I read "The Name of the Wind" and "The Wise Man's Fear", and both became my gold standard for fantasy novels.

Currently reading "Forever Peace" by Joe Haldeman.

'The Name of the Wind' just scored third on Reddit's list of top fantasy books...behind only 'Song of Fire and Ice' and 'Lord of the Rings'.

I really like that series. We've been waiting for the third book to come out forever though.

Although I am half convinced that the main character should have gone to jail by now. Kvothe does some pretty nasty things.

Reading A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. Highly recommend it. Canine alien hive minds, transcendent super intelligences, uplifting of primitive civilizations and a galaxy where the laws of physics vary by region to region. The book is just jam-packed with cool stuff. Also there is a plot which I am enjoying but won't spoil.

Apocalypse Codex. Last book (published, anyway) of the Laundry Files, iirc.

Canadian knife laws on the internet.

I have Name of the Wind on kindle now, got through the first chapter pretty quick last night.

Private Eye - I am outraged and amused.

If you liked this, it seems similar to The Golden Age Trilogy by John C. Wright. You will probably like it too. Just saw that A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge won a Hugo Award and was a Nebula Award nominee. Automatically added to my to-read list.

I recommend I'm Not High, by Jim Breuer.
Great read!

I should read 'A Song of Fire and Ice'

This is my favorite book. It isn't the best thing I've ever read (close though I think), but it is incredible.

Talk to me about it. You didn't give up yet? It isn't as hard as people assume, right? Did you finish?

I'm 130 pages in. It isn't a difficult read, it's just some of the scenes appear perplexing. Like, did I need three pages of expository conversation depicting prep school tennis player archetypes interrupted by Arizona scenes of ex-Canadian spies conversing with transvestite American operatives? Not really? I mean, it's cool to say I read three pages of expository conversation depicting prep school tennis player archetypes (as discussed by jaded teenagers) interrupted by Arizona scenes of ex-Canadian spies conversing with transvestite American operatives, but only as cool as Wallace's white do-rag in his author photo. I get that, especially with the fart jokes in the scene, there's an absurdity here that's actually pretty funny, but it also reminds me of why I used to get hammered at poetry readings.

I finished "Forever Peace" by Joe Haldeman. Not bad, not very good either. I liked "Forever War" much more.

Now reading "14" by Peter Clines. I was hooked at the very beginning by this book. Until now, very good.

Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean by "need." The conversation in Arizona is certainly vital to any sort of plot the book may or may not have. And then I think it's important to understand how synonymous "tennis" and "life" are for some of these kids. And also recall that he uses more than just names to make post-modern insinuations about his characters. I don't know how much you want to read into tennis styles though.

I don't see this as post modern at all, which is a general blanket term anyway. I like the narrative disruption and excessive and tangential language--very Bolano, whom I love--but whereas Bolano will go too far, Wallace doesn't seem to go far enough. It's really obvious he's very satisfied with what he's writing, or it comes across that way, and I personally couldn't give a damn about Wallace.

Like, there's a paragraph where he's going on and on about Tuscon and the Arizona landscape, with these purple sentences and this aside about feral hamsters. And he finishes it with "And the sky was violet" or something similarly brief. I get how that's self-depricating and humorous, but come on, get a move on already, you know?

Oh no you didn't.

Seriously, there is no need to say things like "I personally couldn't give a damn about Wallace." If this is to be an objective critique, please refrain from trying to make it personal in any way, shape, or form.

On that note, it would seem that his style doesn't appeal to you, apparently because maybe he is long-winded? Is that what you were getting at regarding the Landscape paragraph? I mean, I can understand thinking that the author goes on and on about atmospheric things long after you've been immersed in the scenery, but I never got that feeling with Wallace. He does sometimes go into prolonged descriptions of seemingly unimportant things (i.e. the Erdedy pre-pot binge bug scene) but the reasons behind something like that should be obvious. You're pacing. If this paragraph had to do with the conversation between Marathe and Steeply then maybe there is a reason. Maybe one of those characters is thinking something like "can we get a move on already?"

When I said I don't give a damn about Wallace, I meant he needed to get out of the way of his own writing... I don't know why or how you could take that personally?

All I am saying that, as a writer, I can't decide why Wallace is as you say long-winded. It's not a matter of style, it's a matter of why he chose that style. It adds as much as it detracts, I feel, and it's clear in some moments Wallace is mocking himself, making his own purple prose absurd for absurditys sake. Seems like a strange decision to me.

As an aside it's miserable posting here on an iPhone.

I disagree that it's about pacing. That seems too convenient, and there are many more structural things you can do to a novel to change pacing, cramming a few thousand extra words I to your piece being the worst of them. I think you're closer in suggesting the exposition is a kind of internal character projection, but it seems like a heavy lift and using this tangential omniscient narrator to show a characters internal monologue again strikes me as weird. Not bad, I just do t get why Wallace would do it.

Patrick Rothfuss is currently doing an Ask Me Anything on Reddit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comment ... the_pairs/