Humph. I must now add three more books to my reading list. (Which was getting a bit on the small side, so the hmphing is mostly for show.) I read one Sacks once, Awakenings, which was so depressing I hesitated to pick up another, but this one sounds like a lot more fun.
Hmm... so what would you call someone like Bujold or Cherryh, where the truck breaks and the dogs are shot, but the wife might stay (or be found) and the breaking truck may pave the way for a new better job as an auto mechanic? Probably neither writing to entertain nor to tell an idea. Maybe writing for character arc?
Have you ever read Ayn Rand? I thoroughly don't recommend her if you haven't, but I was quite amused and actually enjoy her quite a bit, because she takes "writing to tell an idea" to ridiculous extremes. (And even then I feel like, rarely, her characters turn around and say, "Wait, this is my story, and here's what I want to do, which is not quite what you[Rand] wanted.")
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
( ... )
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
( ... )
Oh, good, someone's getting the benefit of the spoiler-cuts. You're the second person to mention Awakenings, which makes me glad I pulled the biography off the shelves before reading his other books.
Say, if I send you a picture and text, would you be able to make a spiffy icon for me?
For you? Absolutely! Pop it over in email when you can.
And that is one of its redeeming characteristics. Book 1: Laurence gets his assumptions about aviators knocked out from under him. Book 2: Laurence gets his assumptions about dragons and their proper place knocked out from under him. Book 3: Um, er, it's been a while. But I'm sure Laurence got shocked, maybe by Napoleon's ferocious adaptability in the face of new tactical possbilities (Lien). Book 4: see above.
Comments 9
Hmm... so what would you call someone like Bujold or Cherryh, where the truck breaks and the dogs are shot, but the wife might stay (or be found) and the breaking truck may pave the way for a new better job as an auto mechanic? Probably neither writing to entertain nor to tell an idea. Maybe writing for character arc?
Have you ever read Ayn Rand? I thoroughly don't recommend her if you haven't, but I was quite amused and actually enjoy her quite a bit, because she takes "writing to tell an idea" to ridiculous extremes. (And even then I feel like, rarely, her characters turn around and say, "Wait, this is my story, and here's what I want to do, which is not quite what you[Rand] wanted.")
Reply
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 ( ... )
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 ( ... )
Reply
I like Oliver Sacks, but I wasn't able to get thru _Awakenings_. Perhaps I'll borrow _Uncle Tungsten_ from the library.
Hmmm, I really need a book icon. Time to whip out the camera. Say, if I send you a picture and text, would you be able to make a spiffy icon for me?
Reply
Say, if I send you a picture and text, would you be able to make a spiffy icon for me?
For you? Absolutely! Pop it over in email when you can.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment