Wednesday 30 July 2008
"Jeeves and the Feudal Spirit," P.G. Wodehouse
Fun (is it possible for a Wodehouse novel to not be fun?) but a little repetitive - a lot of references to previous books, "as readers of my past works will know" sort of stuff. There really isn't that much Jeeves in it, either, he shows his feudal spirit once or twice and spends the rest of the novel offstage. Still, what am I complaining about?
Wednesday 23 July 2008
"Naked Empire," Terry Goodkind
I have had many a chat (don't ask me why) which centered on whether it was appropriate for other people to read Terry Goodkind novels, so I decided to read one myself so I could give my definitive judgment from upon high. I picked this particular one because it had a goofy picture of a statue on the front. It's midway through the series, but I really don't think I missed anything by skipping five or six or seven books.
Goodkind is notorious for his objectivist rants translated extremely poorly into a fantasy setting. Personally I enjoyed those parts the most, if enjoyed is the word. At least I felt some sort of response, even if that response was "Wow, that's a really stupid straw man argument" or "Wow, our hero Richard Rahl is certainly a bagful of Summer's Eve." Ayn Rand would come back from the dead and slap Goodkind for some of the crap he pulls in her name (and I'm certainly no fan of Rand) - I mean, there's an argument against pacifism that involves the nature of cheesemaking. It's really all very bizarre, and pretty funny in its way.
However, when Goodkind isn't going on about the principle of life, his writing actually drops in quality, as he feels the need to add tons of exposition to make sure that the reader gets that Rahl is the smartest smarty who ever clevered upon the face of the earth. Example: The first chapter is taken up by our heroes wandering through the desert, panicking because some big black birds are on their trail. Now it's obvious that the birds are following them for a reason, but Goodkind hammers this message home to the reader by describing the birds (they're big, and black - Goodkind is not exactly a master of poetic description), then having Rahl comment on the birds and their possible relationship to falcons, then having everyone else worry about the birds, then finally giving Rahl the last word, in which he reveals that yeah, those birds are big and bad and they are following us!
There's also a lot of rape and torture, which is par for the course in this sort of fantasy novel, as it allows the "good guys" to kill pretty much anyone they like and still come out looking morally decent, as at least they've kept it in their collective pants.
Anyway, Terry Goodkind. Very bad and very long. Avoid.
The lowdown on the Goodkind universe. His sword is powered by rage!
Goodkind is notorious for his objectivist rants translated extremely poorly into a fantasy setting. Personally I enjoyed those parts the most, if enjoyed is the word. At least I felt some sort of response, even if that response was "Wow, that's a really stupid straw man argument" or "Wow, our hero Richard Rahl is certainly a bagful of Summer's Eve." Ayn Rand would come back from the dead and slap Goodkind for some of the crap he pulls in her name (and I'm certainly no fan of Rand) - I mean, there's an argument against pacifism that involves the nature of cheesemaking. It's really all very bizarre, and pretty funny in its way.
However, when Goodkind isn't going on about the principle of life, his writing actually drops in quality, as he feels the need to add tons of exposition to make sure that the reader gets that Rahl is the smartest smarty who ever clevered upon the face of the earth. Example: The first chapter is taken up by our heroes wandering through the desert, panicking because some big black birds are on their trail. Now it's obvious that the birds are following them for a reason, but Goodkind hammers this message home to the reader by describing the birds (they're big, and black - Goodkind is not exactly a master of poetic description), then having Rahl comment on the birds and their possible relationship to falcons, then having everyone else worry about the birds, then finally giving Rahl the last word, in which he reveals that yeah, those birds are big and bad and they are following us!
There's also a lot of rape and torture, which is par for the course in this sort of fantasy novel, as it allows the "good guys" to kill pretty much anyone they like and still come out looking morally decent, as at least they've kept it in their collective pants.
Anyway, Terry Goodkind. Very bad and very long. Avoid.
The lowdown on the Goodkind universe. His sword is powered by rage!
Saturday 19 July 2008
"Number Ten," Sue Townsend
For some reason the first few "Adrian Mole" books were in the kids' section of my childhood library, and I read and enjoyed them. But I prefer to leave him in the mists of memory, perpetually on the cusp of losing his virginity to the beauteous Pandora. So I picked this up instead, because it's a farce about Tony Blair and who doesn't hate Tony Blair and want bad things to happen to him in some sort of wacky hell? Hey, I liked "The Queen and I"!
What I didn't realize was that reading this book was going to be the equivalent of listening to "Holding Out For a [Socialist] Hero." There's this weird current (I was going to say undercurrent, but considering that the Blair figure spends most of the book in drag, it's more like a raging torrent) of anger at Blair, not because of anything he's done, but because he and his pals are just so goddamn New Man. Apparently when Labour got back into power, not only were they supposed to restore the welfare state, but they were also supposed to be all musclebound, like real working men, and not quite so into grooming products and cookery, but like, they'd be sensitive too, just not quite so, you know, gay. They're all so girly! Where have all the good men gone, where are all the gods, etc.
The whole "watered-down politics=personal effeminacy" idea gets the worst when you get to the parts about pseudo-Gordon Brown. Suddenly the tone changes from contemptuous to something ickily near adoring. Size-related adjectives are used several times. And our Troo Socialist Hero likes sports! And socialism! But he still likes babies! And his delicate wife! (No, really, I'm not making any of this up. All in the text, ladies and gents.) It's like Sue Townsend got tired and decided to slot in pages from Polly Toynbee's secret fanfiction archive.
It made me realize - it must have been really easy to appeal to a certain section of society as the Hope of True Socialism if all you had to do to earn your laurels was not wash your hair and be tall and kind of lardy. Alas, appearance doesn't guarantee a true red-blooded performance (wakka wakka! Tip your waitress.)
Anyway, I was hoping it would end with the everyman hero hooking up with his alky lady love, but that plot thread is entirely dropped in favor of fictional Gordon getting one over on fictional Tony by winning the heart and mind of the fictional Tony Blair spawn. Why? Is there no happiness in this world? Tony Blair may have betrayed socialism but that doesn't mean that he doesn't believe in the power of looooove!
Whatever, I don't blame Townsend for falling down on this one; real Tony Blair is so amazing that it must be hard to satirize the man. Still, you'd think that she'd get that Tony is only gay for one man - himself, er, I mean Jesus! But aren't the two really the same thing?
At least it wasn't as horrific as "Trial of Tony Blair" - "Oh no, Tony, we moved into a Muslim neighborhood! How ironic!" Noooooo.
What I didn't realize was that reading this book was going to be the equivalent of listening to "Holding Out For a [Socialist] Hero." There's this weird current (I was going to say undercurrent, but considering that the Blair figure spends most of the book in drag, it's more like a raging torrent) of anger at Blair, not because of anything he's done, but because he and his pals are just so goddamn New Man. Apparently when Labour got back into power, not only were they supposed to restore the welfare state, but they were also supposed to be all musclebound, like real working men, and not quite so into grooming products and cookery, but like, they'd be sensitive too, just not quite so, you know, gay. They're all so girly! Where have all the good men gone, where are all the gods, etc.
The whole "watered-down politics=personal effeminacy" idea gets the worst when you get to the parts about pseudo-Gordon Brown. Suddenly the tone changes from contemptuous to something ickily near adoring. Size-related adjectives are used several times. And our Troo Socialist Hero likes sports! And socialism! But he still likes babies! And his delicate wife! (No, really, I'm not making any of this up. All in the text, ladies and gents.) It's like Sue Townsend got tired and decided to slot in pages from Polly Toynbee's secret fanfiction archive.
It made me realize - it must have been really easy to appeal to a certain section of society as the Hope of True Socialism if all you had to do to earn your laurels was not wash your hair and be tall and kind of lardy. Alas, appearance doesn't guarantee a true red-blooded performance (wakka wakka! Tip your waitress.)
Anyway, I was hoping it would end with the everyman hero hooking up with his alky lady love, but that plot thread is entirely dropped in favor of fictional Gordon getting one over on fictional Tony by winning the heart and mind of the fictional Tony Blair spawn. Why? Is there no happiness in this world? Tony Blair may have betrayed socialism but that doesn't mean that he doesn't believe in the power of looooove!
Whatever, I don't blame Townsend for falling down on this one; real Tony Blair is so amazing that it must be hard to satirize the man. Still, you'd think that she'd get that Tony is only gay for one man - himself, er, I mean Jesus! But aren't the two really the same thing?
At least it wasn't as horrific as "Trial of Tony Blair" - "Oh no, Tony, we moved into a Muslim neighborhood! How ironic!" Noooooo.
Thursday 17 July 2008
"Interview With The Vampire," Anne Rice
I'm a little ashamed that I read this book all the way through, but there is a reason! Just as with "Pride and Prejudice," at a certain point in my life I adored the movie version of this book, but I had never actually read the book. I had tried, but somewhere in the middle I just couldn't keep going. I had seen the movie, so what was the point of reading further?
After finishing "Pride" and thoroughly enjoying it, I thought back to these days of yore and decided - hey, maybe I was wrong about "Interview" as well! It certainly wasn't going to be a masterpiece of English literature, but maybe there was good trashy fun to be and I had been too mopey to pick up on it. And besides, it was there at the library! For free!
Yeah. I was right the first time round.
The problem? Vampires, at least in Rice's conception, are really whiny creatures. You would think that with the advantages of superhuman strength and eternal life, they might have interesting adventures or at least cultivate a hobby, but generally vampires do very little other than suck people's blood and think about how bored they are. Perhaps they suffer from SAD. Whatever the case, it was unattractive, kind of like reading about a family reunion gone wrong, only with the petty fights and angsty declarations of hate going on forever.
I'm being a bit harsh - the first part of the book, where the titular vampire is just discovering his powers, is interesting, mainly because of Rice's descriptions of old New Orleans - very romantic and sensual. After the book moves out of New Orleans, the ratio of gothic romance to people crying about how bored they are drops dramatically, to the story's detriment.
Also, much of the book's appeal rests on its veiled sexuality - there's intimations of homosexuality/incest but not really because they're all vampires, and so on. This was much more titillating back when I was reading the book under the table during science class. Perhaps I should try A.N. Roquelaure/Anne Rampling instead?
No post about Anne Rice is complete without mention of her batshit Amazon antics.
After finishing "Pride" and thoroughly enjoying it, I thought back to these days of yore and decided - hey, maybe I was wrong about "Interview" as well! It certainly wasn't going to be a masterpiece of English literature, but maybe there was good trashy fun to be and I had been too mopey to pick up on it. And besides, it was there at the library! For free!
Yeah. I was right the first time round.
The problem? Vampires, at least in Rice's conception, are really whiny creatures. You would think that with the advantages of superhuman strength and eternal life, they might have interesting adventures or at least cultivate a hobby, but generally vampires do very little other than suck people's blood and think about how bored they are. Perhaps they suffer from SAD. Whatever the case, it was unattractive, kind of like reading about a family reunion gone wrong, only with the petty fights and angsty declarations of hate going on forever.
I'm being a bit harsh - the first part of the book, where the titular vampire is just discovering his powers, is interesting, mainly because of Rice's descriptions of old New Orleans - very romantic and sensual. After the book moves out of New Orleans, the ratio of gothic romance to people crying about how bored they are drops dramatically, to the story's detriment.
Also, much of the book's appeal rests on its veiled sexuality - there's intimations of homosexuality/incest but not really because they're all vampires, and so on. This was much more titillating back when I was reading the book under the table during science class. Perhaps I should try A.N. Roquelaure/Anne Rampling instead?
No post about Anne Rice is complete without mention of her batshit Amazon antics.
Friday 11 July 2008
I Lied! - Books I Haven't Read
Out of some masochistic desire to display my failures (or a not-so-masochistic desire to inflate my post count), I present a list of books I haven't read - or more precisely tried to read, but just couldn't get all the way through.
- "The History of Love," Nicole Krauss: I'm sure this is better written than "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close," but I just can't read two Holocaust-tragedy-meets-present-day-tragedy-in-a-quirky-fashion novels right in a row. My mistake.
- "The Name of the Wind," Patrick Rothfuss: Ye gods, this book is long. And nothing much happens in it - I understand that fantasy doesn't sell if it's not in a trilogy, but really, if you're going to write almost 700 pages' worth of book, you should really have something interesting happen. Perhaps I'm being harsh and something really earth-shattering occurs right after the point where I gave up, but other than the obligatory orphaning scene, basically the highlights of our hero's journey involve being banned from a library and playing the lute. There's a whole lot of playing the lute.
- "The Scar," China Miéville: Bad timing - a book about a city of ships menaced by a giant sea monster is a poor choice for beach reading. It's also a bad book to take on a transatlantic flight (lots of nice gory descriptions of people falling out of airships into the sea).
- "The History of Love," Nicole Krauss: I'm sure this is better written than "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close," but I just can't read two Holocaust-tragedy-meets-present-day-tragedy-in-a-quirky-fashion novels right in a row. My mistake.
- "The Name of the Wind," Patrick Rothfuss: Ye gods, this book is long. And nothing much happens in it - I understand that fantasy doesn't sell if it's not in a trilogy, but really, if you're going to write almost 700 pages' worth of book, you should really have something interesting happen. Perhaps I'm being harsh and something really earth-shattering occurs right after the point where I gave up, but other than the obligatory orphaning scene, basically the highlights of our hero's journey involve being banned from a library and playing the lute. There's a whole lot of playing the lute.
- "The Scar," China Miéville: Bad timing - a book about a city of ships menaced by a giant sea monster is a poor choice for beach reading. It's also a bad book to take on a transatlantic flight (lots of nice gory descriptions of people falling out of airships into the sea).
"Pride and Prejudice," Jane Austen
I have a confession to make: until now, I have never read "Pride and Prejudice." A few excuses in my defense! Quite possibly part of the problem was an excessive attachment to the miniseries version from 1995 - whenever I attempted the book, Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth would overwhelm my weak little reader's brain. Another part of the problem - Darcy, as a hero, well - he's a bit of a cold fish, isn't he? Of course he makes up for it, although there really should be an alternative ending:
Darcy: I've saved your sister's honor to prove my love to you, Elizabeth!
Wickham: Wait a minute, Elizabeth! I have built a time machine and gone back in time to stop myself from hooking up with your sister!
Elizabeth: And I'm using that time machine to go to the future where I will no longer have to be utterly financially dependent on men! See you on the flip side, suckers!
I like time machines.
No, but really, it's very obvious to say but this is a wonderful book, "light, and bright, and sparkling" as Austen herself said. It's also very pleasant to have a heroine who's allowed to be witty without it being shown as compensation for something else (lack of looks or money) or a trait that she'll lose after her marriage: "Georgiana had the highest opinion in the world of Elizabeth; though at first she often listened with an astonishment bordering on alarm at her lively, sportive, manner of talking to her brother. He, who had always inspired in herself a respect which almost overcame her affection, she now saw the object of open pleasantry." And I even do like Darcy, by the end - which is I suppose the reaction you're supposed to have to him, gradually coming round to his good points as Elizabeth does. As I said, weak reader's brain - perhaps I expected him to be "good" all the way through because he was handsome Colin Firth? Miss Austen is probably spinning in her grave at the silly readers she has nowadays.
Darcy: I've saved your sister's honor to prove my love to you, Elizabeth!
Wickham: Wait a minute, Elizabeth! I have built a time machine and gone back in time to stop myself from hooking up with your sister!
Elizabeth: And I'm using that time machine to go to the future where I will no longer have to be utterly financially dependent on men! See you on the flip side, suckers!
I like time machines.
No, but really, it's very obvious to say but this is a wonderful book, "light, and bright, and sparkling" as Austen herself said. It's also very pleasant to have a heroine who's allowed to be witty without it being shown as compensation for something else (lack of looks or money) or a trait that she'll lose after her marriage: "Georgiana had the highest opinion in the world of Elizabeth; though at first she often listened with an astonishment bordering on alarm at her lively, sportive, manner of talking to her brother. He, who had always inspired in herself a respect which almost overcame her affection, she now saw the object of open pleasantry." And I even do like Darcy, by the end - which is I suppose the reaction you're supposed to have to him, gradually coming round to his good points as Elizabeth does. As I said, weak reader's brain - perhaps I expected him to be "good" all the way through because he was handsome Colin Firth? Miss Austen is probably spinning in her grave at the silly readers she has nowadays.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
