Page 1 of 3 << [1] [2] [3] >>

Date: 2007-03-01 05:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] razorsmile.livejournal.com
I voted for the Bakker and of course, Blindsight. Both books cover surprisingly similar themes despite being so enormously different in genre and subject matter. Also, both were just pretty goddamn good books.

Date: 2007-03-01 07:01 pm (UTC)
owlfish: (Default)
From: [personal profile] owlfish
I've only read one of the books on this list and felt ambivalent about it. I have several more lying around to be read, however.

I voted based on which list was more appealing, based on what I've read and heard about the books on them.

Date: 2007-03-01 07:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stegoking.livejournal.com
The readers list is ever so much better that it's absurd to even compare them. Any list of the best of 2006 that lacks Blindsight, The Lies of Locke Lamora, and The Thousandfold Thought is a list to throw away.

Granted, the Readers List ought to have Empire of Ice Cream and The Road, but the editors screwed up putting them 6th and 10th respectively, so they barely get any credit there. A biography as the best genre fiction book of the year, however good it may be, is bloody absurd.

Date: 2007-03-01 08:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com
The only ones I've read off this list are Girl Genius which I found mostly underwhelming with occasional interesting moments, and Farthing, which was only good once I got to the end (cumulative quality -- an interesting thing, were the book only really becomes worth reading once you've actually read it) and at that point was good, but not great. I normally love Jo's stuff, but I'm not sure why this didn't spark. It felt vastly less inventive than previous eforts, even though I know it had a lot of terribly clever stuff going on.

Date: 2007-03-01 08:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com
Temeraire and Forest Mage are books I am looking forward to reading, though I don't generally recommend Robin Hobb except to fantasy readers.

Date: 2007-03-01 08:11 pm (UTC)
wychwood: a room completely full of books (gen - stacks of books)
From: [personal profile] wychwood
Caveat being that I've only read three and a bit (I've read the Ford story, but not the book) of the books listed *g*. I'm looking forward to several more of them, though.

Date: 2007-03-01 09:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com
I anti-recommend Hobb's book, and I like some of her other books a lot. How shall I phrase this...?

HORRIBLE. AWFUL. DREADFUL.

Boring, slow, really slow, I hate the hero, and nothing happens in the entire VERY LONG book except every single person he meets berating him for being fat and occasionally trying to kill him because he's fat, while he has magical eating dreams and berates himself for being fat.

Date: 2007-03-01 09:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com
I loved Temeraire, but Forest Mage was disappointing (see below.) And I do often like Hobb.

Date: 2007-03-01 11:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kelyantar.livejournal.com
I'm a little embarrassed to admit that of all of these, I've only read Forest Mage, and can't in any way recommend it. (Sad to say...I love Robin Hobb)

I've heard good things about the Susanna Clarke stories and Lies of Locke Lamora, from intelligent people.

Date: 2007-03-02 12:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ninebelow.livejournal.com
I think this is the first time in four years I haven't voted in the editors' poll. I just don't read enough new stuff quick enough. The editors' poll is obviously better though.

Date: 2007-03-02 12:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] frogworth.livejournal.com
Of course, the question is: to whom? I "recommended" all the books I thought were quite good, but there are some I wouldn't recommend to certain people: Girl Genius, in particular, I enjoy, but it's very fanfic-like really, quite weak in its writing; I just kinda like ol' Foglio. And the Grimwood for once I thought was quite weak, more incoherent and incompletely-realised than usual

Date: 2007-03-02 12:40 am (UTC)

Date: 2007-03-02 03:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stegoking.livejournal.com
Not at all. 6 and ten are good. The rest are questionable on the editors poll.

Date: 2007-03-02 09:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] grahamsleight.livejournal.com
Of the books you've read on the editors' list, which do you think should not be there?

Date: 2007-03-02 09:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] coalescent.livejournal.com
Any list of the best of 2006 that lacks Blindsight, The Lies of Locke Lamora, and The Thousandfold Thought is a list to throw away.

It's a list of best books of the year, not best genre fiction of the year. And while I admire your dedication to objective truth in matters that many would consider subjective, I find it hard to fault anyone for thinking the Tiptree bio is a better book than any of those three. And I really, really like Blindsight.

Date: 2007-03-02 09:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] coalescent.livejournal.com
It's weird that they insist on calling it an editors' poll when it's really a contributors' poll.

Date: 2007-03-02 09:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] coalescent.livejournal.com
Of course, the question is: to whom?

Well, yes. I suppose one way of looking at the first question is "which list do you think it would be better to recommend to A. N. Reader?" To which I think the answer has to be the editors' list, for variety if nothing else.

Date: 2007-03-02 09:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] coalescent.livejournal.com
I'm slightly surprised Farthing and Temeraire are beating the Tiptree bio, I have to say.

Date: 2007-03-02 09:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] coalescent.livejournal.com
Also, as official arbiter of poll-related things, what's your take on this fancy-schmancy "view answers on same page" thing lj seems to have instituted?

Date: 2007-03-02 10:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ninebelow.livejournal.com
This is the communist utopia of the interwebs: we are all editors now.

Date: 2007-03-02 10:06 am (UTC)

Date: 2007-03-02 10:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] grahamsleight.livejournal.com
I had a quick look at the two to try to break them down by genre. My initial hypothesis was that the readers' list skewed more to fantasy, and the editors' list more to sf. Actually, breaking them down fantasy: sf: weird unclassifiable stuff: non-fiction, the readers' splits 5:4:1:0, the editors' 3:3:5:1. Moral, based on an admittedly small sample: critics don't like (broadly) "straight down the line" fantasy, do like weird unclassifiable stuff. Given the extent to which fantasy publishing is expanding, does this mean critics are out of touch? Dunno.

Date: 2007-03-02 10:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] grahamsleight.livejournal.com
No, I'm Spartacus.

Date: 2007-03-02 10:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] coalescent.livejournal.com
I think I have different boundaries for fantasy/weird than you do, because I get 6:4:0:0 and 5:5:1:1. The big difference is what I am reluctant to call "traditional genre fantasy novels", where the readers have 5 and the editors have, arguably, none.

Date: 2007-03-02 10:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snowking.livejournal.com
I've only read one and frankly, I wouldn't put Locke Lamora on a list of Best Books Featuring Dudes Called Locke Lamora.

Have you got a copy of Glasshouse for me to nick?
Page 1 of 3 << [1] [2] [3] >>

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Profile

coalescent: (Default)
Niall

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Page generated Jan. 31st, 2026 11:13 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
March 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 2012