Finished it last night (see what horrid things Nook ownership is doing to me? I read Four and Twenty Blackbirds and Diana Comet in the same day, although this is in part because I am stuck at my parent's house with nothing to do but read or watch TV and I don't watch TV anymore).
I am now going to lash into a rather harsh critique of a book that I basically enjoyed.
You're right. It as all the subtlety of a jackhammer and although I enjoyed the book, that's my biggest gripe with it. Look, I already agree with the author's sentiments, ergo I really don't need "LOOK! SEXUAL DIFFERENCES AND ORIENTATION VARIATIONS SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED! SEE! I WILL SHOW YOU THIS BY PLAYING THROUGH ENDLESS VARIATIONS ON THE TOPIC SO YOU CAN SEE HOW YOU REACT DIFFERENTLY IF, FOR INSTANCE, A STORY OF HOMOSEXUAL LOVE IN VIETNAM CONSISTS ENTIRELY OF HOT CHICKS INSTEAD OF DUDES!" blasted at me every three pages. If I DID NOT agree with that sentiment, then the book would have turned me off so completely I'd probably have thrown it across the room halfway through Diana Comet and the Missing Lover.
Therefore, I don't think it does a very good job of promoting its ideology. It's too preachy for at least a portion of the people who are inclined to agree with it, and it's SO preachy you're not going to get a good portion of the people who might be persuaded towards more open-mindedness to actually READ it, assuming that is at least part of the goal of the book.
Persuading people is bloody hard, writing anything that's meant to be at least in part persuasive is bloody hard, and I know it. I don't think the preachy tone ruins the book. But it is, IMO, it's biggest flaw, and I really wish she'd toned it down significantly: less is really more when it comes to that kind of thing, unless you're writing an all-out screed.
The author's notes bothered me too a little, because I could never quite tell if they were meant to be tongue in cheek or if they were meant to be serious, if they were diegetic or non-diegetic, or some mix of the two (if you asked me to pick, I'd say I thought they were a mix of the two). I like to read what authors have to say and think about their own writing. I don't always AGREE with it (writers can be awful judges of what their own writing actually means) but I do like to see it, but if that's what it was, I'd have liked to see it at the end of the text rather than IN the text.
I kept trying to figure out where places were. Is Massasoit Boston? Or New York? At first I was pretty sure it was Boston, but then we got discussions of the Statue of Liberty, so now I'm stuck wondering if it's actually New York, or perhaps in this alternate Boston, the Statute of Liberty is THERE and not New York. This didn't bother me at all. I liked trying to puzzle out what places were and who people were.
As for the stories themselves: I loved Greybeard. I loved Diana Comet and I'd quite willingly read entire more books about her, and I found her to be a psychologically very interesting character, particularly in how she views the hijre. The hijre are biological men who adopt a female gender identity. One could conclude that's exactly what Diana did--at least some of the people who interact with her believe she is physically male. Is she hard on them because she sees too much of herself, because she is "passing" and they don't even try? Or because their situation is much more clean-cut than hers? I suppose it matters a great deal here what exactly Diana's issue (so to speak) is: is she a man biologically, or is she intersexed, or does she perhaps have some kind of disorder (or brain or gland injury, noting her remarks that she had an "accident"--which may be true, or may be what she tells people to keep them from looking to closely, or both) that has caused her to partially masculinize?
I also want to know. But I am also, oddly, comfortable with her ambiguity, because what matters to Diana is that she's a woman (and WHAT a woman!), and whatever her biological truth is, that's what matters.
Oh, I love this comment! You hit the nail on the head, and every time I think back on this book I worry that I was seeing things that weren't there. But you're right on with the criticism. I still think the book is well-worth the read, but you're RIGHT ON with the criticism.
I, too, hope we get more Diana Comet stories!
And BTW: thanks so much for commenting on old reviews. I love hearing what my friends think of books I've already read. :)
Not a problem. I realized that I tend to look back at your old reviews when I am going "Hmmmm, what shall I read next?" and I don't think I'm such an original thinker than I'm the only person who does it.
I think if I were to read this book (and I likely will; I did like it) again I'd skip the more preachy stories this time around. Clearly McDonald can DO subtle. Diana is handled subtly most of the time, and it was Diana's stories (even the ones where she's mostly a cameo) I liked best.
I am now going to lash into a rather harsh critique of a book that I basically enjoyed.
You're right. It as all the subtlety of a jackhammer and although I enjoyed the book, that's my biggest gripe with it. Look, I already agree with the author's sentiments, ergo I really don't need "LOOK! SEXUAL DIFFERENCES AND ORIENTATION VARIATIONS SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED! SEE! I WILL SHOW YOU THIS BY PLAYING THROUGH ENDLESS VARIATIONS ON THE TOPIC SO YOU CAN SEE HOW YOU REACT DIFFERENTLY IF, FOR INSTANCE, A STORY OF HOMOSEXUAL LOVE IN VIETNAM CONSISTS ENTIRELY OF HOT CHICKS INSTEAD OF DUDES!" blasted at me every three pages. If I DID NOT agree with that sentiment, then the book would have turned me off so completely I'd probably have thrown it across the room halfway through Diana Comet and the Missing Lover.
Therefore, I don't think it does a very good job of promoting its ideology. It's too preachy for at least a portion of the people who are inclined to agree with it, and it's SO preachy you're not going to get a good portion of the people who might be persuaded towards more open-mindedness to actually READ it, assuming that is at least part of the goal of the book.
Persuading people is bloody hard, writing anything that's meant to be at least in part persuasive is bloody hard, and I know it. I don't think the preachy tone ruins the book. But it is, IMO, it's biggest flaw, and I really wish she'd toned it down significantly: less is really more when it comes to that kind of thing, unless you're writing an all-out screed.
The author's notes bothered me too a little, because I could never quite tell if they were meant to be tongue in cheek or if they were meant to be serious, if they were diegetic or non-diegetic, or some mix of the two (if you asked me to pick, I'd say I thought they were a mix of the two). I like to read what authors have to say and think about their own writing. I don't always AGREE with it (writers can be awful judges of what their own writing actually means) but I do like to see it, but if that's what it was, I'd have liked to see it at the end of the text rather than IN the text.
I kept trying to figure out where places were. Is Massasoit Boston? Or New York? At first I was pretty sure it was Boston, but then we got discussions of the Statue of Liberty, so now I'm stuck wondering if it's actually New York, or perhaps in this alternate Boston, the Statute of Liberty is THERE and not New York. This didn't bother me at all. I liked trying to puzzle out what places were and who people were.
As for the stories themselves: I loved Greybeard. I loved Diana Comet and I'd quite willingly read entire more books about her, and I found her to be a psychologically very interesting character, particularly in how she views the hijre. The hijre are biological men who adopt a female gender identity. One could conclude that's exactly what Diana did--at least some of the people who interact with her believe she is physically male. Is she hard on them because she sees too much of herself, because she is "passing" and they don't even try? Or because their situation is much more clean-cut than hers? I suppose it matters a great deal here what exactly Diana's issue (so to speak) is: is she a man biologically, or is she intersexed, or does she perhaps have some kind of disorder (or brain or gland injury, noting her remarks that she had an "accident"--which may be true, or may be what she tells people to keep them from looking to closely, or both) that has caused her to partially masculinize?
I also want to know. But I am also, oddly, comfortable with her ambiguity, because what matters to Diana is that she's a woman (and WHAT a woman!), and whatever her biological truth is, that's what matters.
Reply
I, too, hope we get more Diana Comet stories!
And BTW: thanks so much for commenting on old reviews. I love hearing what my friends think of books I've already read. :)
Reply
I think if I were to read this book (and I likely will; I did like it) again I'd skip the more preachy stories this time around. Clearly McDonald can DO subtle. Diana is handled subtly most of the time, and it was Diana's stories (even the ones where she's mostly a cameo) I liked best.
Reply
Leave a comment