Hits and Misses in Fiction

[rj_anderson]

sartorias aka Sherwood Smith has a fascinating discussion going over on her LJ about when you only like one (or, if they're prolific, two or three) of an author's works and bounce off the rest. So far the responses have mostly been people commisserating and sharing which authors and which books affected them this way, but there's also been some discussion

Comments

[rj_anderson]

I read Podkayne of Mars, because a book centered around a teenaged girl seemed like a good bet, but it wasn't for me. Nor was Friday, and I'd already heard about The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and it didn't seem like my sort of thing either, so I didn't bother trying Heinlein again after that. But now you make me wonder if I should reconsider.

Re the Russell books, my affection for the series is well known, but it's also waned as the books went on -- or rather, waned and waxed depending on how much I was interested in the premise of each individual story and how much I liked the execution. If anything, though, I'm usually disappointed by how little attention or acknowledgment seems to be given to Holmes and Russell's relationship -- not that it would be in character for the two of them to be swooning all over each other, but the little touches of sly humour and sparks of romantic tension that were there in the first three books seemed to be increasingly erased as the series went on, and now it's all plot machinations and historical window-dressing, which is not what drew me to the books at all.

But then, to me, "ick" is not a factor of age and appearance but in the way the couple treats each other. An abusive and controlling relationship between two teenagers is far more squicky to me than a mutually respectful and supportive partnership with an age gap in the middle. Holmes and Russell strike me as equals who meet on a solid intellectual and emotional footing rather than a selfish older man preying on a vulnerable and dependent young woman, so it works for me.

Anyway, right now I'm reading GARMENT OF SHADOWS, and finding myself frustrated that once again LRK has set up a premise which ought to pay off in emotional spades (in this case, Russell having amnesia) and then undercut it by not using it for any of the purposes that interest me. I would have loved to see a story where Russell's amnesia causes her to view Holmes as a stranger and gives the reader a whole new perspective on his character and their relationship (a la Margery Allingham's Traitor's Purse, which is one of my favorite golden age mysteries for just that reason), but LRK doesn't seem interested in that at all, she's only using Russell's amnesia to complicate certain aspects of the plot. Alas.

[rose_in_shadow]

LRK has set up a premise which ought to pay off in emotional spades (in this case, Russell having amnesia) and then undercut it by not using it for any of the purposes that interest me

THIS. Oh I wanted to like that book so bad... or, rather, I wanted it so badly to be something that it wasn't.

[rj_anderson]

Yeah. It was a perfectly decent book in its way, but it also made me want to weep for the story it could have been. But as a fellow reader and friend of mine remarked, LRK seems to have developed a habit of pulling her emotional punches for some reason -- perhaps reacting to critics who thought the early Russell books were overwrought, I don't know.