book time!
Okay, I know I started up a book post somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. Argh. I finished The Hunger Games and was going to write about it, and then realized I should just do another book log entry. First, though, I have a dilemma. I bought The Hunger Games in paperback, but apparently the other two are only out in hardback? I know I want to buy them (I'm sure the wait at the library would be ridiculous) but I don't want some in hardback and some in paperback. Nor do I want to wait until who knows when for them to come out in paperback. Laaaaaame. Also, they are like half price on Amazon. I would really prefer to buy stuff from the kick-ass independent sci-fi bookstore up the road but it's hard when there's such a huge price difference and you are poor.
The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins
I liked it a lot. Love Katniss, love Katniss/Peeta, am v. curious about Cinna and his agenda. At this point I'm a bit wary, I guess, where the story is going to go. The most obvious place is for the government to be brought down, which I can't say particularly excites me (I think the 'bringing down the oppressive authoritarian government' narrative is probably more compelling to the baby boomer generation, who grew up with the apparent threat of communism). But the premise of the first book didn't really excite me either and I totally enjoyed it. I think it would have had a bit more impact--the story in general, and the horror of it--if I hadn't seen both The Running Man and Battle Royale. But I think the tight focus on a really interesting main character helped. My main dislike is the first-person perspective; sometimes it's slightly repetitive and there is occasional awkwardness in voice ("my slumbers are filled with disturbing dreams") and tense. But, you know, I finished the book in two days so the drawbacks really aren't that serious ; ) Also: they are going to make a movie of this palatable to American audiences how??
The Difference Engine - William Gibson & Bruce Sterling
Yeah. This book. I read it because I liked Neuromancer and it's apparently *the* steampunk book, but mostly I thought it was lame. For one, there wasn't much of a plot; we follow three or four characters linked only by a box of computer cards that we don't find out the purpose of until the very end of the book, after the narrative proper has ended. And I think that was my biggest issue--it's just characters wandering around, the mysterious powerful cards always floating around in the background but we never figure out where they're from or who made them. Even finding out what they do is completely lame; it's just announced and we never get the sense of why we should care aside from the fact that the program jammed up the French computer's higher functions.
None of the characters are particularly memorable or likeable; by the end I was reading just to figure out what the heck the point was. And judging from the reviews on Amazon, it's either something groundbreaking and way over my head, or there wasn't one. There isn't much in between. There was one review that was pretty interesting, which said you basically need to read the book in a week to be able to keep lots of little details and subtleties in your mind for the whole thing to make sense. If the book weren't such a disappointing slog I might try again, but for now I don't care enough. I think the very end is about the birth of AI? What I got from the book is that it's a really good thing Charles Babbage didn't end up creating a working difference engine because the world would have sucked, no one would value the arts, and we would all be energy cells for computers by 1991 because Ada Byron is crazy. Or something. There was just way too much wandering around (and picking up prostitutes) and not enough coherent storyline. I have yet to figure out if there was a point to Oliphant meeting the acrobat (or whatever) chick from the Manhattan Commune, or the crime scene with the tin of poisoned beans. Another of the Amazon reviews said that when they met WG for a signing, he said that if they'd done their job right no one would understand the book for another fifty years. And maybe it really is that visionary and I just don't get it, or maybe he's just grasping for straws to justify a sub-par book. My advice: skip it.
The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun - JRR Tolkien
This is actually another one I'm going to advise people to skip unless they are both familiar with the Völsung legend cycle and really, really like Tolkien. I do, so it was interesting for me, but I think it could be frustrating, particularly if you don't know the Norse stories. What this is is basically Tolkien writing his own version, in a pretty good attempt at the original meter used (fornyrðislag). Why I don't really recommend it is because it's basically just a retelling. There are only slight variances which are mildly interesting, but not astonishing in terms of characterization or motivation or anything. The bit of greatest interest is that he sets up Sigurd as a sort of savior figure who will be guaranteed to help the gods defeat the giants at Ragnarök. He also takes out some of the unpleasantness, like Signy having two of her kids killed and Gudrun's likely suicide. His characterization of Odin is also particular, and his son Christopher, who edited the volume (and also did Old Norse stuff for awhile, which makes him a particularly good choice of editor, if a little sad) pointed out that it's basically how Manwë of The Silmarillion is portrayed.
The language feels a little dated, which is understandable given the strict(ish) meter, but that also takes away one reason for reading. The other issue for the non-initiated, the main one, is that it's also much like the original poems because there's a lot of story that isn't explained. Oral poetry tends to seize on the most exciting and vivid moments of a story and dwell on those, assuming that the audience knows the background. I think anyone who didn't already know what was happening (especially with the Ottar bit) would likely be lost. So, it was an interesting read, but not enough for me to recommend it.
Blameless - Gail Carriger
Sooooo much better than Changeless. I was very happy. A big part of that was because Ivy has an actual personality again that isn't just 'obnoxious' and seems like she could actually be a friend of Alexia's. The book was funny, pacing was good, there was a lot of action and the story is interesting. A little predictable but the enjoyableness of everything else was more than enough to make up for that. And there's a fourth book coming out! Argh/yay. Anyways, I look forward to it, and glad that Carriger found her feet again.
The Silver Wolf - Alice Borchardt
This book was pretty interesting solely based on setting and premise. The setting is Rome during the Carolingian dynasty (I'm not sure if there's a local term for this period, but Carolingian politics were in the background) which I liked because there's not a lot of early-medieval fiction, and the premise is that there's a young noblewoman who is a werewolf. There were lots of interesting characters, the setting was fascinating, but the book never managed a good balance between the story of a young woman trying to navigate her way through Roman and Carolingian politics, and the story of a young woman coming to terms with herself and her abilities as a werewolf. I liked the political bits a lot better (surprise surprise) and I think I would have preferred if the book had just been about that. But I did like the outlet that the wolf gave Regeane, who for much of the book is used as a pawn for various factions. So it was a fun read, but not enough to make me seek out the sequel. Totally worth the 25¢ I paid for it though ; )
Childhood's End - Arther C. Clarke
Why hello there, Neon Genesis Evangelion. And now you are all completely spoiled. Equally creepy, though at least the climax was pushed through by the alien Overlords (yeah, that's what they're really called) instead of humans. I'm not a big fan of mid-twentieth-century fiction, sci-fi or otherwise, and this was no exception. But there were some interesting bits, like the fact that the Overlords weren't actually overlords but middlemen, and the pathos of always being thus. Interesting premise, but ultimately depressing.
The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins
I liked it a lot. Love Katniss, love Katniss/Peeta, am v. curious about Cinna and his agenda. At this point I'm a bit wary, I guess, where the story is going to go. The most obvious place is for the government to be brought down, which I can't say particularly excites me (I think the 'bringing down the oppressive authoritarian government' narrative is probably more compelling to the baby boomer generation, who grew up with the apparent threat of communism). But the premise of the first book didn't really excite me either and I totally enjoyed it. I think it would have had a bit more impact--the story in general, and the horror of it--if I hadn't seen both The Running Man and Battle Royale. But I think the tight focus on a really interesting main character helped. My main dislike is the first-person perspective; sometimes it's slightly repetitive and there is occasional awkwardness in voice ("my slumbers are filled with disturbing dreams") and tense. But, you know, I finished the book in two days so the drawbacks really aren't that serious ; ) Also: they are going to make a movie of this palatable to American audiences how??
The Difference Engine - William Gibson & Bruce Sterling
Yeah. This book. I read it because I liked Neuromancer and it's apparently *the* steampunk book, but mostly I thought it was lame. For one, there wasn't much of a plot; we follow three or four characters linked only by a box of computer cards that we don't find out the purpose of until the very end of the book, after the narrative proper has ended. And I think that was my biggest issue--it's just characters wandering around, the mysterious powerful cards always floating around in the background but we never figure out where they're from or who made them. Even finding out what they do is completely lame; it's just announced and we never get the sense of why we should care aside from the fact that the program jammed up the French computer's higher functions.
None of the characters are particularly memorable or likeable; by the end I was reading just to figure out what the heck the point was. And judging from the reviews on Amazon, it's either something groundbreaking and way over my head, or there wasn't one. There isn't much in between. There was one review that was pretty interesting, which said you basically need to read the book in a week to be able to keep lots of little details and subtleties in your mind for the whole thing to make sense. If the book weren't such a disappointing slog I might try again, but for now I don't care enough. I think the very end is about the birth of AI? What I got from the book is that it's a really good thing Charles Babbage didn't end up creating a working difference engine because the world would have sucked, no one would value the arts, and we would all be energy cells for computers by 1991 because Ada Byron is crazy. Or something. There was just way too much wandering around (and picking up prostitutes) and not enough coherent storyline. I have yet to figure out if there was a point to Oliphant meeting the acrobat (or whatever) chick from the Manhattan Commune, or the crime scene with the tin of poisoned beans. Another of the Amazon reviews said that when they met WG for a signing, he said that if they'd done their job right no one would understand the book for another fifty years. And maybe it really is that visionary and I just don't get it, or maybe he's just grasping for straws to justify a sub-par book. My advice: skip it.
The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun - JRR Tolkien
This is actually another one I'm going to advise people to skip unless they are both familiar with the Völsung legend cycle and really, really like Tolkien. I do, so it was interesting for me, but I think it could be frustrating, particularly if you don't know the Norse stories. What this is is basically Tolkien writing his own version, in a pretty good attempt at the original meter used (fornyrðislag). Why I don't really recommend it is because it's basically just a retelling. There are only slight variances which are mildly interesting, but not astonishing in terms of characterization or motivation or anything. The bit of greatest interest is that he sets up Sigurd as a sort of savior figure who will be guaranteed to help the gods defeat the giants at Ragnarök. He also takes out some of the unpleasantness, like Signy having two of her kids killed and Gudrun's likely suicide. His characterization of Odin is also particular, and his son Christopher, who edited the volume (and also did Old Norse stuff for awhile, which makes him a particularly good choice of editor, if a little sad) pointed out that it's basically how Manwë of The Silmarillion is portrayed.
The language feels a little dated, which is understandable given the strict(ish) meter, but that also takes away one reason for reading. The other issue for the non-initiated, the main one, is that it's also much like the original poems because there's a lot of story that isn't explained. Oral poetry tends to seize on the most exciting and vivid moments of a story and dwell on those, assuming that the audience knows the background. I think anyone who didn't already know what was happening (especially with the Ottar bit) would likely be lost. So, it was an interesting read, but not enough for me to recommend it.
Blameless - Gail Carriger
Sooooo much better than Changeless. I was very happy. A big part of that was because Ivy has an actual personality again that isn't just 'obnoxious' and seems like she could actually be a friend of Alexia's. The book was funny, pacing was good, there was a lot of action and the story is interesting. A little predictable but the enjoyableness of everything else was more than enough to make up for that. And there's a fourth book coming out! Argh/yay. Anyways, I look forward to it, and glad that Carriger found her feet again.
The Silver Wolf - Alice Borchardt
This book was pretty interesting solely based on setting and premise. The setting is Rome during the Carolingian dynasty (I'm not sure if there's a local term for this period, but Carolingian politics were in the background) which I liked because there's not a lot of early-medieval fiction, and the premise is that there's a young noblewoman who is a werewolf. There were lots of interesting characters, the setting was fascinating, but the book never managed a good balance between the story of a young woman trying to navigate her way through Roman and Carolingian politics, and the story of a young woman coming to terms with herself and her abilities as a werewolf. I liked the political bits a lot better (surprise surprise) and I think I would have preferred if the book had just been about that. But I did like the outlet that the wolf gave Regeane, who for much of the book is used as a pawn for various factions. So it was a fun read, but not enough to make me seek out the sequel. Totally worth the 25¢ I paid for it though ; )
Childhood's End - Arther C. Clarke
Why hello there, Neon Genesis Evangelion. And now you are all completely spoiled. Equally creepy, though at least the climax was pushed through by the alien Overlords (yeah, that's what they're really called) instead of humans. I'm not a big fan of mid-twentieth-century fiction, sci-fi or otherwise, and this was no exception. But there were some interesting bits, like the fact that the Overlords weren't actually overlords but middlemen, and the pathos of always being thus. Interesting premise, but ultimately depressing.