Dan Simmons

 Imaginary Interviewer: What books is next on the list?

Me: Next up is 'Hyperion' by Dan Simmons. This was a Hugo winner in 1990. 

II: Have you read it?

Me: I have. This book was in prominent places in bookstores when I was growing up. I saw the cover many times but didn't read it until 10-15 years ago. It's a great book.

II: What can you tell us about it?

Me: It has a very interesting structure. It is put together much like Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales'. Chaucer's work is notable because it features:

1) Stories told by people of very different positions in society. Each is labeled by the their profession.

2) Each story is different in tone and approach.

3) The stories, taken as a whole, give a broad picture of a full society.

Simmons uses them in this same exact way for 'Hyperion'. The stories are all very good and it does an exceptional job of world-building. 

II: So it's much like 'Canterbury Tales'? Would a reader need to be familiar with them before reading this? 

Me: No, not at all. (Though they are legitimately great and I want to broadly encourage people to read them.) 'Hyperion' is very different from 'Canterbury Tales' not least of all because it includes a Predator type being called the Shrike. (On the cover of the book, he is the spiky dude.) I won't say much about him, because I'll leave that to the book. But there is a blend of science fiction and horror in this book. 

II: What else do we need to know?

Me: Unfortunately, it matches 'The Canterbury Tales' in another way. It leaves the story unfinished. This is book one of a series. It sets up various mysteries but doesn't resolve them. I've read the next book, 'The Fall of Hyperion' but not the others. But it's still a great read! Well worth its spot on the list.

Anthony Burgess

Imaginary Interviewer: Welcome back from the month off. What book is next on the reading list? 

Me: Next up is 'A Clockwork Orange' by Anthony Burgess. I've seen the movie version, but have never read this before. 

II: What's it about?

Me: It's about juvenile delinquency and crime. It's about free will and, interestingly enough, a love of art.

II: Is the book good? 

Me: It's very well regarded. Well, now it is. It came out in 1962 to mixed reviews. Most of the glowing acclaim happened after the movie version in 1971. I think it's an open question as to whether or not it would have gotten on lists like this without Kubrick's film.

II: What else should we know?

Me: It's written in first person dialect and that takes some getting used to. In the introduction to the version that I read, it said that readers might find the first couple of chapters to be a challenge, but if you got through those then you'd have trouble putting the book down. I don't normally care for books written in a strong dialect but I adapted here. (I found myself thinking in "nadsat" terms while reading it.)

Also, this is a very violent book. It's casually violent in a way that I don't think we've approached yet. I mean, more violence happened in other books, like 'The Stand', but the first person approach here makes it seem like tearing other people up is just something that some people do as hobbies. 

II: What should we know about the author?

Me: I don't much about him past what's on his Wikipedia page. If other people here want to tell us about him, that would be great. 

II: Is the book worth reading?

Me: Oh yes. Very much so.