Quote from: Bren;1120905You are spoiled. I use Interlibrary Loan a lot, but even with it there are many older books that just aren't available.

Does your Interlibrary Loan program hook you into the state college system? That's where many of the older book collections can be accessed. Also, Maryland is a small state. Does your system allow you inter-state access? I've done federal level research so I hooked into those systems when necessary, but I've heard inter-state library loan systems for fiction do exist through some universities.

Also, how old of a book are you hunting? I know things get dicey when hunting pre-1920 and certainly any pre-Civil War publications.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1120903I disagree, even though I recognize the value of e-readers.

A dead tree book does one thing. It's a single book. In an age where kids especially are having trouble focusing and immersing, there is great value in having the kid read a dead tree book where they can't get distracted by the bells and whistles which most Kindles and e-readers have today. Dead tree books gives the child a solitary, quiet, slow experience so lacking in today's loud, fast world.

Even as an adult, I note a difference in reading books vs. reading online. I have drives clogged with PDFs and I read many thousands of business related pages annually, but there's something much more relaxing, meditative and immersive about the lack of screen time with a dead tree book.  

Maybe I'm wrong and its just geezer bias BUT I'd be interested if there have been any comparison studies, including biometrics and comprehension, for various ages regarding dead tree vs. e-reader.  

The only real difference between reading from a book and reading from an ereader that I have noticed is the ereader is usually lighter to carry and you dont need to bookmark your page.

I've always loved dead tree books. I worked in a used bookstore for years, and collected many hundreds. Eventually I purged all but a couple hundred of my favourites, but it was hard. Our kids love books too - their bedrooms are stacked with tottering piles of them.

However, Kindle has several significant advantages over hardcopies:

* I can set the font to a readable size. Many older paperbacks used tiny fonts and lines crammed together to save on page count. I'm too old to put up with that shit.
* I can read in bed without a nightlamp.
* I can get many out of print books that are hard to find otherwise. I just added a couple very hard to find Alfred Duggan historical novels to my Kindle wishlist.
* Best of all, you can download and read sizeable previews of any book you're considering buying.

This thread really makes me want to sort my bookshelves out and read some proper stories (Moorcock, Leiber) again! :cool:

I love the tiny trade paperback format of the 70s-80s, so comfy in the hand. Modern reprints are these giant slabs of wood.

So far:

[Well done print book] > [Well done e-reader] > [typical book] > [typical e-reader-ish thing] > [bad book]

Thing is, for a lot of books, "well done print book" is not an option--cost or layout or simply cross-referencing required.  So we are very much in the era of not only YMMV, but your mileage will vary substantially from title to title.

Quote from: jhkim;1120526Every work is always derivative of what went before. In the 1970s, we also tended to read things written in the past 30-40 years like Tolkien and Moorcock and so forth, which were copies of what went before. As Haffrung said earlier, no one in the 1970s read Eddison's Worm Ourobouros or Haggard's People of the Mist any more, let alone Chaucer or the Icelandic sagas. And Chaucer was just derivative of his predecessors. Mythology always evolves -- and there are new mythic figures that arise and evolve.

You are confusing inspiration with bad imitation. Yes, we all stand on the shoulders of giants.  Yes, good literature can be popular among mass audiences.  Yes, sometimes something is considered a classic just because it's old.  But this line of reasoning seems to say "If you think that Hamlet is deeper and more meaningful than 50 Shades of Grey than you're an ignorant old fuddy duddy!"  This is post-modern bullshit.  Learn to make qualitative distinctions.  A writer grounded in epic poetry, working through some significant life experience, is going to use fantasy very differently than someone just reproducing tropes he or she has seen a thousand times in other media.    

I also don't understand the argument that most people read shit therefore why bother suggesting that people read better shit.  If you want better muscles you lift weights.  If you want a better and richer imagination... well... as above so below.

I will say that this topic is definitely intimating a qualitative argument, albeit through eclectic and voracious reading habit. And I believe it is an argument that has merit for personal improvement.

It is easy to forget that nowadays people read more for everyday life than they ever really had before: e.g. texting alone now exceeding phone calls therefore dwarfs all previous ages of literacy, even down to a per capita basis. Throw in internet reading and the eclipse is overwhelming. People read so much that they try to get away from it because it feels like work; the READ TO ACCESS fun, from TV onscreen remote functions, video games, internet, smart phone, etc.

The challenge to encourage reading is trying to explain that: a) the act itself can be fun, relaxing, b) the variety of stories locked within can be enriching, c) there is something lost in translation from media to media. Old arguments, but each of them hold nuance, the latter two of them emphasizing a qualitative experience.

The first, the act as pleasure, is a hard sell in this age except as a contemplative, almost meditative act. It's just fatigue from a required skill of this age. You need to cultivate a deeper awareness, a desire for self-reflection, before you can ask the human to self-reflect on its survival tools.

The second is where you can work some agreement. People are in general open to know that there is more than they don't know. With a way to save them time from sifting and getting up to speed you build trust. Hence why I feel critiques, reviews, recommendations, and audiobooks are great ways to develop that love of stories and knowledge (fiction and non-).

The third is something that requires some breadth and depth of experience to fertilize a self-reflection for this next step. Thankfully there are (were ) known properties that crossed multiple media with decent degrees of fidelity: e.g. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter books, etc. These can be used to highlight the usually unseen differences between media, and then highlight how those differences are useful tools for different expression (with their own strengths and weaknesses). So you can point out how movie, book, stage play, video game, RPG, vary from each other and how that is beautiful as each is, with now understood limitations and all.

The main current cultural problem is: a) a the lack of curiosity, b) utter corruption and distrust of critical review, and c) blithe indifference to nuance between mediums. If the past is de facto evil, recommendation must hold party line to substance regardless of style, and all expected equal without regard to power, capacity, et alia, the end result will be belligerent ignorance frustrated with anything beyond its understanding of "the lowest common denominator." Tyranny of the willfully ignorant where the lone charismatic is king, a fertile soil for incurious despotism.

Get the new GMs reading! But meet them halfway, better a stairway than a wall. Rebuild that lost curiosity, trust, and nuance. But that requires knowing your audience, building rapport, and walking them out through that dark valley.

Quote from: BrendanFantasy ultimately has its roots in the poetic and the mythic, and without a line back to that source it just gets more derivative. It's like that line from Fight Club, everything becomes a copy of a copy of a copy.

Quote from: jhkimEvery work is always derivative of what went before. In the 1970s, we also tended to read things written in the past 30-40 years like Tolkien and Moorcock and so forth, which were copies of what went before. As Haffrung said earlier, no one in the 1970s read Eddison's Worm Ourobouros or Haggard's People of the Mist any more, let alone Chaucer or the Icelandic sagas. And Chaucer was just derivative of his predecessors. Mythology always evolves -- and there are new mythic figures that arise and evolve.

Quote from: Brendan;1121008You are confusing inspiration with bad imitation. Yes, we all stand on the shoulders of giants.  Yes, good literature can be popular among mass audiences.  Yes, sometimes something is considered a classic just because it's old.  But this line of reasoning seems to say "If you think that Hamlet is deeper and more meaningful than 50 Shades of Grey than you're an ignorant old fuddy duddy!" This is post-modern bullshit.  Learn to make qualitative distinctions.

That's just you shoving words into my mouth, and stupid ones at that. I claim that fantasy fiction of the 200s has no more or no less of a line back to the poetic and the mythic as fantasy fiction of the 1970s. Modern fantasy novels like American Gods or Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell might not be to your tastes -- but they draw on the poetic and the mythic in the same way that 1970s writers did -- by life experiences and by reading older works and synthesizing new ideas from them.

If you don't like Gaiman or Clarke, fine -- I'm not saying that you have to like it, but characterizing all modern fiction as 50 Shades of Grey is traditionalist bullshit.

I liked those novels. Among others, I thought Pratchett's later work (in the 21st century) was better than his older work, and stands out. Among other modern fantasy, I enjoyed the Temeraire series and other novels by Novik, plus Walter Moers amusing Zamonia series (which is very much filled with myth and poetry).

If you love books and memes, here's memes about book reading.

BTW, has there been a "MUST READ" original fantasy book in the 21st century? I mean outside of Harry Potter which began in the 1990s or GoT books which also began last century. I'm asking about specifically a post-2000 novel that's considered "must read" and deserves its accolades.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1120908Does your Interlibrary Loan program hook you into the state college system? That's where many of the older book collections can be accessed. Also, Maryland is a small state. Does your system allow you inter-state access? I've done federal level research so I hooked into those systems when necessary, but I've heard inter-state library loan systems for fiction do exist through some universities.

Also, how old of a book are you hunting? I know things get dicey when hunting pre-1920 and certainly any pre-Civil War publications.

No and no. University main libraries aren't nearly as concerned with weeding their collection so it was better when I lived in a university town. Currently I'm not hunting any old books. When I was it was usually something in this century, but some were pre-1920.

Quote from: Shasarak;1120909The only real difference between reading from a book and reading from an ereader that I have noticed is the ereader is usually lighter to carry and you dont need to bookmark your page.

I use my Kindle a lot, but I can't as easily flip between pages in different portions of the book and maps and illustrations don't display as well as they do in a dead tree version.

I think, just READING a game rather than playing it is weird.

Like, "I'll buy that for a dollar" but it never gets run.

You usually need to approach a game tablewise.

What is the game? How does it work?

Hasn't the "e readers are going to kill off physical books" thing kind of faded away? I heard about it constantly during the late 00s and early teens, but not so much during the last 7 years or so.

Regarding classic fantasy, I can't believe that I never got to read Howard's original Conan stories before Del Rey published their trade paperback collections. All I'd seen was the L. Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter stuff. I was amazed at how Howard's stories move. You start reading one and it's incident on action on set piece until all of a sudden you've reached the end.

Quote from: jhkim;1121021That's just you shoving words into my mouth, and stupid ones at that. I claim that fantasy fiction of the 200s has no more or no less of a line back to the poetic and the mythic as fantasy fiction of the 1970s. Modern fantasy novels like American Gods or Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell might not be to your tastes -- but they draw on the poetic and the mythic in the same way that 1970s writers did -- by life experiences and by reading older works and synthesizing new ideas from them.

If you don't like Gaiman or Clarke, fine -- I'm not saying that you have to like it, but characterizing all modern fiction as 50 Shades of Grey is traditionalist bullshit.

Then we're talking past each other, and you're putting words in MY mouth.  I never said "all modern fiction [is] 50 Shades of Grey".  

What I did say was in response to someone pointing out that the classic fantasy authors are not often read.  To which I replied:

Quote from: Brendan;1120515Generally true but unfortunate as they're missing out.  Most modern fantasy is schlock.

And MOST of it is.  Most of the work produced in the past was crap too, but this is the advantages of time.  It allows you to weed out more of the crap.  There will always be exceptions, but generally speaking if a long dead fantasy author is still regarded as worth reading, there's a reason for it.  Of COURSE Neil fucking Gaiman is worth reading, and he WILL be remembered.  

Someone then pointed out that most people don't even read fantasy today, but get their "fantasy kick" from anime and video games to which I responded...

Quote from: Brendan;1120515Yeah and IMO, this has also lead to an overall loss of quality.  Fantasy ultimately has its roots in the poetic and the mythic, and without a line back to that source it just gets more derivative.  It's like that line from Fight Club, everything becomes a copy of a copy of a copy.

But you then said, replying to me directly:

Quote from: jhkim;1120526Every work is always derivative of what went before. In the 1970s, we also tended to read things written in the past 30-40 years like Tolkien and Moorcock and so forth, which were copies of what went before. As Haffrung said earlier, no one in the 1970s read Eddison's Worm Ourobouros or Haggard's People of the Mist any more, let alone Chaucer or the Icelandic sagas. And Chaucer was just derivative of his predecessors. Mythology always evolves -- and there are new mythic figures that arise and evolve.

And it is with this statement that I took exception.  First, these works are not "copies", although I'm willing to let that particular term slide.  Your claim that "no one" reads Eddison is well... wrong.  I've read Eddison and Cabill and Dunsany and Homer.  I'm sure well read people (like fantasy authors) in the 70s were reading them too.  They show up in Appendix N for a reason.  I've also read George RR Martin and Gaiman and plenty of other modern authors.  One only has so much time on this earth.  I don't see the problem with telling people to pass on the next "Young Adult" fantasy "secret chosen one must save the multi-verse with the magic mcGuffin while learning to love" crapfest and read THIS instead:


"And little he knew of the things that ink may do, how it can mark a dead man's thought for the wonder of later years, and tell of happenings that are gone clean away, and be a voice for us out of the dark of time, and save many a fragile thing from the pounding of heavy ages; or carry to us, over the rolling centuries, even a song from lips long dead on forgotten hills."
Lord Dunsany, The King of Elfland's Daughter

Lord Dunsany is really fun to read. Highly recommended to anyone who enjoys fantasy.

Most of his stuff is free online too.

Quote from: jhkimThat's just you shoving words into my mouth, and stupid ones at that. I claim that fantasy fiction of the 200s has no more or no less of a line back to the poetic and the mythic as fantasy fiction of the 1970s. Modern fantasy novels like American Gods or Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell might not be to your tastes -- but they draw on the poetic and the mythic in the same way that 1970s writers did -- by life experiences and by reading older works and synthesizing new ideas from them.

If you don't like Gaiman or Clarke, fine -- I'm not saying that you have to like it, but characterizing all modern fiction as 50 Shades of Grey is traditionalist bullshit.

Quote from: Brendan;1121338Then we're talking past each other, and you're putting words in MY mouth.  I never said "all modern fiction [is] 50 Shades of Grey".  

What I did say was in response to someone pointing out that the classic fantasy authors are not often read.

OK, I think we are talking past each other. I don't want to put words into your mouth, and it's not even clear to me that our tastes in fiction differ very much.

Quote from: Brendan;1121338Most of the work produced in the past was crap too, but this is the advantages of time.  It allows you to weed out more of the crap.  There will always be exceptions, but generally speaking if a long dead fantasy author is still regarded as worth reading, there's a reason for it.  Of COURSE Neil fucking Gaiman is worth reading, and he WILL be remembered.

Fair enough. There's good and bad works of every age, for sure, and I agree that time has a way of weeding out much (though not all) of the schlock.

I don't feel that modern writers and readers are any better or any worse overall than in the 1970s. The worrisome problem is that on average, people are reading *less*. I feel like that's the major issue to confront.