The Silmarillion isn't really a sequel or a prequel to LotR. It's a bit tough to explain. It's the mythology of Middle Earth. It takes place (I think) 10,000 years before LotR and is a fairly difficult book to read, in general. I love it, though.

The others... if you like "cute" don't even look at them. They're all brutal stories about war and betrayal that pull no punches whatsoever. The "heroes" in most of them would be villains in other stories.

Anyway, for more traditional fantasy stuff, I always liked Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, but it seems like the first books in those series are always the best and the rest just go downhill. I can't stand reading R. A. Salvatore's new books anymore.

That sounds pretty interesting.

No, I am not all about cute. I like a wide variety. I think villains are pretty awesome in general as long as they are not the bad, cartoony types that monologue and make horribly stupid mistakes.

I have read only a handful of the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance series, but I do love the series of them in general even though I have not read all of them.
I have not read any of his new books.

Well, in that case, I guess I can describe them a bit, though if you check my Anti-Fantasy thread in the book forum (which is what I call these books, even though they're firmly fantasy books) I went over them a lot there.

The Prince of Nothing is about a sociopathic monk who feels no emotions and is a genius at manipulating people inserting himself into a crusade and slowly convincing the crusaders that he's a god and taking control of the entire crusade for his own ends. Very dark, very psychological.

A Song of Ice and Fire is a medieval succession crisis/ power struggle sort of story with lots of scheming and backstabbing and main characters getting killed. There's no real good guys in it, everyone has their own agenda.

And The Malazan Book of the Fallen is just the biggest story I've ever read. I think it has over 1,000 characters, all told. It spans an entire world, with the various books jumping between continents and storylines. It's insanely epic with high-powered magic and gods playing a major part in the story. It's just... all kinds of awesome. I've never read anything else like it, and I highly recommend it to anyone who has the time to read a 10,000 page series.

Anyway, for Dragonlance the original Chronicles and Legends trilogy are great, but everything after that just kind of fell apart, I felt. And for Forgotten Realms, the Dark Elf trilogy was probably my favorite, especially Homeland for the way it sets up the Drow culture, but that series got old fast for me. Drizzt is just too invincible.

The Prince of nothing does not sound too appealing to me, but the other two do.
My husband likes Drizzt, but I am not sure how many of the books he has read.
I remember reading "Darkwalker on Moonshae" by Douglas Niles and could never find the second book in the series at my library.

I can understand that. I hesitate to really recommend the Prince of Nothing to anyone who isn't really into psychology and philosophy as well as fantasy, not to mention being able to tolerate what an awful, awful place the setting in those books is.

Oh, and A Song of Ice and Fire is currently being adapted for t.v. on HBO, it's been airing for seven weeks now and it's been pretty great so far. You might look into that to see if you like the story before committing to the books. The t.v. series is called Game of Thrones, which is the name of the first book.

As to Drizzt, I want to say he has 30 novels published about him now, and I think I've read all of them. Because I'm a masochist like that. Like, enough is enough, seriously. Write about a different character, man. I know he's an elf who'll live to be 1,000 but come on. It just gets boring after a while.

I've never read Douglas Niles though I've heard of him. The other 'Realms authors I've read are Ed Greenwood, Lisa Smedman, Tom Reid, and probably a couple of others I can't quite think of at the moment.

I like the idea of collection swords, but likely wouldn't do so myself unless we're talking little short guys like dirks and daggers. I have a buck-knife that was a christmas gift from dad for camping purposes and that's pretty much it. Though when I finally get my firearms license I'm sure I'll inherit a nice collection of those from my dad, and possibly a couple other relatives. Not sure I'd be inclined to use them for decoration though.

Oh, that is neat. I will have to see if it is on Netflix cause I do not have any tv other than that.

Yeah, it would get boring to read too much about one character.

I cannot recall what else I have read, but I do need to get back into reading more.

I don't think it's on Netflix yet (since I'd be watching it on there). I'd wager that once the series finishes airing in three weeks they'll get a hold of it.

It's really impressive to me so far, the acting and dialogue are just fantastic, and the sets and costumes really had a lot of work put into making them look real, you can tell.

Sounds pretty good. ^_^
I am waiting for so many things to come out on Netflix still.
Good acting and costumes are always really great!

Well, if you do end up watching it, do everything you can to avoid spoilers. There's some massive plot twists, and I had most of them ruined for me years before the show came out (which is when I got into the books, too).

Ah, alright. I do not normally look for any spoilers, that just takes the fun out of things.

Well, I never thought I would read the books before the show came out, so whenever someone was discussing the books online for whatever reason, I never made any effort to avoid spoilers.

Ah, that is a good idea.

-drools over all the sword pictures-

Umm, I mean..

I love looking at them, well made blades are wonderful to look at they just aren't under my interest for collecting.

-pokes thread-
Everyone needs to wake up! D:

Mm, sorry, I was out all day today (what?! Me leaving the house? Madness. :p). Haven't been able to check in.

Anyway, speaking of Game of Thrones above, has anyone caught that Camelot show on Starz? I think it's horrible, but maybe I'm missing something.

Nah, I haven't seen it. Maybe I should look it up.

Well, I can give a brief summary. Gonna try not to rant, unless anyone here really wants me.

It's basically a re-imagining of the Arthur myth, that's for one thing "darker-and-gritter" (read: gratuitous nudity at every opportunity), and for another plays around with the characters so much that the story bears almost no resemblance to any of the Arthur myths I've ever read, besides the characters' names.

Arthur is played by a model. Not an actor, a model. He's also supposed to be around 16 and spends more time trying to have sex than trying to run his country. He's arrogant, thick-headed, self-centered, and indecisive. This is the messianic king of Britain who's prophesied to return? Who would even want him?

What I really hate about it is that a t.v. series is the perfect way to tell the traditional myth, with all the various knights and their subplots, but instead, the producers have decided to turn out this sensationalist, two-dimensional garbage, probably to be able to be in "competition" with HBO's Game of Thrones, except... there really isn't any competition.

In the immortal words of Dennis the Peasant, "King of the who?"

That sounds...terrible. Unless you like gratuitous nudity I guess? But it seems like maybe it would have been better if they had called it something else instead of Camelot?

I know, that's what irks me is that now, there likely won't be an actual Arthurian t.v. series for... years, at least. The story would do great as a multi-season series, I think. It's just such a shame that they went in this direction.

And I am about as far from being a fan of gratuitous nudity as it's possible to be, so that's just another nail in the coffin for it, to me. It's so... juvenile of these networks to resort to that, like they're jumping up and down and saying "Look at me! Look what I can show that they can't show on cable!"

And, granted, HBO does the same thing with Game of Thrones, but at least in that show the sex scenes are used for character development, taking at least somewhat away from the gratuity element. In Camelot, they just serve no purpose whatsoever. I think it was episode 5 (the last one I watched, which was a couple of weeks ago) a few of Arthur's knights (none of whom have recognizable names from the myth) are staying in some lord's castle overnight, and then, all the sudden... look, naked dancers! Look, group sex! *rolls eyes*

On top of that, aren't the knights of the round table supposed to be paragons of Christian virtue? That seems woefully out of character. I could be wrong on that count, though, it's been years since I read the myths.

I'm not sure I ever read the myths but I'm sure they didn't have graphic sex in them -.- Nudity or sex for a reason is fine but just haveing it there as an aside or for fan service is just... ugh. Unfortunately I'm sure there's a lot of people who DO like that so they will watch it anyways >>

I've actually been told off for complaining about stuff like that in movies and t.v., numerous times. Calling scenes like that waste of time is apparently offensive to some people who... enjoy them... somehow. But, what do I know? I'm asexual. :p

I'm sure it all comes down to marketing and what not, anyway. Which is kind of depressing, in a way, but it's the way it is. Plus, those companies like HBO, Starz, and the like have a reputation for that sort of thing by now. They'd probably lose customers if they stopped indulging in it.

That's true, and you know, people have to pay extra for those channels so maybe they just want their porn there without paying even more extra xD

Well, I only have those 'cause my parents pay for whatever satellite package comes with them all. I rarely watch t.v., honestly. The only time I ever pick up new shows is when I have something recommended to me. If only I could remember who told me I would like Camelot... :p

And how much would you sell Helias' Armament for?

Okay, sounds good to me. I'll send a trade.

-doesn't watch TV much- Honestly, I sit in front of my TV for maybe an hour a month.

...I don't get why people like watching porn...

Dolly, do you have another extra I could buy off you as well? S'ok if you don't; was just wondering.

Some people enjoy porn, I guess? Personally I get a little sick thinking about watching other people have sex :P

Not entirely related, but I just thought of it, I saw a lecture from Richard Dawkins (biologist, writer, famous for being an atheist, maybe you've heard of him?) in which he theorized that eventually the human race is going to evolve past sexual desire. I can't remember the details unfortunately, since it was quite a while ago, but it was interesting.

Oh, and thank you kindly, Dolly. :)

Both, but ah well XD

@Suzerain, it seems like a credible theory considering that the major part of the sex drive is related to "passing on genes" or at least that's what they told me in Biology ^^; But then again I can't even have kids and I still have sexual urges so...who knows?

Yeah, I think he was talking on an evolutionary scale, so not in the foreseeable future.

At the moment, we're all still poorly-evolved primates. :p (As Christopher Hitchens likes to say, some more poorly than other. :p)

I can't stop giggling reading that Suzerain xD

As for a forseeable future, I'm sure you will be done with your quest in no time :3

That would be me.

[self-aggrandizement] That might also be me. :p [/self-aggrandizement]

Yeah, it's going a lot better than I thought it would. Never really poked my head into this forum before now.

Suzerain and Cupcake, you are both certainly higher than average intelligence from my point of view :3

I *wish* I could say I didn't want sex but I do, I just have no one to have it with -pouts-

Suzerain, did you get the Zephyr's sword yet? I should go check but I already wrote all this, I'll look after I submit this xD