Successful Cambridge Applicants Chat - 2006
Scroll to see replies
I need to get the grades first so ill post one then!!
Oooh, I like your picture nooni, I love doing 'arty' stuff with photos. I had a Paint Shop Pro trial that lasted a year longer than it should have.. but then it suddenly stopped working. Wah. So now I rely on Paint.
Oh, and thanks for all the nice comments about the hair, everybody. Although, I have to add.. it's not like it's particularly unique, if you get what I mean. It's not like there are another 1.6 billion people about there with black hair. Okay, maybe not everyone grows their hair v. long, but still.. you get the picture.
Oh, and my arms and legs TOTALLY ache from 2 hours of badminton on Sunday. Plus, I did something to my knee and now it really hurts when I kneel down. And maybe I'm a bit insane to do 2 hours of dance on Friday, then 2 hours of badminton on Sunday..... I'm so going to die of exhaustion.
Plus, the procrastination thing is TOTALLY happening. I mean, my biology practical (no, noo, NOOO!!!) is tomorrow, and I just did my reading for it this evening. And a very half-assed attempt at doing some preparation for it. And WHY did the teachers set such a weird, NON-QUANTITATIVE experiment? Seriously, it isn't quantitative! And the whole C section of the mark is about how you can make the experiment quantitative! Argh!! There's a lot of hatred for this at the moment.
Plus, it's about wine-making. So I go on wikipedia and read all about the different kinds of hops and malts they use for making beer, and the different kinds of wines and stuff. I started writing about how Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a top-fermenting yeast and stuff like that. Which isn't on the A-Level syllabus (and hence won't get me any marks)I get distracted too easily.
Ooh, and I haven't posted/read TSR for, like, 2 days. That's a new record for me! It was because my free time was dedicated to reading a really, really good book (but irrelevant to my A-Levels, dammit, unless there's an A-Level on BDSM prostitution) called Kushiel's Dart by Jacqueline Carey. I really enjoyed this book. My favourite fantasy author's Terry Goodkind, and if you like him, you'll like Carey.
It's got a celibate warrior-priest in it, who's got long blond hair and blue eyes. And fights like flowing water.
Oh, and I really, really MUST read Jane Eyre now. So guilty that I haven't read it! I heard about this series of documentaries on history of romantic fiction being made for BBC4 and how they were looking for 'real romance readers' etc. to express some opinions, so I got in touch and they asked me a few questions, to which I wrote a HUGE email back writing far more than they'd ever want!
Maybe I'm self-obsessed. I love talking about me too much.
Oh, and thanks for all the nice comments about the hair, everybody. Although, I have to add.. it's not like it's particularly unique, if you get what I mean. It's not like there are another 1.6 billion people about there with black hair. Okay, maybe not everyone grows their hair v. long, but still.. you get the picture.
Oh, and my arms and legs TOTALLY ache from 2 hours of badminton on Sunday. Plus, I did something to my knee and now it really hurts when I kneel down. And maybe I'm a bit insane to do 2 hours of dance on Friday, then 2 hours of badminton on Sunday..... I'm so going to die of exhaustion.
Plus, the procrastination thing is TOTALLY happening. I mean, my biology practical (no, noo, NOOO!!!) is tomorrow, and I just did my reading for it this evening. And a very half-assed attempt at doing some preparation for it. And WHY did the teachers set such a weird, NON-QUANTITATIVE experiment? Seriously, it isn't quantitative! And the whole C section of the mark is about how you can make the experiment quantitative! Argh!! There's a lot of hatred for this at the moment.
Plus, it's about wine-making. So I go on wikipedia and read all about the different kinds of hops and malts they use for making beer, and the different kinds of wines and stuff. I started writing about how Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a top-fermenting yeast and stuff like that. Which isn't on the A-Level syllabus (and hence won't get me any marks)I get distracted too easily.
Ooh, and I haven't posted/read TSR for, like, 2 days. That's a new record for me! It was because my free time was dedicated to reading a really, really good book (but irrelevant to my A-Levels, dammit, unless there's an A-Level on BDSM prostitution) called Kushiel's Dart by Jacqueline Carey. I really enjoyed this book. My favourite fantasy author's Terry Goodkind, and if you like him, you'll like Carey.
It's got a celibate warrior-priest in it, who's got long blond hair and blue eyes. And fights like flowing water.
Oh, and I really, really MUST read Jane Eyre now. So guilty that I haven't read it! I heard about this series of documentaries on history of romantic fiction being made for BBC4 and how they were looking for 'real romance readers' etc. to express some opinions, so I got in touch and they asked me a few questions, to which I wrote a HUGE email back writing far more than they'd ever want!
Maybe I'm self-obsessed. I love talking about me too much.
On the bright side, you get to learn how to make wine... 
I get to learn about swimming mayfly nymphs.
I get to learn about swimming mayfly nymphs.
College applied to: St Edmund's
Course: BA Philosophy
Conditions: Completion of Bachelor of Theology (which I already have completed)
Deferred entry? no
Nationality: Australian
Where are you living right now: Sydney, Australia
A few details about yourself: umm i'm 25 , an aussie, looking forward to going to cambridge
Course: BA Philosophy
Conditions: Completion of Bachelor of Theology (which I already have completed)
Deferred entry? no
Nationality: Australian
Where are you living right now: Sydney, Australia
A few details about yourself: umm i'm 25 , an aussie, looking forward to going to cambridge
sassygirl
Oooh, I like your picture nooni, I love doing 'arty' stuff with photos. I had a Paint Shop Pro trial that lasted a year longer than it should have.. but then it suddenly stopped working. Wah. So now I rely on Paint.
.
.
I think i am addicted to Paint shop pro.. so good for wasting even MORE time..
I agree. And I do think that Goodkind is rather political.. but when I initially read him, that didn't sink in at all (the political part that is). I was 13 at the time (a bit young, perhaps, to be reading his stuff???). I think it's ony the conflicts between D'Hara and the Imperial Order that gets him all anti-communist and stuff. But disregarding his political tendencies and such, the stories are good, and they're decently written.
In my opinion, the biggest mistake fantasy writers make is to create bland main characters. Actually, JK Rowling springs to mind for this. Harry Potter is the most boring character in the entire series, personality-wise. Rand Al'Thor is also bland. A lot of fantasy characters feel like, to me, marionettes in the author's hands wandering around a world so that the reader can experience the coolness of the fantasy world. Tolkien's like this, I think. I can't read 'serious' Tolkien--I can take Hobbits, I enjoy reading about them. But as soon as he gets to serious, dangerous, discussion-y, poetry stuff.. I just switch off and yawn.
On the other hand, Goodkind has some truly fabulous protagonists. I don't particularly like Richard or Kahlan despite them actually having interesting personalities (the main characters)--they annoy me after a while, but the Mord-Sith. OMFG do they ROCK. They corrupted my innocent mind, but they totally ROCK. Cara is easily the best character in the series. Sister Nicci is also cool.
That said, I've sort of out-grown Goodkind now. I used to be obsessed with Goodkind--and re-read him over and over again--but I'm less amazed by Richard's intelligence and the long speeches than I used to be. And I don't re-read his books any more.
Genre fiction in general is ignored by academia. I think this is a very, very big mistake because genre fiction is read a lot more than literary fiction. So by dismissing genre fiction as second-rate, the literary establishment is shooting themselves in the foot. People are always going on about how teenagers don't read enough. If they were encouraged to read FUN stuff rather than serious, less entertaining fare. I mean, it's like the Oscar-bait movies. They don't really make much money (there are exceptions, e.g. Titanic, LOTR but these are rare). It's the commercial, pop-corn movies that make money and put bums on seats.
I like reading more than watching TV or watching movies.
Oh, and I read just today an interesting short essay someone wrote about the fantasy genre.
http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/561520.html
Here's the best bit, I think:
"Readers new to sf often have difficulty reading the world-building, because they are used to a reading protocol in which what is extraneous or unusual is assumed to be metaphorical. In sf, the details of world-building are not metaphorical, or they are only metaphorical in subservience to the literal; they are no more "incidental" than "throwaway" character detail is in the realist novel of character. (This is how you can tell sf written by a mainstream writer who hasn't read sf: all the changes to society are first-order changes, and they're often transparent allegories of current situations, to boot.)
In world-building genres, the throwaway detail is not a metaphor but an argument about the nature of the world; about society, politics, perception, individuals, and history. It is an argument that the individual is not ahistorical; that ideology is shaped by history and society; that people cannot be examined separate from their surroundings. You could claim this is the argument of all fiction, but mainstream fiction tends to focus on personal history as labile whereas sf/f/historicals foreground the impact of social and cultural history."
In my opinion, world-building can only feed my book-craving mind for so long. My primary feed nowadays is romance, and I expect it shall be for a long time. There's quite a lot of fantasy/sci-fi/paranormal romance at the moment. For example, Marjorie M. Liu, who wrote X-MEN books (OMG I love x-men) writes paranormal romances now. And there are some resemblances to X-Men still, but with a backbone of romantic conflict (and of course, the happy ending).
I'm totally obsessed with talking about genre-fiction, and literary fiction and how genre fiction is abused and so on and so forth. I wrote my English coursework on why romance novels shouldn't be dissed.
In my opinion, the biggest mistake fantasy writers make is to create bland main characters. Actually, JK Rowling springs to mind for this. Harry Potter is the most boring character in the entire series, personality-wise. Rand Al'Thor is also bland. A lot of fantasy characters feel like, to me, marionettes in the author's hands wandering around a world so that the reader can experience the coolness of the fantasy world. Tolkien's like this, I think. I can't read 'serious' Tolkien--I can take Hobbits, I enjoy reading about them. But as soon as he gets to serious, dangerous, discussion-y, poetry stuff.. I just switch off and yawn.
On the other hand, Goodkind has some truly fabulous protagonists. I don't particularly like Richard or Kahlan despite them actually having interesting personalities (the main characters)--they annoy me after a while, but the Mord-Sith. OMFG do they ROCK. They corrupted my innocent mind, but they totally ROCK. Cara is easily the best character in the series. Sister Nicci is also cool.
That said, I've sort of out-grown Goodkind now. I used to be obsessed with Goodkind--and re-read him over and over again--but I'm less amazed by Richard's intelligence and the long speeches than I used to be. And I don't re-read his books any more.
Genre fiction in general is ignored by academia. I think this is a very, very big mistake because genre fiction is read a lot more than literary fiction. So by dismissing genre fiction as second-rate, the literary establishment is shooting themselves in the foot. People are always going on about how teenagers don't read enough. If they were encouraged to read FUN stuff rather than serious, less entertaining fare. I mean, it's like the Oscar-bait movies. They don't really make much money (there are exceptions, e.g. Titanic, LOTR but these are rare). It's the commercial, pop-corn movies that make money and put bums on seats.
I like reading more than watching TV or watching movies.
Oh, and I read just today an interesting short essay someone wrote about the fantasy genre.
http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/561520.html
Here's the best bit, I think:
"Readers new to sf often have difficulty reading the world-building, because they are used to a reading protocol in which what is extraneous or unusual is assumed to be metaphorical. In sf, the details of world-building are not metaphorical, or they are only metaphorical in subservience to the literal; they are no more "incidental" than "throwaway" character detail is in the realist novel of character. (This is how you can tell sf written by a mainstream writer who hasn't read sf: all the changes to society are first-order changes, and they're often transparent allegories of current situations, to boot.)
In world-building genres, the throwaway detail is not a metaphor but an argument about the nature of the world; about society, politics, perception, individuals, and history. It is an argument that the individual is not ahistorical; that ideology is shaped by history and society; that people cannot be examined separate from their surroundings. You could claim this is the argument of all fiction, but mainstream fiction tends to focus on personal history as labile whereas sf/f/historicals foreground the impact of social and cultural history."
In my opinion, world-building can only feed my book-craving mind for so long. My primary feed nowadays is romance, and I expect it shall be for a long time. There's quite a lot of fantasy/sci-fi/paranormal romance at the moment. For example, Marjorie M. Liu, who wrote X-MEN books (OMG I love x-men) writes paranormal romances now. And there are some resemblances to X-Men still, but with a backbone of romantic conflict (and of course, the happy ending).
I'm totally obsessed with talking about genre-fiction, and literary fiction and how genre fiction is abused and so on and so forth. I wrote my English coursework on why romance novels shouldn't be dissed.
It didn't sink in when I first read him either - read the first couple when younger, liked them (they had swords and spells in). Then got lent Faith of the Fallen when I was about 16. Some people can distance themselves from the 'message' of a book, film, etc. I can't - its usually a big part what makes a book worth reading for me.
I know what you mean about empty characters - this is why I like the Moorcock eternal champion stuff I'm reading at the moment. Its all about the central character, incredible stuff. There's no one quite like Elric. And Rand Al'Thor - absolutely. Dull as anything. I admit I own all the WoT books, its a ripping yarn - but not much else. Goodkind's characters are better, but there are others who are as good, without the sickening ideologising.
The academic attitude to genre fiction, as opposed to literary fiction, is a tough one. I tend to think in terms of there being two 'types' of book/film - loosely speaking, entertainment and art. Entertainment being exciting and gripping and easy to follow etc, art being 'message' - themes and ideas, depth etc. Obviously not that much stuff is one or the other - the very best books or films are brilliant at both, and something thats all 'message' without entertainment is dry and pointless. I think that the majority of people want entertainment over art most of the time, and thats why genre fiction is more read than literary fiction. There's not a lot of point in academics paying lots of attention to entertainment - but the problem is that genre fiction tends to get dismissed as entirely entertainment, which isn't true. Both fantasy and sci-fi (I don't read enough in other genres to comment on them) have works of great depth in them.
I love the power of truly imaginative SF in particular - I don't think I could ever get tired of it. That said, I've yet to read anything in genre fiction that comes anywhere close to the power and depth of 'Midnight's Children' or 'Shalimar the Clown'. Then again, I suppose I haven't read anything that comes close in literary fiction either - Rushdie is a little exceptional.
I know what you mean about empty characters - this is why I like the Moorcock eternal champion stuff I'm reading at the moment. Its all about the central character, incredible stuff. There's no one quite like Elric. And Rand Al'Thor - absolutely. Dull as anything. I admit I own all the WoT books, its a ripping yarn - but not much else. Goodkind's characters are better, but there are others who are as good, without the sickening ideologising.
The academic attitude to genre fiction, as opposed to literary fiction, is a tough one. I tend to think in terms of there being two 'types' of book/film - loosely speaking, entertainment and art. Entertainment being exciting and gripping and easy to follow etc, art being 'message' - themes and ideas, depth etc. Obviously not that much stuff is one or the other - the very best books or films are brilliant at both, and something thats all 'message' without entertainment is dry and pointless. I think that the majority of people want entertainment over art most of the time, and thats why genre fiction is more read than literary fiction. There's not a lot of point in academics paying lots of attention to entertainment - but the problem is that genre fiction tends to get dismissed as entirely entertainment, which isn't true. Both fantasy and sci-fi (I don't read enough in other genres to comment on them) have works of great depth in them.
I love the power of truly imaginative SF in particular - I don't think I could ever get tired of it. That said, I've yet to read anything in genre fiction that comes anywhere close to the power and depth of 'Midnight's Children' or 'Shalimar the Clown'. Then again, I suppose I haven't read anything that comes close in literary fiction either - Rushdie is a little exceptional.
I like 'crazy' storylines. Where you feel that the author has really completely let loose on every level and the book has really plumbed the depths of a character and a world. It's a truly amazing feeling.
You know, I haven't read a single literary fiction book which I've properly enjoyed. Well, I like some of the classics, but modern literary fiction.. I think, more than anything, I havne't been willing to try. The problem is, I read the blurb and think 'god this sounds SO boring'. I do this with all books. Plus, I have a really short attention span. A book has to grab me by the first chapter, definitely. Sometimes a book can be so well-written that the characters and plot are lost in the beautiful words.
I used to think romance was a super-tame genre, but that was before I read it. I think that fantasy explodes in terms of significant plotlines. You get 'OMG the world is going to DIE if you don't do x' in most fantasy books. It's hard to explain why romance is really imaginative, despite it being very formulaic in other respects (like the happy ending--a requisite). I think historical romance particularly reaches the greatest highs and lows. Reading it is more of an experience than anything--if it's done well, the reader should go on the same emotional journey as the couple (most often, the reader's emotions move up and down with the hero--heroes are more important in romance than heroines). Suffice to say when I show my friends blurbs of some of my romance novels they go 'you read books with the weirdest plotlines in the world'. Storylines done to death in romance include things such as girls dressing up as boys and getting jobs as cabin boys on ships captained by notoriously promiscuous pirate, and so forth. Oh, and also the marrying the guy who's about to be executed the next day. That's been done quite a lot too. I suppose it's all about finding love in the most unlikely situtations. And romance heroes can be so bad! One quintessential romance hero is the Duke of Avon from Georgette Heyer's 'These Old Shades'. He provokes the heroine's father into publicly committing suicide.
Oh, and Kushiel's Dart has no political message. Actually, it's probably more like a cross between George R. R. Martin's 'Song of Ice and Fire' series and Raymond E. Feist and Janny Wurts' 'Empress' Trilogy. My comparison to Goodkind is more to do with the really strong, and very odd female protagonist. Truly an original. Not so many swords and spells though (and this is the stuff I love). Lots of intrigue and sex though.
Have you got a specific recommendation for a character-based fantasy by the way? Really dying to read fantasy now!
You know, I haven't read a single literary fiction book which I've properly enjoyed. Well, I like some of the classics, but modern literary fiction.. I think, more than anything, I havne't been willing to try. The problem is, I read the blurb and think 'god this sounds SO boring'. I do this with all books. Plus, I have a really short attention span. A book has to grab me by the first chapter, definitely. Sometimes a book can be so well-written that the characters and plot are lost in the beautiful words.
I used to think romance was a super-tame genre, but that was before I read it. I think that fantasy explodes in terms of significant plotlines. You get 'OMG the world is going to DIE if you don't do x' in most fantasy books. It's hard to explain why romance is really imaginative, despite it being very formulaic in other respects (like the happy ending--a requisite). I think historical romance particularly reaches the greatest highs and lows. Reading it is more of an experience than anything--if it's done well, the reader should go on the same emotional journey as the couple (most often, the reader's emotions move up and down with the hero--heroes are more important in romance than heroines). Suffice to say when I show my friends blurbs of some of my romance novels they go 'you read books with the weirdest plotlines in the world'. Storylines done to death in romance include things such as girls dressing up as boys and getting jobs as cabin boys on ships captained by notoriously promiscuous pirate, and so forth. Oh, and also the marrying the guy who's about to be executed the next day. That's been done quite a lot too. I suppose it's all about finding love in the most unlikely situtations. And romance heroes can be so bad! One quintessential romance hero is the Duke of Avon from Georgette Heyer's 'These Old Shades'. He provokes the heroine's father into publicly committing suicide.
Oh, and Kushiel's Dart has no political message. Actually, it's probably more like a cross between George R. R. Martin's 'Song of Ice and Fire' series and Raymond E. Feist and Janny Wurts' 'Empress' Trilogy. My comparison to Goodkind is more to do with the really strong, and very odd female protagonist. Truly an original. Not so many swords and spells though (and this is the stuff I love). Lots of intrigue and sex though.
Have you got a specific recommendation for a character-based fantasy by the way? Really dying to read fantasy now!
panda11
I really don't like fantasy... Thank God it's not on the syllabus for English at Cambridge!
hmmm....while defining fantasy is pretty tricky, i would suggest that Gulliver's Travels, Frankenstein and 1984 (but is that on the course?) to name but three could all be called in some way 'fantastical'??
Ok ok I admit I was generalising a little - but I'd define Frankenstein as Gothic and 1984 as Satire/Sci-Fi (haven't read G.T.). 'Fantasy' for me includes LOTR, The Hobbit, most things by Garth Nix, those novels by Marianne Curley, Harry Potter, and generally books with lots of made-up places/names/worlds, armies of elves/goblins/trolls/fairies and heroic "quests". I used to like Philip Pullman's Dark Materials trilogy when I was younger though.
Argghh, literature! I tend to read fantasy if and when I read, being Discworld, but I haven't actually read a full fiction book since September! I think Folklore/Fairytales would be down my sort of ally, old stories, the basis of literature - However I am a lazy procrastinator so I haven't taken this up (and some people claim to be procrastinators on here, amateurs! )
I think there was a period of about 5 years when I only read 3 books maximum, I can't actually recall if I even did anything from when I was about 9 until I was 14
I think there was a period of about 5 years when I only read 3 books maximum, I can't actually recall if I even did anything from when I was about 9 until I was 14
sassygirl
I like 'crazy' storylines. Where you feel that the author has really completely let loose on every level and the book has really plumbed the depths of a character and a world. It's a truly amazing feeling.
You know, I haven't read a single literary fiction book which I've properly enjoyed. Well, I like some of the classics, but modern literary fiction.. I think, more than anything, I havne't been willing to try. The problem is, I read the blurb and think 'god this sounds SO boring'. I do this with all books. Plus, I have a really short attention span. A book has to grab me by the first chapter, definitely. Sometimes a book can be so well-written that the characters and plot are lost in the beautiful words.
I used to think romance was a super-tame genre, but that was before I read it. I think that fantasy explodes in terms of significant plotlines. You get 'OMG the world is going to DIE if you don't do x' in most fantasy books. It's hard to explain why romance is really imaginative, despite it being very formulaic in other respects (like the happy ending--a requisite). I think historical romance particularly reaches the greatest highs and lows. Reading it is more of an experience than anything--if it's done well, the reader should go on the same emotional journey as the couple (most often, the reader's emotions move up and down with the hero--heroes are more important in romance than heroines). Suffice to say when I show my friends blurbs of some of my romance novels they go 'you read books with the weirdest plotlines in the world'. Storylines done to death in romance include things such as girls dressing up as boys and getting jobs as cabin boys on ships captained by notoriously promiscuous pirate, and so forth. Oh, and also the marrying the guy who's about to be executed the next day. That's been done quite a lot too. I suppose it's all about finding love in the most unlikely situtations. And romance heroes can be so bad! One quintessential romance hero is the Duke of Avon from Georgette Heyer's 'These Old Shades'. He provokes the heroine's father into publicly committing suicide.
Oh, and Kushiel's Dart has no political message. Actually, it's probably more like a cross between George R. R. Martin's 'Song of Ice and Fire' series and Raymond E. Feist and Janny Wurts' 'Empress' Trilogy. My comparison to Goodkind is more to do with the really strong, and very odd female protagonist. Truly an original. Not so many swords and spells though (and this is the stuff I love). Lots of intrigue and sex though.
Have you got a specific recommendation for a character-based fantasy by the way? Really dying to read fantasy now!
You know, I haven't read a single literary fiction book which I've properly enjoyed. Well, I like some of the classics, but modern literary fiction.. I think, more than anything, I havne't been willing to try. The problem is, I read the blurb and think 'god this sounds SO boring'. I do this with all books. Plus, I have a really short attention span. A book has to grab me by the first chapter, definitely. Sometimes a book can be so well-written that the characters and plot are lost in the beautiful words.
I used to think romance was a super-tame genre, but that was before I read it. I think that fantasy explodes in terms of significant plotlines. You get 'OMG the world is going to DIE if you don't do x' in most fantasy books. It's hard to explain why romance is really imaginative, despite it being very formulaic in other respects (like the happy ending--a requisite). I think historical romance particularly reaches the greatest highs and lows. Reading it is more of an experience than anything--if it's done well, the reader should go on the same emotional journey as the couple (most often, the reader's emotions move up and down with the hero--heroes are more important in romance than heroines). Suffice to say when I show my friends blurbs of some of my romance novels they go 'you read books with the weirdest plotlines in the world'. Storylines done to death in romance include things such as girls dressing up as boys and getting jobs as cabin boys on ships captained by notoriously promiscuous pirate, and so forth. Oh, and also the marrying the guy who's about to be executed the next day. That's been done quite a lot too. I suppose it's all about finding love in the most unlikely situtations. And romance heroes can be so bad! One quintessential romance hero is the Duke of Avon from Georgette Heyer's 'These Old Shades'. He provokes the heroine's father into publicly committing suicide.
Oh, and Kushiel's Dart has no political message. Actually, it's probably more like a cross between George R. R. Martin's 'Song of Ice and Fire' series and Raymond E. Feist and Janny Wurts' 'Empress' Trilogy. My comparison to Goodkind is more to do with the really strong, and very odd female protagonist. Truly an original. Not so many swords and spells though (and this is the stuff I love). Lots of intrigue and sex though.
Have you got a specific recommendation for a character-based fantasy by the way? Really dying to read fantasy now!
Well, if you ever want literary fiction with a gripping first chapter, try the afore-mentioned 'Shalimar the Clown' - its the latest one by Salman Rushdie. Or 'The Wasp Factory' by Iain Banks, which is more literary fiction because it isn't anything else, rather than being highbrow.
Character based fantasy - like I said, Michael Moorcock's Elric books, starting with 'Elric of Melnibone'. Oh, and the 'Chronicles of Thomas Covnenant' by Stephen Donaldson if you want something really deep - Thomas Covenant has to be one of the best fantasy characters ever. Romance just doesn't appeal I'm afraid. Not my kind of escapism.
panda11
Ok ok I admit I was generalising a little - but I'd define Frankenstein as Gothic and 1984 as Satire/Sci-Fi (haven't read G.T.). 'Fantasy' for me includes LOTR, The Hobbit, most things by Garth Nix, those novels by Marianne Curley, Harry Potter, and generally books with lots of made-up places/names/worlds, armies of elves/goblins/trolls/fairies and heroic "quests". I used to like Philip Pullman's Dark Materials trilogy when I was younger though.
Well, there's a lot more to fantasy than that. Everything you've named, with the possible exception of Marianne Curley who I've never heard of, is actually a children's book! Dark Materials is more than a children's book though, its very good and pretty deep.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Further Marhs for Engineering at Cambridge
- controversial
- Official Cambridge 2022 Applicants Thread Mk II
- Chat to an Oxford Student
- Peterhouse offer holders 2022
- Rejected by Cambridge Trust Scholarship
- 2023 Cambridge MPhil in Development Studies
- Is it easier for a private student to get into Oxford than Cambridge?
- UCAS Clearing 2023 FAQ and Help Megathread
- Got a Ucas or results related question? Ask a Clearing and Applications Advisor here
- Is it worth applying to Cambridge for medicine if I only take 2 sciences?
- TSR Community Awards: Most Helpful Thread of the Year -VOTING OPEN :)
- Interview for MPhil Basic and Translational Neuroscience at Cambridge
- What A levels should I pick for medicine
- Quitting A-Level Chemistry
- FM for uni (Economics)
- How can I enhance my Oxford application with weaker GCSEs?
- HSPS at Cambridge: What are the chances of making it?
- Gap year for Oxbridge
- Can I apply to Cambridge Medicine with these GCSE grades?
Trending
- Cambridge Economics L100 2024 Entry
- Cambridge Design Tripos Opinions and Preparation?
- HSPS Selwyn
- Cambridge Philosophy Admissions test
- Sidney Sussex
- TMUA 2023 Thread
- Cambridge engineering rejection
- Cambridge interview invitation?
- Are there anybody recieved an interview of the Queens College- engineering
- Clare college Cambridge Applicants 2024
- St John’s Cambridge
- has anyone got a cambridge interview yet
- Cambridge Linguistics applicants 2024
- Cambridge Admissions test
- Nsaa 2023
- Cambridge L100 Economics - TMUA to Interview
- Cambridge interview rejection
- Why did i get rejected from Cambridge
- Cambridge Interviews
- Cambridge MASt (Part III) applicants 2023
Latest
- Official Veterinary Medicine Applicants thread 2024 entry
- University of Oxford 2024 Undergraduate Applicants Official Thread
- Deutsche Bank 2024 Graduate
- Christmas Countdown
- Do these foods belong on a Christmas dinner?
- Undergraduate chemistry
- Sciences Po | Admissions 24
- Uni of Manchester PPE -> Economics BSC?
- Breakfast items hurt/heal game!
- Astrophoria foundation year 2024
- using AI to help with Computer science A-level coursework?
- Do Yorkshire puddings belong on a Christmas dinner?
- The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2024 Entry Thread
- University of Warwick medicine 2024 Entry
- Should I consider dropping out to pursue my business?
- How does the SQE work?
- met vetting
- Can I still go to uni with only gcse and disabled?
- General Mills grad schemes 2024
- Christmas break!!
- Jaguar Land Rover Graduate Scheme
- Secret Santa: yay or nay?
- Janus Henderson Investors Associate Analyst Graduate Programme
- studying at uni
- Vodafone Graduates 2024
- Community Feedback
- How do you celebrate Christmas as a uni student?
- Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 Thread
- Muslim Man and causal sex?
- Does anyone else hate Christmas?
- Christmas market in manchester
- History then law
- I like a boy and I dunno if he likes me back or if I’m looking too far into things!
- elsie wellbeing update at the end of 2023 :)
- 2024 Pharmacy applicants mega-thread
- EPQ word count and referencing
- Essential GCSE physics 13.10 - Isaac Physics
- cambridge interviews
- How many people do you live with?
- Tenancy takeover in Plymouth!