What are you reading tonight?

[Worthy4England]

Err minor point, but are not most books that are fiction, effectively works of the author's fantasy?
So one author has a fantasy that his hero is a CIA operative who saves the world etc. etc. and another one has a fantasy that such things as Elves and Ents exist?

I'm a little surprised that one so in favour of William Shakespeare could be so critical of any other writer for being overblown, overwritten and less interesting (line by line, generally). Shakespeare has probably single handedly put more kids off reading and theatre than any other writer - Much Ado About Nothing as you might say.

Exactly Worthy. Allowing imangination to run riot is the very thing that the fantasy genre provides. Strangely, science-fiction, in the strict sense, is the one area I rarely venture into or have any interest in.

Sci-fi generally doesn't do anything for me either. That said, I have no probs with Star Trek n Dr Who etc...

[superjohnmcginlay]

Best Sci Fi books Ive read have been by Isaac Asimov. The Foundation series highly recommended.

[TANGODANCER]

If you only ever read one scienc fiction book Tango, read Dune. The sheer imagination in it is breathtaking.

I haven't read it, I'll admit LK, but if it's that good I'll keep a look out for it. Cheers.

[Raven]

Just finished a book called The Dark Watch by someone with a Russian name about "others members of a dark watch and a light watch who monitor each other to make sure the good/evil balance in the world is maintained...yes think that gives a clue that I did not really understand it, I certainly won't bother getting the other books in the trilogy it was dire, boring characters, rushed nonsensical endings (it reads like 3 short stories in one book)

A third of the way through Banquet for the Damned by Adam L G Nevill which is looking like a really good supernatural read.

Do you mean the Night watch by Sergey Lukyanenko? If so I thought they were both fascinating, and I don't normally do that kind of thing. They're written in a completely different style to all 'western' books Ive ever read. And for are far more interesting than the Lord of the Rings shiiiite.

That's the lad, see it was so bad I forgot the real title, I just didn't get it or understand the ending in the first one (probably me just being too thick) I almost gave up on it I hated it so much and only ever done that twice before with a book (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was one - still don't understand the fuss and Thief of Time by Terry Pratchett was the other)

[Raven]

If you only ever read one scienc fiction book Tango, read Dune. The sheer imagination in it is breathtaking.

I'll second that but don't bother with the film unless you like crappy rubbish like me

[Raven]

Do you mean the Night watch by Sergey Lukyanenko? If so I thought they were both fascinating, and I don't normally do that kind of thing. They're written in a completely different style to all 'western' books Ive ever read. And for are far more interesting than the Lord of the Rings shiiiite.

Dear dear Pru. How very judgemental (and of course entirely wrong)of you

Lord of the Rings is a classic of its kind and the film a masterpiece of the art of special effects. None of its imitators have come near it except The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. All in my opinion of course.

I second that too, the LOTR stuff not the Thomas Covenant thing as never read it, LOTR book(s) are i my opinion fantastic and I think the films were just about spot on with the feel of the books and the closest you could get to it, can't wait to see what Jackson does with Temeraire!

As for fantasy books, The Dragonbone Chair series were very very good for light entertainment R A Salvatores Dark Elf series are fun but I prefer my fantasy a bit different so its Charles De Lint all the time for me, even the couple of childrens books he has written are charming and the teen market he also has written for was still an excellent read, his stuff and Phillip Pulmans books pee all over the repetetive Harry Potter boring books (first was great, others not so).

[Worthy4England]

Just finished a book called The Dark Watch by someone with a Russian name about "others members of a dark watch and a light watch who monitor each other to make sure the good/evil balance in the world is maintained...yes think that gives a clue that I did not really understand it, I certainly won't bother getting the other books in the trilogy it was dire, boring characters, rushed nonsensical endings (it reads like 3 short stories in one book)

A third of the way through Banquet for the Damned by Adam L G Nevill which is looking like a really good supernatural read.

Do you mean the Night watch by Sergey Lukyanenko? If so I thought they were both fascinating, and I don't normally do that kind of thing. They're written in a completely different style to all 'western' books Ive ever read. And for are far more interesting than the Lord of the Rings shiiiite.

That's the lad, see it was so bad I forgot the real title, I just didn't get it or understand the ending in the first one (probably me just being too thick) I almost gave up on it I hated it so much and only ever done that twice before with a book (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was one - still don't understand the fuss and Thief of Time by Terry Pratchett was the other)

Thief of Time is probably not one of Pratchett's best for me. Try "Witches Abroad"...much more funny and accessible.

[TANGODANCER]

As for fantasy books, The Dragonbone Chair series were very very good for light entertainment R A Salvatores Dark Elf series are fun but I prefer my fantasy a bit different so its Charles De Lint all the time for me, even the couple of childrens books he has written are charming and the teen market he also has written for was still an excellent read, his stuff and Phillip Pulmans books pee all over the repetetive Harry Potter boring books (first was great, others not so).

I just had a real memeory flash there Raven: Not science fiction or fantasy, but the sheer joy of settling down in a corner as a kid, and starting on a new "Famous Five"book. How nieve we were then, but it was wonderful. Happy days.

[Raven]

Those days are long gone.....will admit to still occasionally reading a Moomin book and got Swallows and Amazons on my to read pile (dam boot fair just raised it a foot at the weekend)

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

My daughters love me reading Roald Dahl to them. It's more enjoyable to read out than, say, Harry Potter.

[Prufrock]

Dear dear Pru. How very judgemental (and of course entirely wrong)of you

Lord of the Rings is a classic of its kind and the film a masterpiece of the art of special effects. None of its imitators have come near it except The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. All in my opinion of course.

I can concur on many of these counts TD

I disagree on pretty much all - the book is overblown, overwritten, repetitive and gets less interesting volume by volume.

The first film was so atrocious, after the first 20 minutes, loved those mysterious horsemen, the scenes in the village, the start of the quest, but, after that, in everything but its SFX and grand countryside I just couldn't face the next two. Being bored for close to three hours once is enough.

Agree with all of that. I don't really get 'fantasy' anyway, but id DEFO reccomend the Night watch trilogy. The original poster makes a valid point about how one book is somehow three stories, but its a different writing style. Its just.....russian.

Err minor point, but are not most books that are fiction, effectively works of the author's fantasy?

So one author has a fantasy that his hero is a CIA operative who saves the world etc. etc. and another one has a fantasy that such things as Elves and Ents exist?

I'm a little surprised that one so in favour of William Shakespeare could be so critical of any other writer for being overblown, overwritten and less interesting (line by line, generally). Shakespeare has probably single handedly put more kids off reading and theatre than any other writer - Much Ado About Nothing as you might say.

Aye of course, but that's the name given to the genre about magic goblins and werewolves, don't blame me, I didnt come up with it. .

As for Shakespeare, more kids read Shakespeare than any other writer, and at an age where we aren't always that open to 'theatre'. Perhaps, as in the Hitlerisation of History, there is a Shakespeareisation of English teaching. He is very important though, and a splenid tragic playwright, poor comedian, and pretty good, in the whole, poet. Marlowe's better anyway, though Im sure our learned friend would disagree . End of the day, s'all taste innit?

[Lord Kangana]

That reminds me - read Bill Brysons Shakespeare the other week. Top notch.

[William the White]

I can concur on many of these counts TD

I disagree on pretty much all - the book is overblown, overwritten, repetitive and gets less interesting volume by volume.

The first film was so atrocious, after the first 20 minutes, loved those mysterious horsemen, the scenes in the village, the start of the quest, but, after that, in everything but its SFX and grand countryside I just couldn't face the next two. Being bored for close to three hours once is enough.

Agree with all of that. I don't really get 'fantasy' anyway, but id DEFO reccomend the Night watch trilogy. The original poster makes a valid point about how one book is somehow three stories, but its a different writing style. Its just.....russian.

Err minor point, but are not most books that are fiction, effectively works of the author's fantasy?

So one author has a fantasy that his hero is a CIA operative who saves the world etc. etc. and another one has a fantasy that such things as Elves and Ents exist?

I'm a little surprised that one so in favour of William Shakespeare could be so critical of any other writer for being overblown, overwritten and less interesting (line by line, generally). Shakespeare has probably single handedly put more kids off reading and theatre than any other writer - Much Ado About Nothing as you might say.

Aye of course, but that's the name given to the genre about magic goblins and werewolves, don't blame me, I didnt come up with it. .

As for Shakespeare, more kids read Shakespeare than any other writer, and at an age where we aren't always that open to 'theatre'. Perhaps, as in the Hitlerisation of History, there is a Shakespeareisation of English teaching. He is very important though, and a splenid tragic playwright, poor comedian, and pretty good, in the whole, poet. Marlowe's better anyway, though Im sure our learned friend would disagree . End of the day, s'all taste innit?

Wasn't as good at choosing the company to keep in a tavern, though. Or, come to think of it, writing plays. Or poems.

[Prufrock]

I disagree on pretty much all - the book is overblown, overwritten, repetitive and gets less interesting volume by volume.

The first film was so atrocious, after the first 20 minutes, loved those mysterious horsemen, the scenes in the village, the start of the quest, but, after that, in everything but its SFX and grand countryside I just couldn't face the next two. Being bored for close to three hours once is enough.

Agree with all of that. I don't really get 'fantasy' anyway, but id DEFO reccomend the Night watch trilogy. The original poster makes a valid point about how one book is somehow three stories, but its a different writing style. Its just.....russian.

Err minor point, but are not most books that are fiction, effectively works of the author's fantasy?

So one author has a fantasy that his hero is a CIA operative who saves the world etc. etc. and another one has a fantasy that such things as Elves and Ents exist?

I'm a little surprised that one so in favour of William Shakespeare could be so critical of any other writer for being overblown, overwritten and less interesting (line by line, generally). Shakespeare has probably single handedly put more kids off reading and theatre than any other writer - Much Ado About Nothing as you might say.

Aye of course, but that's the name given to the genre about magic goblins and werewolves, don't blame me, I didnt come up with it. .

As for Shakespeare, more kids read Shakespeare than any other writer, and at an age where we aren't always that open to 'theatre'. Perhaps, as in the Hitlerisation of History, there is a Shakespeareisation of English teaching. He is very important though, and a splenid tragic playwright, poor comedian, and pretty good, in the whole, poet. Marlowe's better anyway, though Im sure our learned friend would disagree . End of the day, s'all taste innit?

Wasn't as good at choosing the company to keep in a tavern, though. Or, come to think of it, writing plays. Or poems.

Jesus get with it... he was an MI5 agent, and faked his own death. Afterwards he carried on writing and used Shakespeare as a public face. However the shock of it all meant his abilities declined. Slightly. Also he was a better playwrite, though I've never read any of his poetry.

Some of that post may not be true. How much? I couldn't say.

[William the White]

Oh yeah - I'd forgotten the MI5 link... And, of course that ill-educated poor provincial actor Will S was not clever enough to have written those plays...

Thanks for reminding me, Pru...

Which of Marlowe's plays do you like?

Oh, and Will wrote great comedies... do not traduce! The mechanicals scene in Midsummer Night's Dream has had me weeping with laughter... Comedy of Errors practically invents farce as a form...

[TANGODANCER]

Jesus get with it... he was an MI5 agent, and faked his own death. Afterwards he carried on writing and used Shakespeare as a public face. However the shock of it all meant his abilities declined. Slightly. Also he was a better playwrite, though I've never read any of his poetry.
Some of that post may not be true. How much? I couldn't say.

With all due respect where necessary, I'm always a bit suspicious of anyone who claims to have read (and fully understood) all Shakespear's writings. I certainly have only read patches (from which I admit the man was definitely an awesome writing factory with a real knowlege of his subjects) and, lover of the written word as I undoubtedly am- I would never claim iThe Complete Works of....as a Desert Island companion. (Prompt for somebody to start a thread)

I was once asked on here in a religious er, debate,(cough),"Do you not know your Bible?" as if it was my bounden duty as a Christian to know every word of a tome written by man and authorised and edited by an emperor who became a Christian almost on his death-bed. My answer, quite fankly and honestly was "Do I fxxk" (there is no question mark behind that before anyone picks up on it) I have always tried to untangle what actually is the word of God from the many words of man used in his name. "God wills it" is one of the most hypocritical assumptions I ever heard.

Bcack on thread, how may can claim to have read Shakespeare, as opposed to having perused some small amount of it?

[Lord Kangana]

My experience of Shakespeare is mostly school (the same for everyone?) where I recall Macbeth mostly (there were others, I think). I've seen The Comedy of Errors at The Octagon quite a few years back, and thought it was hilarious, I've seen Hamlet at the RSC in Stratford, and thought it dull as ditchwater. I've seen The Merchant of Venice on TV (John Cleese, I think) and thought it good.

Its all about where your taste lies - Brysons book succinctly explained to me what th fuss is all about in a technical sense (his influence on the language etc), but then more of his work survives than any of his peers, so we can only asume that it was all his own work(thats what the book says, anyway).

As for reading it? Not my bag really.

[TANGODANCER]

My experience of Shakespeare is mostly school (the same for everyone?) .

Just before I left school we went to see Romeo and Juliet (the Olivia Hussy version) I fell in love with Juliet (who must be either a pensioner or dead by now) and thoroughly enjoyed the version, as I have numerous others since. School, like you, was Hamlet, Merchant of Venice and Twelfth Night and I've seen MacBeth (sorry, The Scottish Play) and Othello (which I took a minor part in at Bolton Tech once.

[William the White]

I've seen the majority of the original William's plays - but i was 18 before i was introduced to him seriously - doing a levels. Othello and Antony and Cleopatra. Before that had seen a bolton little theatre production of Romeo and Juliet. The A level stuff was a revelation - totally life changing for me. It led me to the octagon theatre, and then to others, in what at one point became almost obsessive - i was seeing three or four plays a week.

Two or three years ago partner and i declared a year of shakespeare, and managed to see 10 plays that year. This included a great moment for me, when daughter agreed to come to see The Tempest voluntarily as opposed to being dragged along.

I see Shakespeare every year - at the very least i spend a week in london and go to the Globe, which i think is my favourite theatre, possibly in the world. I catch at least three plays there. Standing in the elements, sun or rain, paying £5 to see some of the greatest drama ever written.

With shakespeare you enter a world more fully than with any other playwright i know - he runs so deep, so cruel, so witty, so moving... so feckin perceptive and intelligent and wise... no other playwright has had his lines enter our language as proverbs... witty observations etc...

For me my annual distress is that no one produces the more obscure plays that I've never seen - cymbeline, king john, two Gentlemen of Verona... there are others... like never getting to see the Whites at Wycombe, Hartlepool, Plymouth...

The good news for me - and i hope for others - is that the new director of the Octagon is a shakespeare specialist - used to work for the Royal Shakespeare Co and national theatre. I've seen his productions, and i really rate them...

They won't, LK, be dull as ditchwater...

[Raven]

Thief of Time is probably not one of Pratchett's best for me. Try "Witches Abroad"...much more funny and accessible.

Had all of his upto Thief of Time and just got bored with the discworld books (thief of time gave me the feeling TP had too) although thought Wee Free Men and Monstrous Regiment (?) were spot on (Wee Free Men actually had me roaring with laughter quite a few times)

Still not as good as Robert Rankin though (although steer clear of The Brightonomicron -I hated it)