Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So, what are you reading?
I've finished Churchill's Savrola. The latter half is a long revolution, with a focus on the fighting. Now that it's over, I can't say that it has been particularly memorable, but maybe I'll come back to it in the future. I found its specific interests of personality and capability, and its realistic, detailed style to be interesting. Not a bad read. I'll definitely be reading other writings of Churchill, though it seems like this was his only novel.
Finished The End of Eternity. Strong ending, I think, though I would have preferred it ifEternity turned out to be holding humanity back not because actually we need WWII to reach the stars but because Eternity is stuck in a local maximum and would never do what it takes to break out of it .
Now on The Worm Ouroboros, by the man who called Tolkien a soy. I'm bewildered by the swiftly abandoned framing device, the variety of kingdoms named Impland, Demonland, Goblinland, etc all peopled by ordinary men, and the general lack of cohesion in naming conventions among things that should have some common origin. Maybe Tolkien made good naming table stakes for fantasy? it's holding my attention despite that, and the 17th century prose is very convincing.
I think there's a brief reference to the 'demons' having horns and the 'witches' having tails. Then there's the foliots, who have wings? I took it to imply these weren't ordinary men at all, which made the story much more intriguing!
There's a brief reference to the demons having horns, but they also apparently have horned helmets which is a little strange:
Of course, none of these special features play any role in the story, even in the wrestling match where you would expect horns would play a role. It's all very uneven.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It'll come up again later, briefly. Eddison did not forget about it. I suspect the whole thing was just his way of telling readers who were not yet used to the conventions of fantasy and world-building to prepare themselves to enter a completely different world from their own, and a request to observe it without rendering judgement.
Supposedly he invented them as a teenager and couldn't bring himself to change the names later. Unknown if true. I love the book and have come to acccept the names and the lightweight worldbuilding; it just doesn't do to approach it with 21
thst century fantasy literature expectations.21th?
Yes, the twentifirth century, which began in the narrow waterways of coastal Scotland.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ah, but Tolkien is firmly 20th century fantasy literature. I think even Conan the Barbarian does better with naming conventions, though perhaps largely thanks to cribbing from actual cultures.
Nevertheless I will persist.
You're quite right, but keep in mind that The Worm Ourobouros predates The Hobbit and Conan both, by over a decade. And I really meant 21st century expectations - I don't think 1930s or 1940s readers would already have consumed a large number of works in a well-established genre of world-building fantasy that shaped their expectations like those of modern readers have been shaped. But I may be wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I just finished A Canticle For Leibowitz based on the recommendations of a few people here. I was genuinely surprised when I finished it and found out it was written in the 50s - the whole time, it felt like it was a more recent work for some reason. I was also surprised it was so Catholic, mainly because religion is so low these days, but coming from the 50s it makes more sense. I enjoyed the book quite a bit, though the transitions between the parts could be a bit jarring as you had to figure out what was going on. Particular favorite bits werethe scene where the monks activate the electric light while reciting Genesis 1 in Latin , and the part 3 abbot's explanation of the concept of redemptive pain to a suffering mother. Overall, solid book and I echo the other recommendations people have given here.
More options
Context Copy link
I've been reading Andy Weir's Hail Mary, since I liked Artemis. About 2/3 of the way through, and I think it's great! Good Sci-Fi, and the stakes are certainly exciting. I suppose the character development might be considered a bit weak, but eh, that's most Sci-Fi. The character does seem rather similar to the similarly isolated character from The Martian. It does also tempt me to make a more general post somewhere about nonlinear storytelling and how it's done well and poorly. Short version is, I think Weir's books are good examples of doing it well.
I also finished Day Of Ascension by Adrian Tchaikovsky. Feeling a little meh about it. It's an okay story I guess, but it seemed a little predictable, and it feels a little tough to get into that universe.
It's not bad as sci-fi, but I find the prose itself a bit uninspired, and the film is a much better film than the book is a book.
Blindsight is also a first contact story that's superficially similar in premise, but much beaker and more pessimistic, and the prose is a lot purple-er.
Tchaikovsky is someone I have a hard time liking for some reason, but I have to respect his hustle. Service Model felt like a drawn-out joke, but a good joke. Alien Clay was interesting until it got all ineffable and commie, and I found the villainous regime to be a bit cartoonish. Made Things was cute.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
About four-fifths of the way through Those Who Leave and Those Who Stay.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link