Lost in a good book

[Darth Drabek]

  However, if I get to choose who I would be being Roland Deschain from Dark Tower would seriously kick some ass. Especially if I can be young Roland from Wizard & Glass ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you kidding? Roland didn't exactly lead the charmed life. Sure, you'd be really good at shooting things, but still! Everyone you love getting killed one way or another, getting your fingers bitten off by lobstrosities, catching your mom in the act of adultery -- there's never a happy ending in his world.

 

And did you read the last book, when Roland finally reaches the top of his fabled Tower?

 

 

I certainly wouldn't want to be trapped reliving the same desperate chase over and over again. I don't know what I was expecting, but I was definitely let down by that.

 

[Xard]

  However, if I get to choose who I would be being Roland Deschain from Dark Tower would seriously kick some ass. Especially if I can be young Roland from Wizard & Glass ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you kidding? Roland didn't exactly lead the charmed life. Sure, you'd be really good at shooting things, but still! Everyone you love getting killed one way or another, getting your fingers bitten off by lobstrosities, catching your mom in the act of adultery -- there's never a happy ending in his world.

 

And did you read the last book, when Roland finally reaches the top of his fabled Tower?

 

 

I certainly wouldn't want to be trapped reliving the same desperate chase over and over again. I don't know what I was expecting, but I was definitely let down by that.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Stupid question, I am hc Tower junkie so yes, I have read the last one. Actually I like the ending. It was only possible ending, one true ending. Besides,

The ultimate ending is up to you. He has the horn and I am optimistic... So in my opinion next time to Tower will be last one. Though I am not starting to analyze why I believe so. The ending is up to you. One who says that Roland never gets out to loop is just as right as me. Roland redeemed himself in many ways with this "round" ie. he would've sacrificed himself instead of Jake in last book. About the ending: In many ways it is - as I already said - only possible ending. No matter what King would've written top of the Tower would've been dissappointment to many. Now it is up to you

 

Yeah, that's why I especially mentioned W&G instead of whole series. Until the Demon moon's time (or whatever it was with Chariyo Tree) his life wasn't yet "so bad".

 

But on other hand being Roland would be true curse. Heck, but I am too much fanboy to mind that...for a beginning.

 

Besides, Roland is frickin' cool

 

Being Jonathan Squirrel on other hand wouldn't be bad either

Edited October 26, 2006 by Xard

[Darth Drabek]

All right, suit yourself.

 

And you're right about the ending. I mean, seven books, God knows how many pages - all leading up to him opening that door at the top of the tower. It was a letdown waiting to happen; there was no way King could have done anything to prevent it.

[Guard Dog]

For a non fiction book to get lost in, "Winterdance" by Gary Paulsen would be fun.

 

For fiction, hands down "A Salty Piece of Land". Tully Mars is a literary figure I can definitely identify with!

[Xard]

Well, for me it was not let down, and not to many others either. To be honest though for the first few hours after finishing the book I really, really hated it. But after that I slowly started to accept it.. and after some time I started to like it, very much actually. Well, SK himself said that "he too wasn't too happy with the ending, but it was the right ending." or something like that. Besides, it is the journey that matters. *shudder* We shouldn't be so... greedy when the ending came. SK - that damn bastard - gave us choice in Coda. Great choice, since he surely knew that no one would stop reading, even after his warning

 

Fanbase seems to split. 50 % hates the ending, 40 % loves it, 10 % thinks that "it's ok".

 

Or so it was. Nowadays I think that is purely 50-50, or 40-50-10

 

Sorry OT

 

Being in Sophie's world wouldn't be bad either

[letsryde23]

I would not say his are the worst books to get lost in, they are rather longwinded, but Tolkien is my choice. He takes forever to get to the point. I love his books don't get me wrong but too much detail gets boring.

 

Salvatore and his Drizzt books are dull. His fight scenes are dull and boring enough to make me fall asleep.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While i agree with you on the tolkien thing, partially because the way it does take forever to get to the point (like the end of a star wars movie...) and patially because of the gay hobbit undertones, I cannot sit idly (nor can i spell that word) by and let you call the fight scenes in ANY of Salvatores book dull, i mean its all a matter of perspective i guess, but his books actually got me interested in fantasy novels and thus into fantasy/role playing games by the way they were presented, and especially scince ive never read ANY fantasy author that can describe details of fights the way he does... but yeah, now that ive basically ranted on about nothing... take that! , and such.

[Pop]

The reason I didn't like the Salvatore books (I read the first 3, in a big bitter block going on a FR binge after getting back into BG for the second time) was because they contained too much melodrama but didn't really flesh out the characters much, so reading it was about as uncomfortable as seeing a really bad play.

 

I found the fights to be boring, but I also found them to be largely unnecessary, which is the problem I have with fantasy in general. I felt like I was reading a D&D campaign, and while I love D&D campaigns and combat, it just doesn't port well to literature. People don't ****in' fight that much and that casually.

 

Just about any high fantasy would be on my no-list as far as books go, because of that. No doubt the untouched wilderness environments are fun to imagine exploring, though.

 

What about Ian Fleming? Anybody want to be a secret agent man?

[Walsingham]

Just to clarify a couple of points raised.

1) You are in the book as yourself, moving around the scenes set in teh text at first and later learning to refocuss your perception and enter implied areas and backstory.

2) You can die in a book, although neither alive nor dead. For an outsider this is referred to as becoming 'boojummed'.

 

I don't think constant fighting woud be fun. But if I were going to I'd have to choose Gaunt's Ghosts. Because at least you'd be fighting for a good reason. Ian Fleming's books would certainly be very English and thus almost like being at home, but you could move around most of the globe in style.

[Musopticon?]

I am Legend, anyone?

 

Would be major pain to get stuck there.

[Walsingham]

I am Legend, anyone?

 

Would be major pain to get stuck there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great Book. Hard to hide there, as well, since you'd stick out a mile. And get eaten. But at least you'd give the hero some company.

[letsryde23]

The reason I didn't like the Salvatore books (I read the first 3, in a big bitter block going on a FR binge after getting back into BG for the second time) was because they contained too much melodrama but didn't really flesh out the characters much, so reading it was about as uncomfortable as seeing a really bad play.

 

I found the fights to be boring, but I also found them to be largely unnecessary, which is the problem I have with fantasy in general. I felt like I was reading a D&D campaign, and while I love D&D campaigns and combat, it just doesn't port well to literature. People don't ****in' fight that much and that casually.

 

Just about any high fantasy would be on my no-list as far as books go, because of that. No doubt the untouched wilderness environments are fun to imagine exploring, though.

 

What about Ian Fleming? Anybody want to be a secret agent man?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I read almost ALL of the James bond series when i was younger and was enthralled by his ability to casually kill people and bed women in the same night, plus i can relate, i myself have spent MANY a night dressing in designer tuxedos, gambling, drinking manly cosmopolitans, and snapping international terrorist necks, if only i could put down the cloak and dagger an focus on a real job, my mom would'nt be so mad at me for living in the basement and not paying rent

Edited October 27, 2006 by letsryde23

[Draken]

I LOVED DRIZZT, OKAY!?

 

Also, I'd get lost in The Shire, most definitley.

[Dark_Raven]

I LOVED DRIZZT, OKAY!?

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OMFG!

 

 

*Mumbles to self*

Moving along not going to say anything.

[metadigital]

I just finished Jasper Fforde's book 'Lost in a Good Book'. In it the protagonist jumps into books. Inside them, the characters have to act their parts, but supposing it is written in the third person retain their indepndence of thought. Moreover, when not actually needed they can gad about as they choose in their environment.

 

I don't want to give any more spoilers, but it got me thinking. If YOU had to hide in a book for about a year which would it be? I was thinking I'd probably choose Raymond Chandler's 'The Little Sister', although I'd be worried that Chandler's quirky descriptions might make the experience uncomfortably patchy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alan Dean Foster's The Man Who Used the Universe.

[Rosbjerg]

Neils Strauss - The Game ..

 

Oooohhh yeah!! :D ^_^

[Walsingham]

Neils Strauss - The Game ..

 

Oooohhh yeah!!  :D ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why, what happens in it?

[Rosbjerg]

It's a book about pickup artists and how "the game" is used to pick up extremely hot ladies.. (+ how ****ed up Neil Strauss' life ends up being because of it though).. a very cool book nonetheless!

[Walsingham]

The reason I didn't like the Salvatore books (I read the first 3, in a big bitter block going on a FR binge after getting back into BG for the second time) was because they contained too much melodrama but didn't really flesh out the characters much, so reading it was about as uncomfortable as seeing a really bad play.

 

I found the fights to be boring, but I also found them to be largely unnecessary, which is the problem I have with fantasy in general. I felt like I was reading a D&D campaign, and while I love D&D campaigns and combat, it just doesn't port well to literature. People don't ****in' fight that much and that casually.

 

Just about any high fantasy would be on my no-list as far as books go, because of that. No doubt the untouched wilderness environments are fun to imagine exploring, though.

 

What about Ian Fleming? Anybody want to be a secret agent man?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

 

I read almost ALL of the James bond series when i was younger and was enthralled by his ability to casually kill people and bed women in the same night, plus i can relate, i myself have spent MANY a night dressing in designer tuxedos, gambling, drinking manly cosmopolitans, and snapping international terrorist necks, if only i could put down the cloak and dagger an focus on a real job, my mom would'nt be so mad at me for living in the basement and not paying rent

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought you were living in Iraq with the Army. Or have they run out of regular funds and you now patrol in evening dress?