First of all, don't blame me. Blame the many excellent writers who keep publishing - it's all their fault!
The Sacks autobiography is not unremittingly cheerful - the WW2 evacuation did nothing good for young Oliver Sacks - but it's probably more fundamentally happy than wacky neurological clinical descriptions. However, the loving descriptions of youthful chemical experiments, the history of chemistry, accidents with cuttlefish, and chemistry and lightbulbs are wonderfully engaging. I am deadly envious of the ways Sacks was allowed to try to damage himself with chemicals in his early teens.
Bujold... I think LMB's writing to entertain, with depth? She's trying to say something about the human condition, or maybe people as they are in her day and age? I'm tempted to invoke Austen, which doesn't help much since I've read only Pride and Prejudice. I have no idea what Cherryh is trying to do in her writing, but I've enjoyed it a great deal. (Bacon.) Write to work out ideas, and incidentally inform? I don't think it's character arc, I think it's plot. Cherryh and Bujold don't approach book construction the same way, which may reflect two authors trying to do two different things. See me try to talk my way toward an understanding!
I haven't read Rand, and nothing I've heard makes me think I'd enjoy doing so. I'm a little sad I'm missing out on a significant contribution to the 20th C literary conversation, but not sad enough to do anything about it. I'm glad her characters occasionally stand up for themelves!
Hm, with the Austen comparison I was all, "what? ...yeah, you have a point." This may be why I love Bujold so much, because I am an absolute sucker (due partially to an insanely good Brit Lit teacher) for authors who say something about the human condition. (And why I don't like Dag and Fawn, who seem to say "The human condition is 'schmoopy.'")
(Bacon.)
This made me laugh out loud. Yeah, Cherryh seems more of an... architect? With characters!
(And why I don't like Dag and Fawn, who seem to say "The human condition is 'schmoopy.'")
*snorts* Yeah, really. I'm starting to think Beguilement and Legacy suffer a lot from being split into two books. You can only end by walking - or riding - out on your family so many times before I lose interest. If you consider the two as one narrative unit, it might not maul my narrative expectations as much.
Yeah, Cherryh seems more of an... architect? With characters!
Yes. Or a fireworks expert? Spends three-quarters of the book setting up the display, and then lets loose with pell-mell action? She's using her characters to make a point... which is sort of what Jo Walton is doing, isn't it? I don't think Cherryh's out to entertain, full stop, but she's not pushing a technological or political idea either. (Examples of same: Singularity, mil SF, feminist utopia, feminist dystopia - hi, Sherri Tepper! - the evils of the liberal/conservative/etc agenda.) I think Cherryh may be looking at the human condition from a sociological bent, where Bujold is looking at it from a psychological bent? It's worth remembering Cherryh's background is in classics. Getting into the mindset of strange and distant in time, but human, culture isn't a novel experience for her.
The Sacks autobiography is not unremittingly cheerful - the WW2 evacuation did nothing good for young Oliver Sacks - but it's probably more fundamentally happy than wacky neurological clinical descriptions. However, the loving descriptions of youthful chemical experiments, the history of chemistry, accidents with cuttlefish, and chemistry and lightbulbs are wonderfully engaging. I am deadly envious of the ways Sacks was allowed to try to damage himself with chemicals in his early teens.
Bujold... I think LMB's writing to entertain, with depth? She's trying to say something about the human condition, or maybe people as they are in her day and age? I'm tempted to invoke Austen, which doesn't help much since I've read only Pride and Prejudice. I have no idea what Cherryh is trying to do in her writing, but I've enjoyed it a great deal. (Bacon.) Write to work out ideas, and incidentally inform? I don't think it's character arc, I think it's plot. Cherryh and Bujold don't approach book construction the same way, which may reflect two authors trying to do two different things. See me try to talk my way toward an understanding!
I haven't read Rand, and nothing I've heard makes me think I'd enjoy doing so. I'm a little sad I'm missing out on a significant contribution to the 20th C literary conversation, but not sad enough to do anything about it. I'm glad her characters occasionally stand up for themelves!
Reply
Hm, with the Austen comparison I was all, "what? ...yeah, you have a point." This may be why I love Bujold so much, because I am an absolute sucker (due partially to an insanely good Brit Lit teacher) for authors who say something about the human condition. (And why I don't like Dag and Fawn, who seem to say "The human condition is 'schmoopy.'")
(Bacon.)
This made me laugh out loud. Yeah, Cherryh seems more of an... architect? With characters!
Reply
*snorts* Yeah, really. I'm starting to think Beguilement and Legacy suffer a lot from being split into two books. You can only end by walking - or riding - out on your family so many times before I lose interest. If you consider the two as one narrative unit, it might not maul my narrative expectations as much.
Yeah, Cherryh seems more of an... architect? With characters!
Yes. Or a fireworks expert? Spends three-quarters of the book setting up the display, and then lets loose with pell-mell action? She's using her characters to make a point... which is sort of what Jo Walton is doing, isn't it? I don't think Cherryh's out to entertain, full stop, but she's not pushing a technological or political idea either. (Examples of same: Singularity, mil SF, feminist utopia, feminist dystopia - hi, Sherri Tepper! - the evils of the liberal/conservative/etc agenda.) I think Cherryh may be looking at the human condition from a sociological bent, where Bujold is looking at it from a psychological bent? It's worth remembering Cherryh's background is in classics. Getting into the mindset of strange and distant in time, but human, culture isn't a novel experience for her.
Reply
Leave a comment