nicked on 12/1/2016 at 07:22

---

I agree that there is a LOT of the Count of Monte Cristo, and a good editor could probably cut it in half and keep almost everything strictly required for the understanding of the story. But I really think you'd lose something in the process. I really loved the way all these incredibly distant tangents came together on the most tenuous of connections, because when you get to the end you realise just how utterly this ludicrously convoluted plot for revenge has consumed him. For me anyway, it really sold the lengths he was willing to go to, and the monumental difficulty of his task. I particularly enjoyed his final return to the Chateau d'If, filled with doubts about what he'd done, as if to put the question to the reader - do you think this was justified? Has he gone too far?

I found it interesting that the main thrust of the plot was loosely based on a true story of a guy who was wrongly imprisoned, and when he was released, tracked down the people who had him jailed, and simply murdered them. I can imagine a much weaker version of this story that followed that template more closely, but Dumas' hero and the complexity of his plan is something that is so much better, but could only exist in fiction.

The other thing is that I think your tolerance for the "padding" largely depends on how likeable you find the characters that aren't immediately related to the main plot. I found the writing and characterisation so enjoyable that I was willing to just go with it, even if I couldn't see where it was leading, but I can easily see the potential to be put off by almost anything from Italy onwards.

I wonder if different translations could be to blame - as I understand it, 75% of one's enjoyment of non-English classics is in finding a good quality translation. The version I read was the Penguin one, translated by Robin Buss, and I found the writing flowed really well at all times.

And I can't speak for the Three Musketeers as I've not read it (yet).

Fingernail on 13/1/2016 at 19:33

---

I'm pulling myself through the abysmally received "List of the Lost" by none other than Stephen Patrick Morrissey, and well, it's an odd experience.

I quite liked his Autobiography despite its latter half of scores settled and grudges justified, but in this there is a great deal of woolly verbiage that adds very little to the sense of place or character. In the end there aren't really any characters, no dramatic tension or build and many of the regular Morrissey themes are rather predictably touched upon (lack of trust in the media, police, judges, musings on aging, sexuality, vegetarianism and cruelty to animals etc. etc.).

Frustratingly there are passages or phrases which are quite striking or original, but they are lost within the whole and nothing is really of any consequence. I just don't care what happens to any of the young men who are the central characters, if the book has central characters. It's almost more like a prose poem than a novel (more like a novella in terms of length anyway), and he certainly has a style of sorts, even if it involves slightly-misused vocabulary for the sake of alliteration (which he laudably loves to deploy at any obtuse opportunity) or the occasional rhyme.

Not exactly recommended, one for the fans?

Sulphur on 13/2/2016 at 05:36

---

Space, eh? Try Hyperion by Dan Simmons, though that's more sci-fantasy tinged with horror than actual science fiction. Non-Stop by Brian Aldiss is a good read, sort of more Bioshock than System Shock in terms of the idea and execution though. And I've probably mentioned this three times already in this very thread, but The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester is my benchmark for a great SF novel. Fans of the Count of Monte Cristo would probably dig it, too.

demagogue on 13/2/2016 at 08:54

---

Funny you should mention that. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Killed_Don_Quixote)

BEAR on 14/2/2016 at 17:37

---

It would not really be too much in the same lines as System Shock, but I just finished (http://www.amazon.com/The-Quantum-Thief-Jean-Flambeur/dp/0765367661) The Quantum Thief Trilogy (well, only the first book is named that) and I highly recommend them. The first book was the best I think but all 3 are solid. They are so post-singularity that it can be hard to tell the difference between sci-fi and fantasy at times, but I absolutely love some of the themes of the books. I will say my biggest gripe with them was the over-use of some useless jargony words (like quantum especially, but a lot of other technical words as well) that may be accurate for the situation but for the post part are unnecessary. Still, the books have solid storytelling and still manage to get you invested in the characters even given the setting which makes it hard to pin down even who the characters are exactly. I would say if you take a crack at the first book and don't like it, don't bother with the next two. The next two are good and fill in some blanks in the world left by the first, but they follow a similar formula and if anything are more hand-wavy than the first.

I found the description of the Oubliette really interesting and the concept of using Time as a currency and the Quiet one of the better, saner descriptions of immortality that I've read so far. It ends up not being what it seemed but in a chaotic world where a mind meant almost nothing, it seemed like an actually decent place to live. I feel like sometimes that the story really started as several somewhat independent ideas, the Oubliette , the Zoku and the Sobornost as 3 different post-singularity existences and then they were put together in a way that was mutually exclusive that guaranteed conflict. Still I really liked it.