I find that Tolkien provides too much information for my tastes and it detracts from the story (that's just my opinion though).

I've actually heard a good handful of people here on the forum express similar opinions! I find it difficult to believe! I'm glad you at least gave the books a try, though. And yes, Sam is great. Much better than Frodo.

Scarlet said it's okay I'm not a fan of Jane Austen, because J.A. already has plenty. Scarlet is one of them. ... I keep hoping the style will grow on me. I tried to read both P&P and Emma, but never finished either of them.

I know how you feel. I did enjoy P&P and Northanger Abbey somewhat, but S&S and Emma are both... Meh. Apologies to all the big Austen fans on here, and I will try a couple more of her works, but I don't really find them that wonderful.

Yes, I think I have a couple hours to spare. *trots off to the library website and puts Leviathan on hold*

Sorry to mention this now, but I wanted to add one more [mild] warning about the book - there is a slight vibe of Girl Power. It's not anything serious, but I would say it is there. Considering Leviathan was written by a guy, I was surprised. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by anything of the sort anymore!
And re - Rolf: That book deserves a movie at least as much as Eagle of the Ninth! But a good movie.

I just got The Silver Branch (R. Sutcliff) on ILL. I've never read it, so I'm *excited!* After this one I'm going to ILL The Shield Ring.

Does anyone else have any interest in the following:
~ New books in the Dear America series/re-releasing of old titles in new format
~ Gail Carson Levine's May release, A Tale of Two Castles

both of which I just found out about. *Sigh* I am so behind.

Adeona: What exactly do you mean by a Girl Power vibe?

Just finished up Cassandra Clare's City of Glass and Clockwork Angel. I still really don't get why these books are so wildly popular. I wanted Clary and Jace dead, preferably painfully so, by the end of City of Glass and Clockwork Angel just set the whole passive female falls in love with an annoying jerk story in the past. Like Twilight, the few good characters are continually sidelined to focus on the never-ending angsty drama of the main characters' Twue Wuv and it's just irritating. Give me Buffy any day. She might have whined about her terrible love life, but at least at the end of the day she got up and kicked the monsters in the teeth. Speaking of Buffy, I noticed that at least one of the joke-y bits in the dialogue of City of Glass is a blatant paraphrase of a line from a Buffy episode. Any other author, I wouldn't think twice about this (I've done it myself on occasion in Ditto Town), but given Clare's background it's a bit disturbing. Hopefully Pamela Dean is watching Clare's new books like a hawk for ripped off bits of the Secret Country books.

And now I'm finishing up this year's reading with True Grit by Charles Portis.

What I'm conveying with that little phrase "Girl Power" is the sort of situation where a girl character, or female characters, are portrayed as more powerful/smarter/braver/etc. then the main guy character, or most guy characters in the story (who may be portrayed as emotional and/or in supportive or passive roles in relation to the female). This all comes about usually because the author is a feminist.
I hope that made a modicum of sense! If anyone else has a different opinion on the meaning, or would explain it differently, I'd love to see your take on the matter! I'm not all that good at explaining things.

Hmm, I didn't really get that when I read Leviathan. Not entirely sure why that would be a problem unless it was obvious that male characters and only the males were being degraded character-wise specifically to make the female character look better. Then it's just as sexist as the books in which the females are useless.

Which Lawhead books, Flam? We own almost everything he's written and I've read a great deal of that, so I could probably give you a recommendation.

What do you all think of Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising Sequence? I just finished a re-read of Over Sea, Under Stone, and I liked it quite alot. Something interestingly unique to Cooper is that her villains never seem quite human once they have revealed their "true colors". They're just so utterly evil and cruel, but the good people actualyl seem human. Maybe that's what separates them from each other.

I think Jane Austen grows on one. I was not impressed with P&P the first time I read it, but I've read it several times since... More times, in fact, than S&S which I did like the first time I read it.

Adeona, thanks for the warning about Leviathan. I can't say I'm too surprised by the thought that the author has some sort of agenda. I think I tend to read books assuming I'm not going to agree with the author's world-view and then I can be pleasantly surprised by the things I do like about the book.

I think it would be neat if there were a movie made from Rolf and the Viking Bow. It might be too slow paced a story for conventional movie-makers, though... it's been a long time since I read it last. You're going to read The Silver Branch? That's one of my favourite Sutcliff books. I read it before I read Eagle of the Ninth so it was interesting finding out what those characters never knew.

Booky, you've read Cassandra Clare? You are braver than I, considering that your review confirmed everything I suspected.

sweeet, I remember really enjoying The Dark is Rising sequence when was reading it five years ago. I think they have some of the best titles for a fantasy series. (I think I went through at least one of the books a month for a while. ) The Dark is Rising and The Grey King are my favourites. Unless it's Silver on the Tree that gets the second spot? I can't remember. I know Greenwitch was my least favourite. I think Cooper really nailed the malevolent atmosphere with her villains and the threat they posed to the heroes.

shastas: Alright, thanks. I'll prepare to be disappointed and depressed.

Mel: Thanks for the feed back on Belgariad. My aunt and uncle said they enjoyed the humor like you did. I read the back and it all looked like pretty unremarkable fantasy stuff (magic orbs and all that), but I'll give it a shot at some point. (What Wodehouse were you reading? I couldn't see where you mentioned it.)

Must be the high fantasy gettin' to you again, eh?

Actually, that's very perceptive of you. I did not make that connection. I thought, 'This is McKillip! Why don't I like it!' But now that I think about it, the things I objected to were the sort of 'epic fantasy world' creation stuff that just totally lost me. I actually find that very freeing. Knowing why I don't really care for it makes me feel better about not really going crazy for it.

*Joins the crew mourning for the loss of Gaiman's genius to the sordid topics* It really is a disappointment. He's so, so talented.

Val: I always thought of selkies as being an Irish thing. Though I could be wrong. (I think my perception of that is from the one movie I saw about them).

I very heartily agree with Mel about how Jane Austen grows on people. I think it's the language more than anything. If you're not accustomed to reading 19th century literature, it's going to be a long, slow affair. They were simply wordier back then, had different sentence structure and used different words. It's like a less extreme version of Shakespeare. Reading Shakespeare takes practice. I've grown accustomed to 19th century syntax. I picked up a Poe mystery story and read a few lines aloud to a friend who said promptly, "Uggh, I hate that kind of writing. It takes forever to say anything." I hadn't even noticed that it was at all different from a normal conversation. Austen, therefore, is fun for me.

I finished The Code of the Woosters. It was probably my least favorite Wodehouse yet. It was one long twisting story and the rescues that Jeeves usually so deftly engineers for Bertie were mostly circumstantial and not even really thanks to Jeeves.

Then I read The Tempest! Oh, I love, love, loved it! I'm feeling positively gushy about it! It's pure fantasy and the "world" that Shakespeare creates is just so strong and so atmospheric. It has the added element that it's still fresh. It hasn't really been copied over and over like some of his other plays. Sure, the romance is a little cliche and everything is a little anticlimactic with the usual 'Shakesperian comedy' happy ending, but it's just fabulous. It's so plot driven and the characters, particularly Caliban, Prospero, Ariel, Trinculo, and Gonzalo, are all so intriguing. It just has everything. Romance, magic, setting, character, and above all: plot. It is hands down my favorite Shakespeare with no comparisons even in sight. (Also, the movie looks really good. It looks very faithful and even Russell Brand seems like a good casting). I'm very interested to know what Ly will think of it.

I've actually heard a good handful of people here on the forum express similar opinions! I find it difficult to believe! I'm glad you at least gave the books a try, though. And yes, Sam is great. Much better than Frodo.

I really felt that Frodo was a much overrated character. There's not much to him to make you want to like him, and the only reason he is part of the expedition is that he was the one the ring was passed on to. Why couldn't it have been Sam? Could have made for much more interesting book.

I know how you feel. I did enjoy P&P and Northanger Abbey somewhat, but S&S and Emma are both... Meh. Apologies to all the big Austen fans on here, and I will try a couple more of her works, but I don't really find them that wonderful.

I've not read NA, but I have read S&S and P&P, and liked the former moreso than the latter. Elinor and Marianne are quite a lot like Djaq and myself personality wise, so that may have been part of it. I only made it about halfway through Emma, and found that I was too bored with it to continue. However, I was nearing the end of my classic novel spurt for the time being, so that may have had something to do with it.

Which Lawhead books, Flam? We own almost everything he's written and I've read a great deal of that, so I could probably give you a recommendation.

The Iron Lance and the first two books in the Pendragon series (I think that's what it's called?). I'm nearly 200 pages into TIL right now, and finding that while the story is good, it is not one that I'll be buying. The thing I dislike about Lawhead's work is that he allows his characters... *tries to think of how to put this appropriately*... a bit too much freedom in their personal relationships. I honestly disliked that one scene with Murdo and Ragna; too much detail, in my opinion.
On the flip side, what I do like about his books is that they are well written, and the stories seem to be very well thought out and researched.

--- flambeau

I really felt that Frodo was a much overrated character. There's not much to him to make you want to like him, and the only reason he is part of the expedition is that he was the one the ring was passed on to. Why couldn't it have been Sam? Could have made for much more interesting book.

Well, I haven't read the books yet; is Frodo like he is in the movie? Because his big problem was the ring, which Sam never had to bear for extended periods of time.

*die-hard Frodo fan*

@ Lucy of Narnia, I'm afraid that I wouldn't be the one to ask about that comparison, as I have not seen the movies. But yes, the ring was part of the problem, however I still felt that overall there was not much there regarding his character, whereas Sam pretty much leaped off the page and had so much personality that I just could not help liking him.
Mind you, that is not to say that I absolutely dislike the character of Frodo. One of my favorite scenes from the series is about him; the scene at the end of Fellowship after he has run away from Boromir (sp?) and is trying to decide what to do was great. I don't have the book with me, so I am unable to remember exactly how it goes, but I really liked it. That was probably the one and only Frodo highlight for me.
I just now realized as well that very little of the story is told from Frodo's perspective, and so I was unable to get to know his character as well as some of the others.

--- flambeau

Kate: Yeah, I'm not going to be terribly surprised if you end up not liking The Belgariad but I hope it gives you a few chuckles. For Wodehouse, I started with Damsel in Distress, moved on to Not George Washington (which I understand is supposed to be semi-autobiographical -- but if it is, it's hardly flattering, unless he's not the main character. ), and finished with Tales of St Austin's.

*agrees with flam on the subject of some of the morals exhibited by Lawhead's characters* That was my absolute biggest beef with his version of Hood. It seemed like he was adding stuff simply because he could, not because it added to the characters in any way, other than making me dislike them. I've read Taliesin, Merlin and Arthur... I thought those were pretty good if a bit depressing by the end of each book.

I would say that Book!Frodo is a much stronger character than Movie!Frodo, who does little besides stare at the character with tearful eyes and trembling lips. It's like having a Precious Moments figurine come to life. Sam will forever and always be my favorite of the two, but Book!Frodo has some really nice moments too. The scene at the Ford comes to mind, in which he defies the Nine even though he can barely stay on Asfaloth's back. To think they took Frodo's elegant speech their and gave us "If you want him, come and claim him!" from Arwen is a little heart-breaking.

It's been years since I last read The Dark is Rising series, but I loved them. To some extent, I think you could perhaps best describe it as Tolkien meets Lewis. Cosmic fantasy with children as the players instead of elves or assorted other high fantasy figures. I loved it. I hope that someday someone who actually understands and likes the books will be allowed to try their hand at transforming them into movies since the Walden film was nothing short of an abomination.

I've also read Leviathan and I don't think it has a Girl Power vibe. I'm a guy and I hate when guys portrayed negatively to uphold a feminist view. I can spot that a mile off. This book doesn't contain it, otherwise I would've thrown it across the room. Also, there are plenty of books written by men which contain pro-feminist ideals (and by feminisim I'm not talking about the original movement but the extreme anti-male version eg. all males are evil and are responsible for everything terrible in the world and if you're a male you should be ashamed of who you are ). That ignorance and stupidity annoys me greatly. Y: The Last Man is one such example of this extreme view.

Isn't that the comic book series in which all the world's men die and it's written as a good thing and causes a better world? Yeah, can you imagine if it was X: The Last Woman?

Yes, that's the one. It's a graphic novel series with an interesting premise. Just disappointing that the author used it as a propanganda piece to lambast the entire male population (himself included). Messed up!