opens up a ton of authors that most people don't bother with unless they have to. If you don't you can forget pretty much anything written before 1900 that's more than a few dozen pages long.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
It is pretty good.
this. you cant go wrong with pretty much any Asimov though, many of his short stories are awesome too.
The Last Question is a personal favorite.
Okay, you can read Tolstoy as well, dick faces!
your dumb
It's pretty good so far
Don Quixote
Do it
Do eeeeet
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
I know this is from several pages back, but you really ought to read some Arthur C. Clarke. His characters are incredibly down to Earth, he based pretty much everything on legitimate science (well, the substantially less well-informed science of his time), and just writes incredibly engaging novels. His situations are fascinating - for a fantastic, entertaining science fiction story that smacks of realism and is often pretty thought provoking, you should try either A Fall of Moondust, The City and the Stars, The Sands of Time. Out of those, I'd say a A Fall of Moondust is the best manifestation of his sense of forward-thought.
Clarke is wonderful
Great characters, witty writing and he doesn't bullshit you.
Try Tales From the White Hart
A little more wacky but definately enjoyable
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
what about it?
I'm going to hazard a guess that responding like that is possibly the douchiest way to show that someone is using the wrong homonym.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
No, it's more that pointing out typos is purely the realm of the Grammar Nazis, and you just lack the intelligence to join that 'club'.
Also, you should have put "your" and "you're" in quotes, since you were referencing the word itself. It's more a stylistic and clarity thing than an error, but you should still be more careful about that sort of thing if you're going to be like that.
There's only one Grammar Nazi around here I take that kind of shit from and he's a lovable bear
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
Kinda one
Kinda the other
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
Sorry, that second sentence was supposed to be referencing my previous sentence, by the way.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0345455878/
But October is so far away!