For 9 in 0'09, I should also report on Juniper Time.
Kate Wilhelm is one of my favorite authors, I should confess that. I don't know why her and not others, but she's been on my list of used book store searches since I read Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang. I think it's because she isn't precious. She doesn't apply a Vaseline layer to make things prettier. She isn't exactly brutally honest, but she's honest.
Juniper Time is one of her science fiction novels (before the mystery novels, and after them, I suppose). There is a blight upon the world and a drought so extreme that people have been moved from some states entirely, people are living in ghettos full of crime and violence. There are some who aren't living there, but by parental luck. I expected none of this except the drought. I did not see the violence coming. I did not see how silly our male lead could be. I did not see what our female lead was up to. I was surprised. I'm still trying to decide if I agree with the idea behind the end, living as I do now and not thirty years ago. This is one reason I love older science fiction so much, it's taken from a time I have no direct experience with. Looking at 1984 or Brave New World now, you can still see the eerie truths, but you can smile at the places where the story is dated by its time, which does not demean the story or message.
I would write a synopsis of the book, but I feel that it would be unfair because I can't imagine explaining it. There's a drought. There's international conflict. There's a space station. And somehow, they are all related. Not that the space station is causing the drought.
Oh, but let me just say this: Bend, Oregon. Half of the book (or a little less) takes place in Bend and its environs. When I read "Bend", I thought Wilhelm was crazy or that I was crazy, but the crazy thing is getting a description of Bend from before I knew it. It's like reading about London before it was the heaving mass of a city it is now (except Bend is not anything like London).
So, I read Juniper Time in a whirlwind. I really liked it. I did not love it as I wanted to, but I realize now that it's because I'm not sure that I got enough of the end. It was a story where I wanted more and sort of resented that I didn't get more. Except let me add that no one can push a limit like Wilhelm. I remain shocked that she did what she did to one of her characters, but I love her for the shock.
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Monday, September 7, 2009
Possession...or how Byatt needs more editing on occasion
Not that anyone other than Cathy reads this, or pretends to anyway, but I have to write because I have finally finished Possession by A.S. Byatt. I am conflicted as to how I feel about it. My sister asked how many stars I would give it out of five and I was giving it four until I remembered how Byatt cheated. Here are the complaints:
1) She cheated. Balls out cheated. I'll say the same thing of any other writer who does this, but I was surprised when Byatt did. I thought she would have thought better of her audience than to pander to us. See, we spend the majority of the book in the present (or really the 1980s) looking back at things written from the late 1850s. We are in the present, the story is in the present, but we are looking at texts from the past. Ninety-nine percent of the book fits that mold, and then Byatt cheats and gives us bits of the past that we would not know from what we have in the present. And it didn't really add to the book, it provided no great insight. And the final one was the biggest cheat of all, it was pandering.
2) The unnecessary bits. If you read it, you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't and decide you are going to read it, take my advice and skip or skim sections you feel you are going to die of boredom in. Yes, I just said skip. Trust me, I skipped, and here's why: I am not a literary scholar. I like a good mystery, but when a book is longer than 500 pages and I have to read the journal of a teenage Breton girl, I will skip and skim. If I am given pages upon pages of a poem that drags on, I am going to skip it. Maybe "Swammerdam" had a brilliance I couldn't see, but then it wasn't really meant for me was it?
3) The Cropper chapter. So unnecessary. I almost stopped reading there. Really, I did, then I felt guilty and skipped him instead.
4) Being made to research like the two main characters. If I wanted to do that, I would be doing that, not reading a novel for enjoyment.
However, I did really like the book. I liked Maud and adored Roland. I liked them and the story much more than the film, which I bugged my sister about trying to remember (plus I decided that Aaron Eckhart [although a decent enough guy and generally good actor] was miscast and not because he played Roland as an American, but because he has a confidence he can't really shed). I did feel involved in it (although I was a cheat because I already knew the kicker), I flipped the pages eagerly at the end for the resolution. It is a novel of great feeling, which I appreciate. But I still say Byatt cheated.
I should also add that mid-book, I stopped. I couldn't take it. I closed the book and thought I'd never return. I think it was in the middle of a letter that told me nothing about nothing. During that pause, I read Pride and Prejudice and was reminded how much I love Austen. We should note here that it was easier to read a book written in the early nineteenth century than a book written in the 1980s. And now, I am with Wuthering Heights. I desperately want to understand why reading about England seems natural to me while in tropical Guam.
1) She cheated. Balls out cheated. I'll say the same thing of any other writer who does this, but I was surprised when Byatt did. I thought she would have thought better of her audience than to pander to us. See, we spend the majority of the book in the present (or really the 1980s) looking back at things written from the late 1850s. We are in the present, the story is in the present, but we are looking at texts from the past. Ninety-nine percent of the book fits that mold, and then Byatt cheats and gives us bits of the past that we would not know from what we have in the present. And it didn't really add to the book, it provided no great insight. And the final one was the biggest cheat of all, it was pandering.
2) The unnecessary bits. If you read it, you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't and decide you are going to read it, take my advice and skip or skim sections you feel you are going to die of boredom in. Yes, I just said skip. Trust me, I skipped, and here's why: I am not a literary scholar. I like a good mystery, but when a book is longer than 500 pages and I have to read the journal of a teenage Breton girl, I will skip and skim. If I am given pages upon pages of a poem that drags on, I am going to skip it. Maybe "Swammerdam" had a brilliance I couldn't see, but then it wasn't really meant for me was it?
3) The Cropper chapter. So unnecessary. I almost stopped reading there. Really, I did, then I felt guilty and skipped him instead.
4) Being made to research like the two main characters. If I wanted to do that, I would be doing that, not reading a novel for enjoyment.
However, I did really like the book. I liked Maud and adored Roland. I liked them and the story much more than the film, which I bugged my sister about trying to remember (plus I decided that Aaron Eckhart [although a decent enough guy and generally good actor] was miscast and not because he played Roland as an American, but because he has a confidence he can't really shed). I did feel involved in it (although I was a cheat because I already knew the kicker), I flipped the pages eagerly at the end for the resolution. It is a novel of great feeling, which I appreciate. But I still say Byatt cheated.
I should also add that mid-book, I stopped. I couldn't take it. I closed the book and thought I'd never return. I think it was in the middle of a letter that told me nothing about nothing. During that pause, I read Pride and Prejudice and was reminded how much I love Austen. We should note here that it was easier to read a book written in the early nineteenth century than a book written in the 1980s. And now, I am with Wuthering Heights. I desperately want to understand why reading about England seems natural to me while in tropical Guam.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
The Emerging Official 9 for '09 List
Long: The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Free: Possession by A.S. Byatt
Dusty: Kiss & Tell by Alain de Botton
Used: Kindred by Octavia Butler
Letter (R): Glamorama by Bret Easton Ellis
Strange: The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
Cover: The Quiet Girl by Peter Hoeg
AN: Juniper Time by Kate Wilhelm
Distance: Spring Snow by Yukio Mishima
Free: Possession by A.S. Byatt
Dusty: Kiss & Tell by Alain de Botton
Used: Kindred by Octavia Butler
Letter (R): Glamorama by Bret Easton Ellis
Strange: The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
Cover: The Quiet Girl by Peter Hoeg
AN: Juniper Time by Kate Wilhelm
Distance: Spring Snow by Yukio Mishima
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Books, books, books
I'm thinking about books today because I'm tackling the 9 for '09 challenge this year. And nine books in nine vague categories means that I'm thinking about said vague categories. Official decisions will be made this weekend. So, here are the categories and my ideas:
Long: I would guess that on average I read books with about 300 pages in them. And so, there are three real options for me: The Brothers Karamazov, Middlemarch, and Catch-22. The first two are long in ways that long isn't an adequate adjective. The third was a book I read a part of in high school, but never finished because it was too long to fit my freaky high school schedule. So, it's up for consideration.
Free: Two options...High Fidelity and Possession. There are others, but those are the two that leave me with layers of guilt. Poor Suzanna is still missing her copy of Possession because of me.
Dusty: Yeah, um, there are a lot of book in this category, so, well, um, this will require thought.
Used: You know, I'm thinking that the recent used book purchases are going to qualify. And because I've been thinking about Octavia Butler a lot lately, I think Kindred might be the winner, unless The Girl at the Lion d'Or sneaks in for a surprise.
Letter: Yeah, again, many options, much thought. But I think my letter is R. I've always felt that it's the dominant letter in my name.
Strange: A genre outside of my normal range? Non-fiction, anyone? My sister is going to be in charge of this one, because she reads non-fiction and I recoil from it, and she knows me enough to know what I can and cannot take.
Cover: Prettiest or ugliest cover? That requires time again.
AN (Alive or Not!): You know what? I'm jumping in on this one. Kate Wilhelm is awesome and hard to find. So, Juniper Time by the Hugo award-winning author will represent her.
Distance: Another why-the-hell-not option...Yukio Mishima's Spring Snow. Yes, you read that right. Yukio Mishima for the girl who usually hangs out with the SF world. Mishima and I got along tons in high school, so it's time to remember and refresh. And it takes place in Tokyo.
Long: I would guess that on average I read books with about 300 pages in them. And so, there are three real options for me: The Brothers Karamazov, Middlemarch, and Catch-22. The first two are long in ways that long isn't an adequate adjective. The third was a book I read a part of in high school, but never finished because it was too long to fit my freaky high school schedule. So, it's up for consideration.
Free: Two options...High Fidelity and Possession. There are others, but those are the two that leave me with layers of guilt. Poor Suzanna is still missing her copy of Possession because of me.
Dusty: Yeah, um, there are a lot of book in this category, so, well, um, this will require thought.
Used: You know, I'm thinking that the recent used book purchases are going to qualify. And because I've been thinking about Octavia Butler a lot lately, I think Kindred might be the winner, unless The Girl at the Lion d'Or sneaks in for a surprise.
Letter: Yeah, again, many options, much thought. But I think my letter is R. I've always felt that it's the dominant letter in my name.
Strange: A genre outside of my normal range? Non-fiction, anyone? My sister is going to be in charge of this one, because she reads non-fiction and I recoil from it, and she knows me enough to know what I can and cannot take.
Cover: Prettiest or ugliest cover? That requires time again.
AN (Alive or Not!): You know what? I'm jumping in on this one. Kate Wilhelm is awesome and hard to find. So, Juniper Time by the Hugo award-winning author will represent her.
Distance: Another why-the-hell-not option...Yukio Mishima's Spring Snow. Yes, you read that right. Yukio Mishima for the girl who usually hangs out with the SF world. Mishima and I got along tons in high school, so it's time to remember and refresh. And it takes place in Tokyo.
Friday, December 12, 2008
The Wonder Spot and being all sorts of angry on a Friday night
Me again. This time about a book, and about a book I feel has been slighted.
I must admit up front that I haven't read anything by Curtis Sittenfeld, I just don't feel in anyway drawn into the plot summaries for her books. And that I'm sure is a sin in Ms. Sittenfeld's world, for I should be able to read beyond a book's cover and flap jacket. But really Prep is so not my thing even if I did go to school with kids who went to prep schools, and American Wife just sounds like I'd fall asleep. It's possible I could like her stuff, except I have to get beyond the summaries of her stuff.
But over the last few days, I've been thinking about my tiny list of books read this year and I was surprised to discover that I think my favorite is The Wonder Spot by Melissa Bank. Now, this would seem to go against all of my professions of love for Neil Gaiman, but it doesn't. I love Neil and his books, but when I think about it and let myself feel an answer instead of just being logical, I realize that it has to be Bank's book. It's the simplicity of the story; it's the so very Jane Austen-ness of the story; it's the honesty. It's not a book that will shock you, it won't even ask you to look at it, it's a wallflower. It is waiting for you to see it and notice it and its intrinsic value. It's waiting for you to let it be everything it can be. And it's the most human book I read this year.
So, what does Sittenfeld have to do with The Wonder Spot? This. I just found it, years too late to be relevant, but it pissed me off. And not because she's calling Bank a chick-lit author because, damn it, chick lit is not the worst thing to happen to women's literature. It's this, from the end of the review:
"Undeniably, there were times when I laughed or winced in recognition as I read; I understood exactly what Sophie meant, and that's when I liked the book best. But this, ultimately, is the reason I know 'The Wonder Spot' is chick lit: because its appeal relies so much on how closely readers relate to its protagonist. Good novels allow us to feel what the characters feel, no matter how dissimilar their circumstances and ours. 'The Wonder Spot' contains real meaning only if we identify with Sophie enough to infuse it with meaning of our own."
Now, did she just say that in order for a novel to be good, the character's circumstances need to be unlike my own? Really? That's what divides a good novel and chick lit? Seriously? How do you determine that?
See, I get that a good novel should allow us to feel what a character unlike ourselves feels. There's a reason I loved The Road. But just because I walk alongside a character in a number of experiences doesn't make a novel less worthy of being called good. And I'm fascinated by this sense of worth as defined by "learning." I think it's a myth. Is a Jane Austen novel good because I learned about Regency England? Hell no, it's good because of the content, the characters, the humanity, the honesty, the humor. So, to say that a novel isn't really a good novel because she, the character, and I probably have similar life experiences is silly. And then to essentially say that The Wonder Spot would have been good if the protagonist had ended up alone is horseshit. It would be daring to some degree, but not necessarily honest for Bank's protagonist. It's a bolder statement to defy the convention that she would be accepted for one thing and marginalized for another.
So, Ms. Sittenfeld, you're wrong. Maybe you didn't love the book, but the book defies you with being wonderful...And yes, I know I need to read more, but I don't have the luxury of not having a day job, and more than that, I have other things I like to do too.
On other topics: there should be snow on my mountain tomorrow morning! And I think my new literary crush is going to be on Brian K. Vaughn.
I must admit up front that I haven't read anything by Curtis Sittenfeld, I just don't feel in anyway drawn into the plot summaries for her books. And that I'm sure is a sin in Ms. Sittenfeld's world, for I should be able to read beyond a book's cover and flap jacket. But really Prep is so not my thing even if I did go to school with kids who went to prep schools, and American Wife just sounds like I'd fall asleep. It's possible I could like her stuff, except I have to get beyond the summaries of her stuff.
But over the last few days, I've been thinking about my tiny list of books read this year and I was surprised to discover that I think my favorite is The Wonder Spot by Melissa Bank. Now, this would seem to go against all of my professions of love for Neil Gaiman, but it doesn't. I love Neil and his books, but when I think about it and let myself feel an answer instead of just being logical, I realize that it has to be Bank's book. It's the simplicity of the story; it's the so very Jane Austen-ness of the story; it's the honesty. It's not a book that will shock you, it won't even ask you to look at it, it's a wallflower. It is waiting for you to see it and notice it and its intrinsic value. It's waiting for you to let it be everything it can be. And it's the most human book I read this year.
So, what does Sittenfeld have to do with The Wonder Spot? This. I just found it, years too late to be relevant, but it pissed me off. And not because she's calling Bank a chick-lit author because, damn it, chick lit is not the worst thing to happen to women's literature. It's this, from the end of the review:
"Undeniably, there were times when I laughed or winced in recognition as I read; I understood exactly what Sophie meant, and that's when I liked the book best. But this, ultimately, is the reason I know 'The Wonder Spot' is chick lit: because its appeal relies so much on how closely readers relate to its protagonist. Good novels allow us to feel what the characters feel, no matter how dissimilar their circumstances and ours. 'The Wonder Spot' contains real meaning only if we identify with Sophie enough to infuse it with meaning of our own."
Now, did she just say that in order for a novel to be good, the character's circumstances need to be unlike my own? Really? That's what divides a good novel and chick lit? Seriously? How do you determine that?
See, I get that a good novel should allow us to feel what a character unlike ourselves feels. There's a reason I loved The Road. But just because I walk alongside a character in a number of experiences doesn't make a novel less worthy of being called good. And I'm fascinated by this sense of worth as defined by "learning." I think it's a myth. Is a Jane Austen novel good because I learned about Regency England? Hell no, it's good because of the content, the characters, the humanity, the honesty, the humor. So, to say that a novel isn't really a good novel because she, the character, and I probably have similar life experiences is silly. And then to essentially say that The Wonder Spot would have been good if the protagonist had ended up alone is horseshit. It would be daring to some degree, but not necessarily honest for Bank's protagonist. It's a bolder statement to defy the convention that she would be accepted for one thing and marginalized for another.
So, Ms. Sittenfeld, you're wrong. Maybe you didn't love the book, but the book defies you with being wonderful...And yes, I know I need to read more, but I don't have the luxury of not having a day job, and more than that, I have other things I like to do too.
On other topics: there should be snow on my mountain tomorrow morning! And I think my new literary crush is going to be on Brian K. Vaughn.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
spotting the wonder
I realized this morning as I tried to pry The Wonder Spot from my hands that the reason I like Melissa Bank's writing so much is that she's so remarkably good at a first person narrative. In general, I get irritated by novels in first person, which I began to think was just a preference, but then when I read good first person, I realize that I don't have issues with the style, I take issue with folks who just don't know what it should be.
Not to take horrible steps backward, but if you look at Twilight, nothing about it needed a first person narrative. And it reminds me of something I said when I was in a writing class in college, a lot of writers use first person because they don't have the energy to separate themselves from the story. I should also note that I was about two steps away from becoming a huge Edith Wharton fan (I still am, but I'm no longer a new fan, I'm a seasoned and respectable fan). There are also a couple of other things I've noticed about the first person narrative: diehard fans of that particular voice tend to be younger (or maybe I was just younger when I liked it a lot, but I do think it tends to draw you into the experience more when you're younger) and many writers of first person stories tend to not describe as much.
This isn't to say that there aren't awesome first person authors, because there are; it's just that sometimes people forget the skill required to pull it off. And I was about to go into my arguments on the chick lit sub-genre, but it's getting me a bit riled up, which leads me to the slippery slope towards yelling about Switzerland in 1971 (when women finally got the vote in that backwards nation). But I will say that if Candace Bushnell exemplifies modern chick lit, Melissa Bank deserves better that to be grouped there. Bank is such a plainly honest writer and so separate from the consumerism that seems to typify the new chick lit, that she should be exempt from genre definitions. And now I need to know when her next book comes out.
Not to take horrible steps backward, but if you look at Twilight, nothing about it needed a first person narrative. And it reminds me of something I said when I was in a writing class in college, a lot of writers use first person because they don't have the energy to separate themselves from the story. I should also note that I was about two steps away from becoming a huge Edith Wharton fan (I still am, but I'm no longer a new fan, I'm a seasoned and respectable fan). There are also a couple of other things I've noticed about the first person narrative: diehard fans of that particular voice tend to be younger (or maybe I was just younger when I liked it a lot, but I do think it tends to draw you into the experience more when you're younger) and many writers of first person stories tend to not describe as much.
This isn't to say that there aren't awesome first person authors, because there are; it's just that sometimes people forget the skill required to pull it off. And I was about to go into my arguments on the chick lit sub-genre, but it's getting me a bit riled up, which leads me to the slippery slope towards yelling about Switzerland in 1971 (when women finally got the vote in that backwards nation). But I will say that if Candace Bushnell exemplifies modern chick lit, Melissa Bank deserves better that to be grouped there. Bank is such a plainly honest writer and so separate from the consumerism that seems to typify the new chick lit, that she should be exempt from genre definitions. And now I need to know when her next book comes out.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
But Awesomeness While I'm Recovering
Magic For Beginners as a free download! I love Kelly Link! Her writing is weird and subtle, which are both lovely things.
the book that no longer is
My sister was on vacation last week, so yesterday when I was halfway through Breaking Dawn and she called to discuss something like being scarred by the horrible pasta she had, I mentioned why I hated Breaking Dawn. And it's not just a dull hate, it's full out hate. Let's say I can ignore the fact that I feel like Meyer betrayed her characters, there's the crushing fact that the book was nothing more than some horrible SciFi Channel movie that you look at the ad for and ask "Who would spend the money?" But I can't ignore the betrayal, it hurt when suddenly the character I loved became someone else. It hurt when Bella made so many horrible and wrong decisions that I couldn't even pretend to like her. And so what did I tell my sister? "I hate this book like the Matrix sequels, and like the Matrix sequels, once I finish this book, I will no longer acknowledge it." So, this is my last acknowledgment of the book. In my mind, there's a book that will never be written that was the true end to the series. There's an end where Bella chooses Jacob, where she chooses her mother and father over vampirism, where she makes the right choices.
Okay, let's say I didn't think Jacob was awesome until the book I will shortly ignore. Even if I didn't like him, the Edward I would have expected would have been a better man, a man who knew what was wrong and what was right. A vampire having sex with a human? That's wrong. A vampire marrying a human? That's wrong. A vampire claiming to love a human letting her choose mortal danger over safety? That's wrong. Everything the whiny, little vampire does as it relates to Bella is wrong. Everything that his family condones is wrong. For moral vampires, they're lacking in sense and morality as it relates to human interaction. If they were the good guys they claimed, they would have stayed away from Bella. They should have stayed away from her, even if Mr. Whiny found her irresistible. Even if they wanted Edward to not be lonely, letting him develop that great a fondness for a human was wrong. It's morally reprehensible of them to let it go on. It's a matter of safety. My only wish is that when Bella went cliff jumping that one time, that Jacob had been there, because then we would have had a responsible story.
This is of course also ignores the fact that Bella Swan is an idiot on so many levels, and I say this as I mention that her lack of self-worth is disturbing. Why's she an idiot?
1) Her safety is ignored.
2) Her family's safety is ignored.
3) She's willing to die for what's killing her.
4) She chooses someone who struggles not to kill her with every breath over someone who struggles to protect her.
5) She has sex with a vampire.
6) She marries a vampire.
7) She chooses an eternity with a vampire over her family. (I actually find this offensive. It makes me hate Bella.) It's one thing if her family's horrible, but they aren't. And for someone who thinks so poorly of herself, why does she want eternity when she fears that he might not even want her for real?
What I did like about the book?
On page 611, there's a footnote made after a comment that made me crack up. I love that sort of thing. I love the self awareness Meyer left in that comment.
And then, when Bella hears the child's nickname, she screams that someone gave the girl the nickname of the Loch Ness monster. I loved that bit.
But now, the book no longer exists.
Okay, let's say I didn't think Jacob was awesome until the book I will shortly ignore. Even if I didn't like him, the Edward I would have expected would have been a better man, a man who knew what was wrong and what was right. A vampire having sex with a human? That's wrong. A vampire marrying a human? That's wrong. A vampire claiming to love a human letting her choose mortal danger over safety? That's wrong. Everything the whiny, little vampire does as it relates to Bella is wrong. Everything that his family condones is wrong. For moral vampires, they're lacking in sense and morality as it relates to human interaction. If they were the good guys they claimed, they would have stayed away from Bella. They should have stayed away from her, even if Mr. Whiny found her irresistible. Even if they wanted Edward to not be lonely, letting him develop that great a fondness for a human was wrong. It's morally reprehensible of them to let it go on. It's a matter of safety. My only wish is that when Bella went cliff jumping that one time, that Jacob had been there, because then we would have had a responsible story.
This is of course also ignores the fact that Bella Swan is an idiot on so many levels, and I say this as I mention that her lack of self-worth is disturbing. Why's she an idiot?
1) Her safety is ignored.
2) Her family's safety is ignored.
3) She's willing to die for what's killing her.
4) She chooses someone who struggles not to kill her with every breath over someone who struggles to protect her.
5) She has sex with a vampire.
6) She marries a vampire.
7) She chooses an eternity with a vampire over her family. (I actually find this offensive. It makes me hate Bella.) It's one thing if her family's horrible, but they aren't. And for someone who thinks so poorly of herself, why does she want eternity when she fears that he might not even want her for real?
What I did like about the book?
On page 611, there's a footnote made after a comment that made me crack up. I love that sort of thing. I love the self awareness Meyer left in that comment.
And then, when Bella hears the child's nickname, she screams that someone gave the girl the nickname of the Loch Ness monster. I loved that bit.
But now, the book no longer exists.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
eclipse-y twilight
If I don't finish the Twilight saga this weekend, I promise you I will crumble in defeat and tears of fatigue. I just can't maintain this schedule anymore. And I can honestly say that in spite of all marriage talk in Eclipse, which does make me vomit a bit, I think I might like it as much as Twilight. And if I'm honest about my honesty, 90% of that has to do with Jacob Black who is plain endearing; the other 10% has to do with Edward realizing he might lose the Bella battle. Because damn it, Jacob is the right choice. Now I'm just afraid of all of the wedding talk in Breaking Dawn.
On other notes, Cat Bordhi kicks ass.
On other notes, Cat Bordhi kicks ass.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Plainsong with fringe
Plainsong was lovely. I highly recommend it. Highly. It's that sort of quiet and easy story that just seeps into you. It's the kind of story that makes you forget the obsessive love story of a teenager and a vampire. I almost don't want to go back to the Twilight series.
On the issue of new TV shows...Fringe. I'm not sure that I'll stay with the show, but I do know that Joshua Jackson is still adorable, and that soft spot I had for Pacey remains. I think I actually missed him.
On the issue of new TV shows...Fringe. I'm not sure that I'll stay with the show, but I do know that Joshua Jackson is still adorable, and that soft spot I had for Pacey remains. I think I actually missed him.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Deliberation
It took a day, two movies, lots of gripes, and angry knitting to decide on the correct path. My sister and I discussed what was what and we both decided that it was best if I waited on New Moon. We then decided that maybe a change of scenery would be good, which led to Plainsong getting the nomination (although, Magic For Beginners is existing as my in-case-I-need-something-a-bit-more-genre book). In the end, too much animosity towards teens, unseasonable anger on my part, and fear that what breezed by might turn into an aching sore.
I almost (was two steps away from it) picked up Half-Blood Prince again. But then, coupled with the new July release date and information that they added a scene of much peril at the Burrow to the movie, I decided that Harry Potter and I were on shaky ground as well.
On other notes: Ghirardelli Square is as busy as I remembered it, worse for the Chocolate Festival. And I can honestly say that the only reason I didn't leave on sight (which also would have been rude to my oldest non-family friend) was because the chocolate briefly soothed my anti-social personality. Too many airports in too few weeks, and too many people with too little sense. And then, the entire dorky reason I went was a complete let-down: The Pie Hole (from Pushing Daisies) was closed and all I got was a sucky flyer. Not to mention that everyone was in San Francisco today. I did take a few pictures of stuff, but it's standard stuff and taken because although I go the SF somewhat often, I rarely go to the tourist traps, so I never see Alcatraz that close.
I almost (was two steps away from it) picked up Half-Blood Prince again. But then, coupled with the new July release date and information that they added a scene of much peril at the Burrow to the movie, I decided that Harry Potter and I were on shaky ground as well.
On other notes: Ghirardelli Square is as busy as I remembered it, worse for the Chocolate Festival. And I can honestly say that the only reason I didn't leave on sight (which also would have been rude to my oldest non-family friend) was because the chocolate briefly soothed my anti-social personality. Too many airports in too few weeks, and too many people with too little sense. And then, the entire dorky reason I went was a complete let-down: The Pie Hole (from Pushing Daisies) was closed and all I got was a sucky flyer. Not to mention that everyone was in San Francisco today. I did take a few pictures of stuff, but it's standard stuff and taken because although I go the SF somewhat often, I rarely go to the tourist traps, so I never see Alcatraz that close.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Two things I've learned today:
1) Dream In Color's Fatty yarn is too bulky to make a Verity without it looking absurd, even with adjusting the pattern for obvious yarn size differences. I'd take a picture, but I'm too unphotogenic at this exact moment to dare.
2) I shouldn't think that I can outsmart Ysolda on her own pattern.
Then there's the thing I'm not learning:
How much did I like Twilight? I read the first 330 pages with enthusiasm, and then around 330, I took a break because I suddenly became annoyed. And I read the remaining 170 quickly, but I was always aware of my vague sense of irritation. Now, with the book finished and sitting on the footrest/yarn-concealer, do I want to start the next one now? Do I want to take a break and read something else? Maybe Half-Blood Prince again as I don't get the movie this November? Maybe finish a book I haven't been able to finish since January? A book I should have read last summer? Or any number of the books waiting for me?
Actually, as I considered reading Under the Rose or I Love You, Beth Cooper just then, I realized that I'm not in the mood for those younger than 23, which means that maybe New Moon is a bad idea. Does one rest on one's Neil Gaiman crutch, because he does always make me happy? Or do I go non-genre? Or do I go genre, but not Neil Gaiman or Stephenie Meyer?
As nothing came to me then, I suppose I should just watch Control or Brief Encounter and refocus.
Chocolate Festival tomorrow! And San Francisco buses...with tourists...at a tourist attraction...ugh.
1) Dream In Color's Fatty yarn is too bulky to make a Verity without it looking absurd, even with adjusting the pattern for obvious yarn size differences. I'd take a picture, but I'm too unphotogenic at this exact moment to dare.
2) I shouldn't think that I can outsmart Ysolda on her own pattern.
Then there's the thing I'm not learning:
How much did I like Twilight? I read the first 330 pages with enthusiasm, and then around 330, I took a break because I suddenly became annoyed. And I read the remaining 170 quickly, but I was always aware of my vague sense of irritation. Now, with the book finished and sitting on the footrest/yarn-concealer, do I want to start the next one now? Do I want to take a break and read something else? Maybe Half-Blood Prince again as I don't get the movie this November? Maybe finish a book I haven't been able to finish since January? A book I should have read last summer? Or any number of the books waiting for me?
Actually, as I considered reading Under the Rose or I Love You, Beth Cooper just then, I realized that I'm not in the mood for those younger than 23, which means that maybe New Moon is a bad idea. Does one rest on one's Neil Gaiman crutch, because he does always make me happy? Or do I go non-genre? Or do I go genre, but not Neil Gaiman or Stephenie Meyer?
As nothing came to me then, I suppose I should just watch Control or Brief Encounter and refocus.
Chocolate Festival tomorrow! And San Francisco buses...with tourists...at a tourist attraction...ugh.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
science fiction rambles
A few years ago, my sister was in college and in her strange Humanities class, she had to read a bunch of books including Watchmen and Neuromancer. She was fine with Watchmen, but Neuromancer was not so easy. We made an agreement, we'd read it together. Why together? Because I'm a bit more well-versed in the ways of science fiction and furthermore, I understood (and still understand) the trust factor.
If you know science fiction, you probably read Neuromancer or have heard of it. (It's biggest claim to fame in recent pop culture is that the first line inspired the writing of The Matrix movies...I like to believe there was only one of those movies.) If you aren't an SF person/reader, there's an aspect of our literature that will likely scare you off, it kept my sister from getting more than a few pages in Neuromancer: world creation. Science fiction (or speculative fiction) readers, and probably fantasy readers, are able to ignore the unfamiliarity. It's not that we'll never figure it out, it's that we know that we'll catch on, we'll understand, we trust the author. Readers of non-genre fiction sadly don't seem to have the same sense of trust, which is why they tend not to stray too far from books found in that ambiguous category called "fiction and literature." Things found in that category are based in a world everyone knows, which eliminates needing to trust the author, unless an author sneaks into that section based on other books (e.g., Cormac McCarthy, Karen Joy Fowler) or based on the age of the book (e.g., Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, William Shakespeare [who should really be in poetry and plays]).
Now, I forgot all of that until yesterday, when I read an interview with Neal Stephenson. He's actually the reason I could read Neuromancer without freaking out over the things I didn't immediately understand. In fact, after reading The Diamond Age: Or, a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer, Neuromancer was pansy stuff. But anyway, he said exactly what I've been saying to my sister for years now: the reader needs to trust the author. He even wrote a foreword to his book to help out the uninitiated. If only the uninitiated would pick up one of his books and trust him.
Or maybe it's an issue of imagination, but I'd rather think that it's trusting an author that's the problem. Too many people have read Harry Potter for it to be an imagination issue, right?
Also: Finished The Road, which I liked so much more than a person probably should. Started a Clapotis and am having difficulty with wanting to do all of the purl rows. And I'm loving Good Omens, but Neil Gaiman and I have a connection.
If you know science fiction, you probably read Neuromancer or have heard of it. (It's biggest claim to fame in recent pop culture is that the first line inspired the writing of The Matrix movies...I like to believe there was only one of those movies.) If you aren't an SF person/reader, there's an aspect of our literature that will likely scare you off, it kept my sister from getting more than a few pages in Neuromancer: world creation. Science fiction (or speculative fiction) readers, and probably fantasy readers, are able to ignore the unfamiliarity. It's not that we'll never figure it out, it's that we know that we'll catch on, we'll understand, we trust the author. Readers of non-genre fiction sadly don't seem to have the same sense of trust, which is why they tend not to stray too far from books found in that ambiguous category called "fiction and literature." Things found in that category are based in a world everyone knows, which eliminates needing to trust the author, unless an author sneaks into that section based on other books (e.g., Cormac McCarthy, Karen Joy Fowler) or based on the age of the book (e.g., Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, William Shakespeare [who should really be in poetry and plays]).
Now, I forgot all of that until yesterday, when I read an interview with Neal Stephenson. He's actually the reason I could read Neuromancer without freaking out over the things I didn't immediately understand. In fact, after reading The Diamond Age: Or, a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer, Neuromancer was pansy stuff. But anyway, he said exactly what I've been saying to my sister for years now: the reader needs to trust the author. He even wrote a foreword to his book to help out the uninitiated. If only the uninitiated would pick up one of his books and trust him.
Or maybe it's an issue of imagination, but I'd rather think that it's trusting an author that's the problem. Too many people have read Harry Potter for it to be an imagination issue, right?
Also: Finished The Road, which I liked so much more than a person probably should. Started a Clapotis and am having difficulty with wanting to do all of the purl rows. And I'm loving Good Omens, but Neil Gaiman and I have a connection.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
marketing ploys
First, I should say that to some extent, I started reading The Friday Night Knitting Club reluctantly. There's the knitting aspect (I can knit well enough, but I crochet and the world's ignorance towards crochet actually does tend to injure some and piss off people like me). Then, there's the completely ignoring crochet aspect, which pisses me off more. And then, there's the part of me that really just wants to hunker down with more Neil Gaiman because for some reason that man makes me happy with whatever he writes.
But, I actually do like The Friday Night Knitting Club (I'm on page 205 of 366-ish). I appreciate the fact that none of the women are idiots (which I wish I didn't have to admit happens more often than it should with authors of all genders), the characters are fully formed, and it's not a story about people who hurt others for no reason. And the worst part about this book is that having spent more than 48 hours away from my yarn and my hooks and needles, I feel the need to go buy more. It's not the wanting a knitting circle aspect, because I have Yarn Club which is better, I think it's the fact that someone else is waxing poetic about one of my addictions and an addict can only take so much, and I'm weak.
Now, I must go find my bra to go shuffle off to a couple of stores. Here's why:
1) Although I bought yarn online for a baby blanket (it was on super sale at Webs), I need yarn for the future baby's older brother. I'm trying to decide on what Batman symbol to use. Classic and black and yellow? Modern and black and gray? I'm thinking classic as I can't endorse a child that young being a fan of the new Batman movies, even if they are awesome.
2) I need ideas for a wedding blanket. I have two and a half months for this next one and although I have ideas, I'm not sure that they are the right ones and I need to be around different yarns to figure out the best path. (The problem is that I have a certain style, which is probably very West Coast and very bright and very folk-sy. And the recipients are East Coast and attorneys and they are pretending to be traditional, which makes me think of boring colors, and boring colors are just rather difficult for me to work with.) But then I return to my problems because I'm not sure if I want them to have a blanket or something akin to a bedspread.)
Anyway, off to find bra and succumb to the marketing that is The Friday Night Knitting Club.
But, I actually do like The Friday Night Knitting Club (I'm on page 205 of 366-ish). I appreciate the fact that none of the women are idiots (which I wish I didn't have to admit happens more often than it should with authors of all genders), the characters are fully formed, and it's not a story about people who hurt others for no reason. And the worst part about this book is that having spent more than 48 hours away from my yarn and my hooks and needles, I feel the need to go buy more. It's not the wanting a knitting circle aspect, because I have Yarn Club which is better, I think it's the fact that someone else is waxing poetic about one of my addictions and an addict can only take so much, and I'm weak.
Now, I must go find my bra to go shuffle off to a couple of stores. Here's why:
1) Although I bought yarn online for a baby blanket (it was on super sale at Webs), I need yarn for the future baby's older brother. I'm trying to decide on what Batman symbol to use. Classic and black and yellow? Modern and black and gray? I'm thinking classic as I can't endorse a child that young being a fan of the new Batman movies, even if they are awesome.
2) I need ideas for a wedding blanket. I have two and a half months for this next one and although I have ideas, I'm not sure that they are the right ones and I need to be around different yarns to figure out the best path. (The problem is that I have a certain style, which is probably very West Coast and very bright and very folk-sy. And the recipients are East Coast and attorneys and they are pretending to be traditional, which makes me think of boring colors, and boring colors are just rather difficult for me to work with.) But then I return to my problems because I'm not sure if I want them to have a blanket or something akin to a bedspread.)
Anyway, off to find bra and succumb to the marketing that is The Friday Night Knitting Club.
Friday, August 1, 2008
unsuckiness
So, I'm going to have to say that these couple of days haven't sucked. Sure, there are things that annoy me, things that I already know, things that I don't give a rat's ass about, but I am actually liking the class I am taking in Denver for work. The people are nice, bright, and motivated. In other words, they actually do group work and when we disagree, we disagree with reason. I love arguments where you learn. Anyway, it's a bit corporate whore of my to say this, but I do really like this class on how to be better at my approaching job function.
On other topics:
I will finish book number four on the flight home.
I am actually making headway on my version of Eva's Shawl, which I named after the most romantic character I could imagine (Marianne Dashwood*).
I return home to pieces of an afghan that I need to sew together and ship out.
No news from Joss Whedon.
*Is it just me or do other folks think that Jane Austen wasn't really a fan of Marianne Dashwood? Sense and Sensibility was clearly written from Elinor's perspective, but Elinor loves her sister. And yet, there's this tone of "what a silly girl Marianne is" and "look at what she did to herself by being honest about what she thought and felt". It's almost as if Marianne is a warning. Eliza (pregnant Eliza) is the girl who exists as the example of what could have happened to Marianne, but didn't because Willoughby actually ended up loving her, although not enough to ignore the monetary demands. And it's not that this treatment of Marianne is surprising when you have the stoic and perfect Elinor to compare her to, but it doesn't coincide with the tones of the movie and the recent miniseries. Marianne is treated as young, bright, and empassioned by the films, but Austen gives the character this tinge of foolishness (much like Mrs. Dashwood). It's almost a hint that Austen would be creating Emma, because Emma is the only protagonist ever treated as a bit of a fool. And I will say that I think Austen was brilliant in how she presented two sisters (Elinor "Sense" Dashwood and Marianne "Sensibility" Dashwood) and had them do a role reversal when it came to love. Not to say that Marianne didn't fall madly in love with Colonel Brandon (because only an idiot wouldn't), but she recognizes that it's different. And here I end my essay and commentary on S&S, but I would like to know that I'm not the only one who thought Marianne was treated a bit cruelly by her creator (and not by circumstance, but by characterization).
On other topics:
I will finish book number four on the flight home.
I am actually making headway on my version of Eva's Shawl, which I named after the most romantic character I could imagine (Marianne Dashwood*).
I return home to pieces of an afghan that I need to sew together and ship out.
No news from Joss Whedon.
*Is it just me or do other folks think that Jane Austen wasn't really a fan of Marianne Dashwood? Sense and Sensibility was clearly written from Elinor's perspective, but Elinor loves her sister. And yet, there's this tone of "what a silly girl Marianne is" and "look at what she did to herself by being honest about what she thought and felt". It's almost as if Marianne is a warning. Eliza (pregnant Eliza) is the girl who exists as the example of what could have happened to Marianne, but didn't because Willoughby actually ended up loving her, although not enough to ignore the monetary demands. And it's not that this treatment of Marianne is surprising when you have the stoic and perfect Elinor to compare her to, but it doesn't coincide with the tones of the movie and the recent miniseries. Marianne is treated as young, bright, and empassioned by the films, but Austen gives the character this tinge of foolishness (much like Mrs. Dashwood). It's almost a hint that Austen would be creating Emma, because Emma is the only protagonist ever treated as a bit of a fool. And I will say that I think Austen was brilliant in how she presented two sisters (Elinor "Sense" Dashwood and Marianne "Sensibility" Dashwood) and had them do a role reversal when it came to love. Not to say that Marianne didn't fall madly in love with Colonel Brandon (because only an idiot wouldn't), but she recognizes that it's different. And here I end my essay and commentary on S&S, but I would like to know that I'm not the only one who thought Marianne was treated a bit cruelly by her creator (and not by circumstance, but by characterization).
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Officially, we start here. There's another blog lurking elsewhere, but if you don't know about it already, you won't know about it in the future.
And to start, let me tell you about The Golden Compass. Actually, best not to tell you about it. If I try, anyone who looks at this will think that I'm absolutely bonkers. All one needs to say, though, is kickass female protagonist who would laugh at you if you told her adventures are for boys. But the book is so cool that I would be reading the sequel right now if I weren't at work, and I would have finished it over the weekend if I hadn't been told to hang posters so that we look like we've moved in properly, and I'd read it tonight if I weren't going to Harry Potter. Actually, I will be reading it tonight, in line, but that's a different issue. And the 12:01 and 12:02 shows have sold out. The IMAX theater is running the movie all night: 12:01, 3:15, 6:30...Although, where are my HP books? OotP and HBP?
Oh, and the ripple afghan is still going, but got supplanted by projects for others.
And there's a start.
And to start, let me tell you about The Golden Compass. Actually, best not to tell you about it. If I try, anyone who looks at this will think that I'm absolutely bonkers. All one needs to say, though, is kickass female protagonist who would laugh at you if you told her adventures are for boys. But the book is so cool that I would be reading the sequel right now if I weren't at work, and I would have finished it over the weekend if I hadn't been told to hang posters so that we look like we've moved in properly, and I'd read it tonight if I weren't going to Harry Potter. Actually, I will be reading it tonight, in line, but that's a different issue. And the 12:01 and 12:02 shows have sold out. The IMAX theater is running the movie all night: 12:01, 3:15, 6:30...Although, where are my HP books? OotP and HBP?
Oh, and the ripple afghan is still going, but got supplanted by projects for others.
And there's a start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
