Recommendations and Criticism

[Strafe]

Hey,

Not sure if it's my place to do this, or if it's redundant in light of the what are you reading thread, but here's a thread where you can recommend good books, slam on bad ones, or ask for a book to read. You can also argue about books too I guess.

To start, I recommend the Ender's Game series, because I am slow, and just recently read it. I have to say, I had no idea what I was missing. Not only was the first book very fun to read, but it delivered one of the biggest shock moments ever. ever. Maybe, I'm just dumb for missing the dramatic irony that should have been there, but the surprise (Which will not be spoiled) blew my mind. It also had me thinking more than the other stuff I read (Which is admittedly, usually not very smart). The next book is also really good, but not as mind blowing, though there were many points where I had to keep reading. If you want an engaging read, I recommend Ender's Game.

Feel free to call me dumb for something wrong I said or missed.

[Hohenheim]

I was wondering if there was a thread like this hanging around CAA somewhere. Glad I found it.

Anyway, what I wanted to ask the people of CAA is if anyone here is a big reader of the works of Dostoevsky. I will be heading to college later this year, and his works will be involved in my minor, but I have done some research and am wondering if I might enjoy going ahead and reading some of his work. From what people here have said of his The Brothers Karamazov, he sounds like quite the prolific author and philosopher of Christian roots. What I wanted to know is if anyone thinks I would like his work. When it comes to works of philosophy, I have come into contact with and deeply respect the field of existentialism, and have heard that Dostoevsky has delved into similar thought processes. Admittedly my knowledge of existentialism is rather limited, as I have not fully read works by either Kierkegaard or Nietzsche, but I do have a basic understanding of some of its principles, such as Kierkegaard's thoughts on faith and suffering.

With this sort of background, does anyone think I would enjoy reading materials by Fyodor Dostoevsky?

[uc pseudonym]

I think that the thread you already mentioned can fulfill most of those functions. However, if people want to use this thread for general recommendations to others or extended discussion, that is fine. I will use the established thread except in cases like this.

With this sort of background, does anyone think I would enjoy reading materials by Fyodor Dostoevsky?

Take this with a grain of salt, as I have only read The Brothers Karamazov, Notes from Underground, and The Dream of a Ridiculous Man. Based on that and what you said, I think that you should give Dostoevsky a try.

That's not a guarantee by any means. It's probably correct to label him an existentialist, but that doesn't really tell you about the kind of novels he writes. Dostoevsky was a chaotic writer and he never edited his own work. Though there are many interesting things in what he writes, they can also be unfocused. Some people I know can't stand this, others love it, I found it a little tedious but still worth my time.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

@Hoenheim

You don't necessarily have to be familiar with existentialism or philosophy to enjoy Dostoyevsky's work (not even sure that FD considered himself an existentialist). The pure drama of The Brothers is gripping enough in its own right; however, as you seem to have a solid philosophical background, I'm sure you will be able to appreciate it on multiple levels. I think that the Grand Inquisitor chapter of BK should be required reading for all college students, as it will inevitably force the reader to grapple with important issues. FYI, D.H. Lawrence called the Grand Inquisitor the "last criticism" of Christ. The fact that such a powerful critique is written by a passionate Christian is just astounding (the rest of BK is the answer to said criticism, BTW). This example illustrates an important facet of BK: Dostoyevsky truly gives voice to disparate points of view, rather than erecting various straw men.

Blah, blah, blah. I could go on. Bottom line: the book is definately worth your time, sir.

[Hohenheim]

I think that the thread you already mentioned can fulfill most of those functions. However, if people want to use this thread for general recommendations to others or extended discussion, that is fine. I will use the established thread except in cases like this.


Take this with a grain of salt, as I have only read The Brothers Karamazov, Notes from Underground, and The Dream of a Ridiculous Man. Based on that and what you said, I think that you should give Dostoevsky a try.

That's not a guarantee by any means. It's probably correct to label him an existentialist, but that doesn't really tell you about the kind of novels he writes. Dostoevsky was a chaotic writer and he never edited his own work. Though there are many interesting things in what he writes, they can also be unfocused. Some people I know can't stand this, others love it, I found it a little tedious but still worth my time.

[quote="TheSubtleDoctor"]You don't necessarily have to be familiar with existentialism or philosophy to enjoy Dostoyevsky's work (not even sure that FD considered himself an existentialist). The pure drama of The Brothers is gripping enough in its own right]

Thank you both for your insights. I believe I have been convinced to go out and get some of these works. I look forward to reading some of them, hopefully quite soon.

[ich1990]

While I have only read Notes From Underground, I have read it in two translations and want to put in a plug for Richard Pevear. His translation of Notes.... was so much more lively and engaging than David Magarshack's that it felt like an entirely different (and entirely better) story altogether. Not being a linguist, I am not sure about translational accuracy, but I can unambiguously tell you that Pevear was a much more enjoyable read.

[Htom Sirveaux]

My dad tried to read The Brothers Karamazov a few years back, but he said he had a hard time keeping track of everything, and that all the characters have multiple names and are referred to as one or another intermittently. He gave up before finishing the book.


I shall use this space to plug Glen Cook's The Black Company novels.
I'm reading Chronicles of the Black Company, the first omnibus which contains the first three books in the series (The Black Company, Shadows Linger, and The White Rose).

Cook has a very sparse, clipped writing style; if you're looking for another Robert Jordan, he's not your guy. There's not a whole lot in the way of character detail or background information, nor does he sod around with lengthy descriptions of prolonged but uneventful sea voyages, or take six pages telling you how pretty the meadow was. Sometimes this habit of minimalism can confuse the reader, causing you to wonder if you might have missed something. But the important stuff will all come together bit by bit as you go along.

Two things set it apart from the typical lighthearted fantasy fare:
First, the atmosphere. It's very gritty, bleak and visceral. It's not for no particular reason that they're called the Black Company. They're a group of men (a tight-knit brotherhood, even if they're not all the best of friends), criminal minds one and all, who gamble, womanize, curse, kill, and in any other story would be the villains.
Which brings me to the second point, the perspective. The Company are a band of mercenaries, not heroes, which is a refreshing change of pace from the usual formula. They might be working for the "good guys", or for the "bad guys", whoever's currently paying them. They're not the most clean-cut characters themselves, but each has his own appeal and they're all at their best when working as a team.

I don't know why it took me so long to find these books. They're simply awesome.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I've grown to love much of the Existential philosophers/authors over time. XD With of course, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Tillich being my notable favorites.

And UC is correct, Dostoevsky's material heavily incorporates much existential thought, (Paradoxical/Chaotic nature of the universe as opposed to the idea of God being "orderly". The angst of loving, etc) so classifying him as an Existentialist is legitimate enough. More so than labeling Camus as an existentialist, though as much as Camus wants to disagree with it, he pretty much is one as it's prevalent in his writings. (Tough I suppose "Absurdist" would technically be better)

Dostoevsky:
"Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared to love in dreams."

And Ivan Karamazov makes these statement in TBK:

"Do you know I've been sitting here thinking to myself: that if I didn't believe in life, if I lost faith in the woman I love, lost faith in the order of things, were convinced, in fact, that everything is a disorderly, damnable, and perhaps devil-ridden chaos, if I were struck by every horror of man's disillusionment - still I should want to live and, having once tasted of the cup, I would not turn away from it till I had drained it!"

"Though I may not believe in the order of the universe, yet I love the sticky little leaves as they open in spring. I love the blue sky, I love some people, whom one loves you know sometimes without knowing why. I love some great deeds done by men, though I've long ceased perhaps to have faith in them, yet from old habit one's heart prizes them."

Kierkegaard would be proud. XD

I think the ideas of existentialism can be further fueled when in conjunction with poststructuralism/postmodernity. The basic idea being "who are we?" as the attributions we make to ourselves are further deconstructed (a la Derrida, Kristeva, etc) into meaninglessness when viewed with a postmodern framework. (i.e. your knowledge is arbitrary because it's contingent upon language constructs, which are also arbitrary). So the deconstruction of word signifiers attacks/kills logocentrism as well as general a priori ideas/arguments. (Which are held fondly by rationalists)

Which of course, in the end concludes (if you want to call it a "conclusion") life's absolute meaninglessness. Even as far as thoughts. This works rather well with Nietzsche's almost-nihilist approach and Camus' absurdist philosophy. Though Nietzsche would say that one ought to rise above and transcend the meaninglessness and live fully. The Will to Power, Ubermensch, etc. Camus believes in accepting the absurd; that our search for meaning in life IS the meaning in life, because no such innate meaning exists (The Myth of Sysiphus).

I believe Kierkegaard recognizes things like these. Him being a fideist, faith and reason cannot work together. With no objective evidence to really believe in a God, he makes the leap to faith (into an abyss) and lives believing in God, but holding his belief off of no objective source of reason, for Kierkegaard doesn't believe that one can objectively know God (Hence, in his book Concluding Unscientific Postscript he makes the argument of "Truth is subjectivity" and "Subjectivity is truth." All reasons (emotional, cognitive, whatnot) for believing in God are entirely subjective.

"If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy fathoms of water still preserving my faith."
-Kierkegaard

Now as a theist I tend to go towards the notion that God, for whatever absurd reason, loves me. XD (Whatever those terms mean, anyway, God, Love, me, etc) and so to reconcile the need for meaning vs the meaningless of this world is where the theistic existentialists come in, like Tillich.

"Vitality that can stand the abyss of meaninglessness is aware of a hidden meaning within the destruction of meaning."

I absolutely love that quote.

Now not to say that any of this can't be argued. It definitely can. But of course most people arguing against ideas also tend to have different epistemological foundations which they work with. So really I think all arguments boil back down to epistemology.

But I'm not really here to debate, rather kinda flesh out existential ideas. Or to be more accurate, my perspective of "my existentialism."

[Hohenheim]

I appreciate your insights Smarty, but there are some points I disagree with.

I am well aware of Kierkegaard's "Truth as Subjectivity", but I don't think that it is true. If I am interpreting this correctly (and feel free to correct me, I want to learn more), then this is basically a statement of "There is no such thing as truth.", one of the flaws of extreme relativism, which is contradictory as you appeal to truth to say that truth doesn't exist. All you are really saying with that statement is that "The only truth is that there is no truth". There are certain aspects of existentialism I enjoy, but that is simply one point I have to disagree with. Personally, I adhere to critical realism in most respects, a stance in which I accept that objective truth exists but that I cannot always be sure that I have that truth.

Your observation about ideas being connected to epistemology is very astute. I adhere to a sort of fallible foundationalism in terms of epistemology, which basically acknowledges the various problems that classical foundationalism suffers from by accepting its potential illogicality.

Also, I am not trying to start a debate. I just wanted to put these ideas out there. I am not seeking to cause conflict here of any sort.

[Kaori]

To approach Dostoyevsky from more of a literary angle rather than a philosophical angle:

I've read six of his books, and the ones I would recommend are Notes from Underground, Crime and Punishment, and The Brothers Karamazov. I particularly feel I should put in a plug for Crime and Punishment, since it hasn't even been mentioned yet in this thread.

The Brothers Karamazov is of course worth reading and is noteworthy for being so philosophically substantial, but as a novel, I prefer Crime and Punishment because it actually is a complete story and has a much greater sense of resolution in the end. The Brothers Karamazov was not intended to stand by itself but is only the first half of the story; Dostoyevsky meant to write a sequel that would complete the story but never got around to it, which is why the novel has so many loose ends.

Edit: This post = stupendously bad timing. Sorry!

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I appreciate your insights Smarty, but there are some points I disagree with.

I am well aware of Kierkegaard's "Truth as Subjectivity", but I don't think that it is true. If I am interpreting this correctly (and feel free to correct me, I want to learn more), then this is basically a statement of "There is no such thing as truth.", one of the flaws of extreme relativism, which is contradictory as you appeal to truth to say that truth doesn't exist. All you are really saying with that statement is that "The only truth is that there is no truth". There are certain aspects of existentialism I enjoy, but that is simply one point I have to disagree with. Personally, I adhere to critical realism in most respects, a stance in which I accept that objective truth exists but that I cannot always be sure that I have that truth.

Your observation about ideas being connected to epistemology is very astute. I adhere to a sort of fallible foundationalism in terms of epistemology, which basically acknowledges the various problems that classical foundationalism suffers from by accepting its potential illogicality.

Also, I am not trying to start a debate. I just wanted to put these ideas out there. I am not seeking to cause conflict here of any sort.

I embrace disagreements with open arms! Discourse is incredibly valuable and important, and fun too! It sharpens both parties, I think. And of course, I do not claim to be right in anything. So I don't feel threatened or conflicted in any way. And I hope you don't either.

In The Stranger, there is the famous line: "Everything is true and nothing is true!"

Naturally the idea of truth in a modern framework must equate to something which is absolute. As truth by "definition" must be objective, absolute, and everything contrary to the truth must be false.

But again, such signifiers and the definition and idea of truth fall scrutiny to the deconstruction of logocentric ideals. So in essence, it's the deconstruction of truth, as our understanding of truth requires us to use other signifiers to define the idea of truth (Absolute, everything else is wrong, etc) and of course, language itself is innately arbitrary.

We all can agree that western narratology focuses extensively on dichotomies and binary opposites. Light vs dark, reason vs feeling, good vs evil, true vs false, absolutes vs relativism, nature vs nurture, calvinism vs armenism. Now all these binary opposites are, of course, seemingly opposite. But cripple away the foundations and signifiers of these definitions and the foundations for these ideas all crumble and eventually lose their "dichotomy". This is what Derrida's deconstruction does.

In this specific case, true vs false. To make a "true vs false" dichotomy have innate value in itself, it has to have an unshakable foundation. But things like language and logic and even a priori arguments (which I tend to argue against) lose their foothold. Deconstructionists have field days with signifiers. Once they lose their foothold, dichotomies tend to stop being so dichotomous.

So this begs the eternal question of "what is truth?". Not what IS the truth. but what is truth? Reason and Empiricism all fall short, I believe, at answering this question. Is truth this objectivity entity that (In a Kantian way) is above human reach? Or as others would argue, objectivity does not exist at all! Or does God somehow able us to really reach truth despite our human inability to? Course if God is philosophically "omnipotent", he could do this with ease. But how do we know that this is happening? That, I'm gonna say, is another entire can of worms. XD

So thus, back to Camus: "Everything is true and nothing is true!" Because what is "everything" and what is "nothing"?

So perhaps it's simply undefinable. And this, in an odd way, can points to Negative/Apophatic Theology as well as Christian Mysticism. The idea of once you even talk or think about God, you automatically anthropomorphize God. So be silent.

[Hohenheim]

Thanks again for your insights, and also for your understanding towards disagreement.

I think I am going to major in philosophy when I head to college, so maybe my positions will change as I learn more about existentialism, epistemology, and the philosophies of religion, logic, language, and mind. In any case, I am content with the beliefs that I hold now, but am always open to new information and new perspectives as I live out life. Thank you again for sharing your insights, they have given me ideas as to what questions I might ask potential philosophy professors once I take classes in the subject.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I would also suggest taking some courses of Lit Theory, as they tend to go pretty deep into ideas such as marxism, poststructuralism, and stuff, but more in application to literary works.

The deconstruction of language signifiers (Most of Derrida's work in general) is essentially where postmodernity/poststructuralism really exploded and became prominent, and that wasn't until the 1960s. So depending on what areas of philosophy you study, you're gonna get far different focuses of study. Philosophy in the "Analytical" realm will probably not brush on poststructuralism as much as "continental" philosophy does, and perhaps vice versa. Needless to say, Derrida's work deconstructs (or aims to, rather) practically all previous work in philosophy. Similar to Kierkegaard battling against the Hegelianism of his time. XD

I kinda wish I majored (or at least minored) in philosophy, but my school doesn't offer it. Nonetheless, I found plenty of resources for study (Interestingly enough, English and Religion professors!). However I tend to lean more towards the "continental side", lol. If you want Analytics, that's TheSubtleDoctor's realm of expertise. XD

Edit: Again, "Analytical vs Continental", lol. Deconstructionists would make a jab at that.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

If you want Analytics, that's TheSubtleDoctor's realm of expertise. XD

*sneezes loudly

looks around]Logical Investigations[/I]*

[Htom Sirveaux]

*tries to join in with the Intellectual Literature Thread*

Uhmm . . .

Err . . .

Ahh . . .








I like The Sneetches.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

*tries to join in with the Intellectual Literature Thread*

Uhmm . . .

Err . . .

Ahh . . .








I like The Sneetches.

You make me laugh Sirveaux.

I am totally intrigued by the Black Company stuff. It sounds very promising. What is the sexual content level? These bad fellows don't go around raping and such do they?

[Htom Sirveaux]

You make me laugh Sirveaux.

I am totally intrigued by the Black Company stuff. It sounds very promising. What is the sexual content level? These bad fellows don't go around raping and such do they?

Eh . . . yes, actually. The narrator makes note of some of the soldiers (and there are many more nameless "grunt" soldiers than the comparatively small group of main characters) taking such opportunities when they can, but with little or no detail. Not all of them are like that, though. The Captain at one point says, "They're barbarians", though with little more annoyance than you might say "There's a fly in here."
Also, there's a few references to the Company's forays with the "ladies of the evening," but again, not very descriptive.

Give it a shot. I'm glad I did.

[Atria35]

Okay, I'm stuck. I'd like a great sci/fi fantasy series. Anything goes. I read everything. Any suggestions?

[shade of dae]

Okay, I'm stuck. I'd like a great sci/fi fantasy series. Anything goes. I read everything. Any suggestions?

Hmm, let's see. There's always Terry Pratchett, who writes humor/fantasy and has written a ton of books. I would suggest the Death series, which starts with Mort. Death is a hilarious character]Thrawn[/I] trilogy and Hand of Thrawn series. It's been a while since I've read them, but I remember them being one of my favorite Star Wars series.
Terry Brooks writes fairly decent fantasy stories. I've read almost all of his Sword of Shannara series, and they were a fun afternoon's read but nothing really spectacular.
Orson Scott Card wrote the great sci-fi book Ender's Game. It is a little... how should I put it? Gritty, almost. But it's good. There's a whole series starting with Ender's Game, but I've only read the first two.
Stephen R. Lawhead wrote several fantasy series. The ones that I've read (and really liked) were The Dragon King series and The Pendragon Cycle. I think I liked the Pendragon Cycle better, although now that I look at the wiki page, it looks like I only read the first three books. They are Arthurian legend, basically, but the first book, Taliesn starts out in Atlantis.
If you're looking for kid's sci-fi, I would recommend the Artemis Fowl series. Although it's aimed at kids, I think it's still very enjoyable. Another book by Eoin Colfer that I really liked, although it doesn't really fit your criteria is Airman.

Anyways, that's all I can think of now, but I'm sure I can think of more if you ask me. Sci-fi and Fantasy is one of my favorite genres too, so I've read quite a few.

[ich1990]

Okay, I'm stuck. I'd like a great sci/fi fantasy series. Anything goes. I read everything. Any suggestions?

Oh boy, that is a pretty general request. Here are a few that I have found especially enjoyable, at any rate.

Science Fiction

The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov (A secret society uses computers and psychology to predict the future and sets up recordings to help steer it in the right direction.)

Dune by Frank Hubert (Only read the first one but it was great. Assassins, genetic mutants, cults, politicians, desert nomads, ancient dynasties, human computers, and drug lords duke it out over a resource rich planet.)

Fantasy

The Raven King Trilogy by Stephen R. Lawhead (Delightful re-imagining of the origins of the Robin Hood mythos as a Welsh freedom fighter, set in the politically turbulent eleventh century. Books start out average but get successively better. His Arthurian/Atlantian trilogy, and only the trilogy, is also an excellent choice.)

Artemis Fowl by Eoin Colfer (Young adults / kids series that rises above the genre, except for the The Time Paradox which should be ignored. Follows a child prodigy and his criminal exploits and his eventual discovery and attempted exploitation of a faerie kingdom.)

[Atria35]

WOW! That was FAST! Thanks, guys! I'll really look into these (though I will proudly admit that I am already a HUGE Artemis Fowl fan! XD )

[Dr.Faust]

Hay here's a book my 8th grade ELA teacher wrote. Its about her life and how God helped her. Many Say its vary good. It should be noted that this book is intend for girls. http://www.xulonpress.com/bookstore/bookdetail.php?PB_ISBN=9781607919056

[armeck]

for those of you who like fantasy look up the binding of the blade series, it is written by a christain and is truly amazing! it's not preachy or anything but it's rather clean which is something i liked about it, it's rather long it's 5 500 +/- page books. it goes VERY in dept on how the characters think and feel, so if you want to skip all that and get right to the action it may not be for you. but if you like to read a book where the characters are very in dept and emotional i HIGHLY recommend it, the second book is the worst i thing, if you can get past the second book you will love the series!

[Lilac#18]

[color="Plum"]Any good fantasy books about a queen or a princess that's a warrior?[/color]

[FllMtl Novelist]

[color="Plum"]Any good fantasy books about a queen or a princess that's a warrior?[/color]

You know, I should be able to come up with- why can't I- it's absurd that-

*head implodes*

Seriously though, why can't I come up with one?! I know there was Artemis and her warriors in Percy Jackson and the Olympians, but they were sorta minor characters. I wish I could come up with one, I'm sorry...

I second Lilac's request though, since I'd like to read something like that. Anybody else know a good one...?

[Atria35]

[color="Plum"]Any good fantasy books about a queen or a princess that's a warrior?[/color]

The thing is, I do.... But I haven't read it myself, and therefore don't know what the content rating would be.

The first is started in the novel "The Canterbury Papers" and continued in "The Rebel Princess". This isn't entirely fantasy- is based in actual historical events.

The second series is The Nine Kingdons series (she doesn't know she's a princess at first, though!)

And the third is The Elf and the Princess, part of The Silent Warrior trilogy.

Then you have The Sevenwaters Trilogy. This I have read some of, and will tell you, these are realistic retellings of Celtic folklore, set in the ancient past, usually Gaelic, world. These are for mature audiences only! This has historically acurate politics and happenings- it is Rough Stuff. There's rape and murder. There's star-crossed lovers. While I think it's fantastic, it's heavy stuff.

All are fantasy series, so expect elves and mages and non-Christian religions. Except in Sevenwaters- I think that also has some of the struggle between the Pagans and Christians. That also doesn't have elves.

[bigsleepj]

Okay, I'm stuck. I'd like a great sci/fi fantasy series. Anything goes. I read everything. Any suggestions?

The Farseer Trilogy, by Robin Hobb

Consists of Assassin's Apprentice, Royal Assassin and Assassin's Quest. The first in several interlocking trilogies, but still the best place to start.

[Atria35]

The Farseer Trilogy, by Robin Hobb

Consists of Assassin's Apprentice, Royal Assassin and Assassin's Quest. The first in several interlocking trilogies, but still the best place to start.

Well, goodness gracious. I keep pssing by these in the bookstore- have for several months- look at them, and pass by. I think I'll see whether my library has them, now.

[Lilac#18]

The thing is, I do.... But I haven't read it myself, and therefore don't know what the content rating would be.

The first is started in the novel "The Canterbury Papers" and continued in "The Rebel Princess".

The second series is The Nine Kingdons series (she doesn't know she's a princess at first, though!)

And the third is The Elf and the Princess, part of The Silent Warrior trilogy.

Then you have The Sevenwaters Trilogy. This I have read some of, and will tell you, these are realistic retellings of Celtic folklore, set in the ancient past, usually Gaelic, world. These are for mature audiences only! This has historically acurate politics and happenings- it is Rough Stuff. There's rape and murder. There's star-crossed lovers. While I think it's fantastic, it's heavy stuff.

All are fantasy series, so expect elves and mages and non-Christian religions. Except in Sevenwaters- I think that also has some of the struggle between the Pagans and Christians. That also doesn't have elves.

[color="Plum"]Thanks. These sound interesting, especially The Nine Kingdoms.[/color]

[Tamachan319]

Artemis Fowl by Eoin Colfer (Young adults / kids series that rises above the genre, except for the The Time Paradox which should be ignored. Follows a child prodigy and his criminal exploits and his eventual discovery and attempted exploitation of a faerie kingdom.)

I laughed so hard over that comment over The Time Paradox. I completely agree!

WOW! That was FAST! Thanks, guys! I'll really look into these (though I will proudly admit that I am already a HUGE Artemis Fowl fan! XD )

I'm a HUGE Artemis Fowl fan, too!

The second series is The Nine Kingdoms series (she doesn't know she's a princess at first, though!)

The Nine Kingdoms series is really good. Second that recommendation. Unfortunately, my library only has the first book, and it takes forever for new books to be processed.