%

I just finished re-reading the Artemis Fowl series to find that it seems even more awesome than the first time. The problem is, now I'm bored because I don't have any books that awesome to read now. D: So, what's a good book to read?

Depends on what kind of books you like.

My favorite series is the Sword of Truth saga by Terry Goodkind. It starts with Wizard's First Rule, but it's heavy fantasy/adventure stuff, so I don't know if that interests you.

If you liked Artemis Fowl, you'd probably like something along the lines of Dianna Wynne Jones's The Chronicles of Chrestomanci.

In terms of singular books, A Fistful of Sky by Nina Kiriki Hoffman is one of the best reads I've ever had. If you would like something that's probably a real departure from anything you've read before, try Rule of the Bone by Russel Brown or pretty much ANY book by Chuck Palahniuk (my favorites are Fight Club and Lullaby), but be warned: Palahniuk writes some of the most disturbing and out-there stuff you can imagine. Fight Club is among his best known works, but it's also one of his most tame books. It's a good introduction to him that isn't too overwhelming for the beginning Palahniuk reader to connect with. It was also made into a movie that's become this cult phenomenon and, though it was a good movie, it doesn't hold a candle to the original piece of writing. Also, Being There by Jerzy Kosiński is another book that's more well-known for the movie than for the source material, but it's a really good, short read with an interesting premise.

Haha, if you can't tell, I like really weird stuff. Even the most regular parts of my book collection usually have something quirky or off-beat about them. I tend to find books in the weirdest places, too. I found Being There (in perfectly good shape, I might add) on the side of the road when I was walking one day. Seriously, there was this book, just sitting there! It was a total WTF moment. xD

I might add that I like Artemis Fowl, too, but I have yet to read the latest installment. I don't like the direction Eoin took Artemis after, I think, The Eternity Code. I've read up to The Lost Colony, but Artemis's niceness is becoming a gag for the series. It's one thing to have a character like him grow up a bit and realize he doesn't have to be a complete jerk to everyone, but Artemis has become Mr. Nice Guy, which has totally killed the edge the character used to have. I guess you could say I'm a huge fan of anti-hero types. :3

Love & Life,
Rain/Eli ♥

What kind of books do you like?

Thanks for the ideas, Rainnose. I generally like books that are funny and have lots of action. Other books I like are the Warriors series of course, theHarry Potter series, the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series, the Maximum Ride series (probably my second favorite series), and I sort of like the Redwall series, but all the books have about the same plot and not-very-well-developed characters, as well as a lot of slow parts. As for genre I generally like fantasy and sci-fi, and I haven't read any historical fiction books that I liked musch. I hope that helps.

I really liked Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events, and it sounds like the kind of books you would like. I know they look like kid books, but they're actually really good.

Lemony Snicket is totally an adult-fiction author that poses as writing books for kids. A Series of Unfortunate Events has some of the blackest humor I've ever read (it's really delightful!) and very mature subtexts and underlying themes. The last book was a little disappointing, though, I thought. :/

Does anyone here actually read classical, real literature?

Like Jules Verne, H.G Wells, Jack London, etc, etc.

Am I alone?

I've already read those. :P I might re-read them, though. As for classics I've only read Robin Hood, and I'm not exactly sure if that counts. It was for school; I don't read classics much unless I have to.

Well, the Uglies series is a great read. Another great sci-fi book I'm reading right now is Skinned by Robin Wasserman. It can really get you thinking at some points.
There some realistic fiction I've been reading as well that's been really good. Tamar, 13 Reasons Why, and Water for Elephants are all on my top list, though the last title is a bit on the mature side. No Small Thing by Natalie Ghent is also a great book.
Another fantasy title I've enjoyed is the Inkheart series. I can tell just from the previews that they butchered the movie, but the series itself is great. I loved the last book.

But if you really want some good sci-fi, try Michael Crichton. Timeline, Jurassic Park... the books are as, if not more, as entertaining as the movies.

Lemony Snicket is good too. Though once when I read one in elementary school before going to bed, it gave me nightmares. XD But I agree about the ending. To get anything out of the series you had to think, and I mean really think. At least, that was how it was for me when I finished the series several years ago.

I've never heard of any of those people, Snowstar. ^^" Sorry.

...
......
..........

Haven't even heard of them?

Probably heard of their books, I'm guessing. But I'm really bad with author names. ^^"

What about Jerzy Kosiński, Oscar Wilde, Donatien Alphonse François (AKA Marqui de Sade), Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Aldous Huxley, Edgar Allen Poe...you know, "classic" writers who AREN'T outdated and irrelevant? (Obviously these are some of the more popular at any rate, there are lots of lesser known writers from the pre-modern era that have done wonderful work.)

Lawl, I'm just kidding. H.G. Wells and Jules Verne are pretty awesome. But these are authors that are better known for their WORK than for themselves. Who hasn't heard of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea or The Invisible Man? Sad thing is, most people don't know the names of the people who wrote those books, and even many fans of those writers don't know some of their less popular stuff. :/

But simply because something is "classic" does not mean it is quality. I will state here and now that Ernest Hemingway is the WORST writer. Ever. I would rather stick blazing needles coated with lead in my eyes than read another book by him. The point (hur hur, no pun intended) is that classic books are just like any other form of entertainment; they rely on preference, and if you don't like a certain style of writing, it doesn't matter when it was published, you aren't going to get much out of reading a book written in that format. Book snobs love to pretend that only Hemingway and Fitzgerald are real authors, but their pens were not gold. They worked and created in much the same way as any artist does, and some people will love the result and others will not. You don't have to know who Jules Verne is to appreciate the writers of today, who are just as, if not more, innovative than the "classic" authors of bygone times. :]

Kisses & Cuddles,
Rain/Eli ♥

P.S. Jack London was a socialist. Hee hee~. <3

Classic doesn't necessarily mean "real litterature", there's plenty of excellent books written in modern times... Trouble is, they're overshadowed by the popular crap like Twilight and whatever else sucks.

haaa, I tried reading a Jules Verne novel when I was 11. I got very bored and abandonned it. (The Mysterious Island) Maybe I'll try it again with a more mature mind...
As for other famous Frenchmen, I started Hugo's Les Miserables, but got so sidetracked with school and other books, I'm not even half-way through the first volume. It's pretty awesome though, I'm looking forward to picking it back up. <3 I'd continue it right now, but I now need to read The Count of Monte Cristo for French class. And I'm reading the original, so it's gonna take LOOOOONG TIME. I have a feeling I might just switch to the abridged version everyone else is reading.....xD

In English, I've read Dracula, but got very bored and never finished it.... Then there's a bunch of classic children's lit like the Little House books, Secret Garden, etc... Oh, and Heidi is a gem too. <3

YOU ARE NOT ALONE SNOWY

You say just because it was written by Verne, Poe, Skakespeare, or Hemingway, doesn't mean it's good?

Some of these authors lived hundreds of years ago. We still read their books today, and they are still widely (if not here) known.

In 100 years, I don't think anyone will remember Twilight, or Margaret Haddix, or Warriors for that matter. Doesn't that say something about their quality?

I guess you could say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but seeing as how these authors are remembered forever (or at least while humanity lasts), I think you can safely say that they are higher quality than a lot (not all, we will probably remember at least some of it) of modern writing.

So you measure an author's quality of writing by the legacy they leave behind? That's awfully prudish. The only reason those authors are well-known is because they pandered to a wider audience than others and thus received a higher profile which led to increased popularity. Are you implying that every underground, lesser-known writer of that era is of lower quality than the Fitzgeralds and the Hemingways? Conversely, by your logic, J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series is qualitatively on par with or above the popular classic writers of previous decades, as that book series is more widely known around the world than most of Hemingway's works, which are mostly popular in North America and not much elsewhere. Travel to Japan, heck, travel to New York, see if the common passerby can name one of Hemingway's characters. Then ask if they can name a character from Harry Potter.

Snowy, your argument shoots itself in the foot because it proposes that recognition is all that makes an artist. The fact is, some of the BEST writers are less well-known than others. Have you ever heard of Umberto Eco? I read his book, The Island of the Day Before, and let me tell you, he is one of the most proficient, creative, inspirational authors I have ever come across- but outside of academic circles and intellectual clubs, he's hardly known at all. Why is that? It's because his work speaks to a limited group of people. Most readers wouldn't get much out of his books because they aren't concerned with the deep philosophical and moral themes he references (I might add, MUCH deeper than most of the B.S. Hemingway spouts as thematic), or the way he speculates over the conditions humanity faces through both historical and modern reference points. As such, Umberto Eco is not "popular"- but he writes quality work.

Furthermore, by your logic, Britney Spears is more of a quality artist than Sofia Rotaru. Worldwide, Spears is better known. In the future, Spears will be talked about in areas and contexts that Rotaru will never reach. Whether you like it or not, that's the truth of the matter. Why? I think you and I would agree it's certainly not because Spears is a better musical artist, but because Spears was privileged with rising to fame in the world's largest music market, which, in turn, lent to her name being heard around the world.

Exposure does not a quality artist make. Plenty of writers and artists make very good work that never meets with a general audience. Remember that popularity is often more about luck and timing than about the person who benefits from it in the end. And it's precisely because of attitudes like yours that many artists struggle to rise from obscurity to exposure, because some people refuse to experiment with anything that doesn't already have society's stamp of approval. You create a very limited scope of opportunity both personally and on a wider level when you try to quantify everything by the mark it has left on society. Twilight has touched this younger generation in much the way that Ann Rice's books touched the generation before and Edgar Allen Poe's books touched three generations back. It doesn't matter whether Twilight has a continuous impact that extends fifty or a hundred years into the future: that has nothing to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the work that it is right now.

Totally, Dude,
Rain/Eli ♥