Cleaning with Murderbot (kids, definitely try this at home, but only when the kids aren't home or if you're using an earpiece, so they can't hear it)

Do you know what makes cleaning more fun bearable: Cleaning with Murderbot!  The audiobooks of Martha Wells' splendid series of Murderbot novellas are fantastic.  Kevin R. Free is crabby, frustrated, annoyed, irritated, and obsessed in such a way that I almost can't imagine how reading the text myself could possibly be as much fun as listening to him as he brings this character and its world to life.

When I realized that part 3 had come out, I was excited.  And then I saw that part 4 was the "conclusion" and had also come out. ALL OF THEM WERE AVAILABLE THROUGH MY LIBRARY SYSTEMS.  I may have listened to them all.  Twice.  In a row.  Oh, Murderbot, ART, Miki, and assorted annoying humans, it was wonderful to listen to you while I cleaned and did laundry and dishes and came up with as many excuses as I could find to keep listening (and laughing and wincing and wanting to give Murderbot a hug, even though that would totally freak it out).

Murderbot is a construct, a SecUnit (security unit) created of organic, cloned human parts (including a face) and inorganic computer/mechanical parts (most of its brain, I think).  Most areas of the inhabited universe consider them robot tools; they are not considered sentient beings capable of self-determination, and they are strictly controlled by corporations that own and deploy them to places where human security would cost more and be less effective.  They get nearly destroyed a lot.  It hurts, even when you can control your pain receptors to some extent.  These units all have a failsafe installed to prevent them from running amok and destroying everything around them. The failsafe monitors all their actions and can override their self-control.

Murderbot does not have a functioning failsafe; it hacked its Governor Module after something went wrong and Murderbot killed a bunch of people.  (It wasn't held responsible for its actions, of course, because it is considered a tool.)  That is also when it started to refer to itself as Murderbot.  Now that it has its freedom of conscience, control of its actions, and a lot of experience and scary strength it could wreak an awful lot of havoc.  What it actually does is hide from (and complain about) its annoying human clients as much as possible, try to fill in the gaps in its patheticly inadequate, corporate security module education, and binge-watch TV/media every spare second.  And give some powerful (and frequently hilariously aggravated) commentary on what it means to be human and / or a person.  And sometimes accidentally-kind-of-on-purpose go on murderous rampages to save dumb people. 

Murderbot is not interested in becoming a human (humans are pretty dumb, for the most part) or even more human (its revulsion when a helpful AI offers to give it functioning sexual organs is thought-provoking on a number of levels and also pretty stinkin' funny).  But all the humans seem to assume that's what everything wants.  Pretending to be human and fitting in better with humans gives it more freedom, though (and about 800x the stress and aggravation), so it goes back and forth a lot on the topic.

I LOVE ME SOME MURDERBOT. 

Best of all?  There's a novel coming out next year.  I hope they get Kevin R. Free to narrate it.  Except then I will have to go on a 16-hour cleaning binge, and I think that would be a terrible idea.  Maybe if it comes out in the spring . . .

City of Night: How long can you make me cry over the upcoming death of a character?

City of Night by Michelle West (The House War Book 2 of 5?): He's not dead yet, so you know that each page you read brings you closer to the monster at the end of this book, er, the death of an increasingly complex and beloved character or two, but you can't stop reading because you have to know what happened, to honor their deaths, rendered more full and significant and important here in this series.  Oh, the agony. 

I think one of my favorite things here is the way the events in Hunter's Death are expanded on so beautifully.  Not only are events from that book seen from other points of view, but the spaces between them are filled in by new characters and detailed scenes that you only realize were missing when you read them.  This kind of technique takes some serious skill. 

When I was reading Hunter's Death, there were no missing pieces; everything was crafted and fit together to advance the narrative.  Sure, I wanted more details about all the awesome characters, but that was because they were awesome and multi-dimensional, not because there were holes in the plot or the story.  When I read this book, the addition of characters who never made an appearance in Hunter's Death didn't feel tacked on (and doesn't make Hunter's Death seem cagey and manipulatively selective); they just felt whole for the current story being told, which, while it does have some parallel time covered with Hunter's Death, is not the same story.  I hope I am conveying just how difficult this sort of seamless interweaving is.  If not, sorry.  Because it's incredibly tricky and managed here seemingly effortlessly.

Oh, Rath.  You are one of my favorite kinds of protagonists: the ones who think they are scummier than they really are, the kind so damaged they can't really allow themselves to acknowledge that they might be doing great things for good reasons, the sort who don't share these deeds with the people they care for because they would hate for those people to think well of them.  It hurt so bad to get to know you, and it was a privilege.

The Hidden City: Oh, Rath, you are awesome

The Hidden City by Michelle West (The House War Book 1 of 5?): So I turned to the internet to find out if I could read more about the Hunter series characters, and the Internet did not disappoint.  It told me that I should read the first three books in the author's newest series (The House War), then the entire Sun Sword series, then the next books in The House War series.  And so, I steeled myself to read more complicated, interwoven narratives with multiple points of view and narrators.

Apparently, the author got over that as she aged and gained experience as a writer because the 3 points of view are clear, distinct, smooth, and never needlessly mysterious.  (The key seems to be staying out of Evayne's head, which--to be fair--might only be possible because the author established Evayne in other books.)  I read with an air of sad anticipation because several characters in this book had died or were not around later (in the Hunter books), so you knew they were doomed.  You knew they died; you just weren't sure how or when, so it was kind of like Hunter's Oath all over again (waiting for the guy to die while trying not to like him).

The author made this endeavor easier by making some of the minor doomed characters less distinctive and endearing.  (She has learned focus, oh yes, she has.)  Rath, however, came alive breathtakingly, as did a major doomed character who was both harder and easier to love the more you got to know her. If you can handle the impending, nasty doom of characters you grow interested in, you will probably love this book for the new light it sheds on some of the characters mentioned in Hunter's Death.

Peace Like a River - Have you read this book yet? Go, get it, and start reading now!

b Peace Like a River by Leif Enger:  This book.  Wow.  It has been on my list for a long time, and I will not waste time kicking myself for not reading it when it first came out or in any subsequent years.  It is amazing, and I love it.  There is something so incredibly kind about it that makes me want to go out and read it again as soon as I finish because I don't want to let the characters and their voices go.  There were things about the audiobook that I wasn't fond of, but on the whole, the reading of the story was very good.  Chad Lowe helped to bring each character to life with a different, distinct voice, and his narrator's voice just made this a wonderful story to listen to. 

The characters were wonderful.  They didn't always do the right things, and the consequences were often hard to swallow.  I got angry, I laughed, I cried.  The plot wove together beautifully, and the stories just rolled out.  I loved the journey; I really didn't want it to end.  And then what an ending.  Holy cow.   

I liked what it had to say about miracles, about how they intrude and make people uncomfortable because they overturn the natural order of things.  This God is not tame or predictable, and His people suffer.

I wish I could communicate to you how much I loved listening to this book.  There was a sale at Half-Price Books while I was finishing it, and I went to 4 different stores before finding a good paperback copy.  I want to see if the physical reading experience is as good as I think it will be.  I suspect this will be a book/audiobook I will revisit many times over the coming years.

Why Skyfall was a good Bond film

If I hadn't known it wasn't based on a book, I might have thought it was.  (This is a high compliment because I like the books.)  It was definitely a Bond film, but it wasn't stupid and brainless, and it didn't ignore the world it was setting itself in.

• The villain was believably crazy (not your generic, run-of-the-mill, mustache-twirling psycho).  He acted just that little bit off-kilter, and it was spine-chilling sometimes.  You understood what made him go insane, you saw the effects that this kind of lifestyle of service and self-sacrifice could lead to.  You also saw how he might go too far but still hold that against his superiors later.  He was scary, but he mostly made sense.
• The hero was properly dimensioned.  Suave when necessary but grumpy and surly as the situation called for as well.  There's a lot of ambiguity that I liked.  That scene with Moneypenny and the razor?  Bond exerting his charm? Yes.  Bond not sure he could shave without cutting himself?  Maybe.  Two birds, one stone.  The film was pretty psychological, too, asking the questions but not feeling a need to answer them neatly.  Why do you keep doing this?  What drives you?  Why should you be allowed to continue?  And this Bond is good at making you convincingly feel that he is in real danger, not just playing around being more awesome than the other guys.
• M really worked.  You could sense her old-school dedication to the job, and you could see where it resonated with Bond.  "I'll stop when the job's done," she said.  Damn straight.  Their relationship was complicated and simple, based on what was said and explained and what was not justified, what was simply understood.  They may have played a bit too hard on the orphans/mother thing, but that theme was consistent, so I don't hold it against them too much.
• The secondary characters were solid.  That secretary guy talking Bond to death while he's taking the tests, Moneypenny, the unfortunate girl Bond tried (and failed, yet again) to save, the guy investigating MI6, Q, and others.
• The modern stuff was integral to the film.  How do you make these movies believable in the modern world?  Some past Bond films just sort of ignored it as they reveled in gadgets and cool stunts and explosions.  This movie made the new technology integral to the plot (Q was kind of a hoot) and openly confronted how the world works now in relation to governments, spying, accountability, and international/world politics.  It didn't try to wrap everything up neatly, but it did give a chance for different views to be presented and a compelling case made for why/how Ian Fleming's characters could still really work in this setting.

I really liked it, even though it was pretty long and tense and sad.  I don't think I saw the last one with this actor, but I liked his first one, which actually stuck really close to the book it was based on (like startlingly close) until the end.  I like what they're doing with these characters

Why marathoning a show is not always a good idea

I watched most of the first season of the Big Bang Theory over the course of a couple of weeks.  I enjoyed the show, but I noticed something kind of odd.  In this marathon--and back when I marathoned Firefly--I began to suspect that episodic shows with multiple writers (most of them for weekly television series, I would imagine) tend to seem kind of scattered.  I didn't comb through scientifically, but there seems to be a pattern where certain episodes play up certain facets of certain characters, and I wonder if the episodes that play up the same thing are by the same writers.  I don't know if some writers just like certain characters or feel that certain sides of those characters don't get enough screen time, but the overall combination can seem oddly uneven when watched en masse.

I hesitate to say that this makes the whole seem artificial because by nature these things are artificial: they're TV shows about fictional people, but maybe this is why shows are still often played weekly: people don't nit-pick about this sort of thing when there's a whole week of life in between brief viewings of these fictional lives.

While Firefly was definitely more obvious in this regard, it's only fair to point out that it was also shorter in terms of episodes, so maybe the episodes that would have helped even things out never got made.

Are there any shows where you've noticed this disparity between character continuity in different episodes?  Do you care?

You can't read just one: Tamora Pierce's Mastiff and other books

I knew I shouldn't have started reading Mastiff by Tamora Pierce.  It was ginormous, and I had things on my list, and I should have waited until certain of those things were done, but at the rate I am able to accomplish such things these days, it could have been a year before I got to it.  And the cover was beautiful green with shiny bits, and it was on the top of the stack, and I have no self-control after four months.  So I started it.

It is difficult to inhale a book that big.  It takes days (literally takes away any illusion of free time I might have had), and it is like being on a mission.  Someone pointed out that these books are basically police procedurals, and they are a compelling, must-read-to-find-out-how-it-ends/happens/plays out reads.

When I saw indications that this would be the last book in this series, I was a bit sad because I really like Beka.  She's a different kind of heroine from the ones I've read most recently in Tamora Pierce.  Things are murkier in Beka's world.  It's more like the seedy side of the early Guards stuff in Terry Pratchett.  I mean, yes, it's a fantasy world, but it is not a bright, clean fantasy world that reflects idealizations.  The police accept bribes and often operate more like a protection racket.  Corruption is rampant in the courts and on the streets.  There are good cops and bad cops.  Justice is mostly for the wealthy.  In this world of Tortall (a couple hundred years in the past), Beka doesn't seem quite as noble as Alanna and Kel and even Alianne or Dane. 

No one could really accuse any of the aforementioned people of being "good girls," and all of these heroines share some similarities even if their personalities are very different, but Beka, well, there's something darker about Beka.  I wonder if it's the straightforward and pragmatic way she has of seeing her own darkness and the darkness around her.  She accepts her darkness but still trusts her moral compass to point her the right way.  All of these Pierce protagonists stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves in different ways.  I love all the different ways that manifests itself.  Knights errant, mages, police, knight commanders.

Once I finished this last Beka adventure, which had a coda scene connecting it to the future, I unfortunately found myself needing to read the first book in that referenced series immediately.  And then the next and the next and the next.  If only I'd started my Pierce binge chronologically.  After the sprawling and complex Mastiff, going back to the beginning with the Song of the Lioness quartet was a bit jarring and painful.  What, I felt myself asking, amazing things would Pierce do if she were to write the Alanna books at this point in her career? 

And please don't even look at the terrible more recent covers.  Tamora Pierce should sue her publishers for their obvious attempts to make everyone avoid buying her books because the covers need paper bags over them to be tolerated.  Not that I'm bitter.  I just hated recommending her writing to people always prefaced with, "Please ignore the cover.  No, don't run away screaming!  Please!  I swear the books are good!  And we sell book covers!"

The binge stopped for now because I don't have the Immortals series in this state (they are on the middle bookshelf in my parents' basement in a state far away), and I managed to convince myself the rest had to be read in order, so I could appreciate Pierce's growth as a writer and YA fiction's growth as a genre over the last 30 years.  Huzzah!

other people listening

.
So sad.  He talks
even when no one's listening and when
it's pretty obvious no one wants

to hear him.  Thank goodness there are
other people who listen and respond, so I
don't have to.
.

Villainous good guys

Months after reading The Shadow of the Lion by Mercedes Lackey, Eric Flint, and Dave Freer.

I have to say that I'm rather fond of the villainous good guys who lurk in the shadows and protect the good guys who aren't ruthless enough to protect themselsves. These characters are needed if you're going to convince me that your morally upstanding, lovable leader guy isn't just going to get whacked immediately in your semi-realistic, brutal, politically-internecine, fantasy world. These characters tend to have a low opinion of themselves but consider almost any behavior excusable when it's in the service of the greater good of the person they have chosen to protect.

I wonder why I don't remember more characters like this outside of Japanese pop culture, where this villainous good guy character type is familiar and sometimes taken to such an extreme that he will become a straight out villain to allow the good guy to change the world. I think the only other place I've seen it recently was in the Night Angel Trilogy by Brent Weeks. We know my memory is very sieve-like, so maybe it's a more frequent character than I'm giving it credit for being.  Can you think of any other good examples?

Look, Ma, I'm in a Category, a haphazard meditation on something, Part 3 of 5

This is the third part of a sprawling, 5-part reflection started by what I found at this link.  Last time I thought a bit about about Religion and Diversity.  I challenged the integrity of people and the fiction they're willing to accept.

Speaking of acceptance, I have this other blog where I talk about my cheerful acceptance of my lack of desire to have sex with anyone.  I jokingly refer to myself as pretty much asexual.  I had no idea I was part of an actual acronym.

Nurul says: September 13, 2011 at 10:19 am

"Ooh, is that A in your QUILTBAG stands for asexual? Because if yes then thank goodness, someone remembers us! It seems like the world refuses to acknowledge that we exist."

Simple as that, apparently I have been categorized.  Now that I know the category exists, I cannot unknow it, so maybe I should find out about it. 

S.O. says: September 13, 2011 at 2:36 pm

there’s a few discussion communities on this topic:
http://group-x.dreamwidth.org/
http://asexual-fandom.dreamwidth.org/
http://asexuality.dreamwidth.org/

There's even a Facebook group.  Hmmmm.  Is this a sign of the Apocalypse?

As amazing as it is that I am suddenly in a category with a Facebook group, I was more amazed when one of the commenters said there was actually a YA book or two with a prominent asexual character (Kevin from Guardian of the Dead and the protagonist of Elizabeth Bear’s Dust).  Honestly, I never thought there would be a YA book with a prominent asexual character if I didn't write it.

Who would have thought it?!  Aren't YA books (and our culture) so driven by the idea that sex is a biological necessity (and that hormones rule all when one is a teenager) that one might wonder what teen would want to read a book where there was no possibility of sex at all?  I mean, what would be the point?  I think I'll have to read these books to find out whether the other characters provide the requisite sexual lust.  I promise I'm not really this cynical; I'm exaggerating a bit.

It's true there are plenty of fictional examples of teens making good and bad lust-related choices.  What was missing were fictional examples of people who didn't even play that game as teenagers.  I sort of assumed they didn't exist except as the "broken" characters this commenter below described.

T. Arkenberg says: September 13, 2011 at 2:26 pm

"As an asexual reader I’d feel most recognized if a character specifically identifies as not having sexual attraction to anyone, or as not intending to have any relationships and as being satisfied with that. Sometimes you’ll get a character who doesn’t want romance, but they’re often portrayed as ‘broken’ or coming down from a bad relationship, and they’ll be turned around by the right potential lover. An asexual character doesn’t need to be ‘healed’."

You know, that would have been kind of nice for me to read about when I was younger.  I never really had any role models of contented celibacy, real or fictional.  All the single people I knew considered themselves to be in (the sometimes long) transition to a state of non-singlehood.  (Or else they considered themselves utter failures as human beings despite the fact that they were wonderfully amazing people.)  I watched some of those people and wondered if they were just going through the motions of what was expected by their various cultures, like, maybe they didn't really want to have a boyfriend/girlfriend, but the culture had conditioned them to think that they were broken if they were not half of a whole, that if they did not feel this need, it was because of something they lacked that they needed to seek out, which created a false sense of longing.  I still wonder that.

I personally spent too much time combating those sad, sympathetic looks from otherwise intelligent folks who pitied me the brokenness they perceived even as I rejoiced in the freedom I had from certain kinds of drama they endured.  The idea of someone else being contentedly celibate never crossed our radars.

I wonder what (if any) difference if would have made for me if I had encountered anyone like me in the fictionverses.  I wonder if it really would have made any difference to be given permission to exist as I did.  I mean, I never really asked for permission.  (Or forgiveness, for that matter.)  But teens who aren't quite as self-assured/self-contained as I was, maybe they need a fictional trailblazer to lead the way.  Maybe they need to know that they actually have options other than the one they've been given in order for them to consider their situations and decide for themselves what option to choose . . .

What do you think?  Do you know any other folks who are in my category?  Do you know any who might have been if not for peer and societal pressure?  Do you think the existence of an asexual fictional character would have given them some sort of permission?

Stay tuned for Part 4 Who's Giving Your Kid Permission next week . . .

Did he just say that? Seriously?

Have you ever met someone who made you wonder, "Why did he say that?" every time he opens his mouth?  Someone you want to present with a shovel because every sentence is just digging him in deeper?

It's torturous. There's really no way to tell him what he is doing to himself, but you feel bad just walking away in the middle of his talking even though you know he's not trying to actually communicate and is just babbling because there are people trapped in chairs around him during this getting-to-know-you time.

He holds the entire table captive, making everyone uncomfortable with tales of all his past girlfriends who dumped him and married the next person they dated, which seems quite reasonable the more he talks because anyone would seem like a prince after him. He complains about being invited to the weddings and the ones he's still acquainted with and how much he loathes their children (he refers to them as "disgusting little rats").  He composes crass poetry and uses foul language liberally.

He is genuinely oblivious to the fact that every minute his mouth is moving is making the people around him dislike and eventually hate him even more. It's horrifying and fascinating at the same time . . .

Even Allie can't seem to figure out a way out of this kind of awkward conversation . . .

The Rebel Jesus

I've been reading the gospels lately, and, you know what?  They tell a good story about a really compelling man (who was also God). 

Every time I read them, I am always shocked by how unsanitized He is in these books.  He is not a pious, clean, respectable man.  He is controversial; He does not pull punches.  He argues, He is sly and clever, He deliberately speaks in parables so people won't understand, He feeds the hungry, He is unpredictable, He seeks solitude and encourages His followers to do the same, He heals the sick even on the Sabbath.  He has no patience with those who aren't really seeking.  He is not nice.  He's loving and kind but not nice. 

I love Him with all my heart because He is so real. 

corporate personas and other stories we tell people about ourselves

I read a bunch of business books and interviewing books before taking my first corporate job last year, and they were fascinating.  One in particular talked about creating a corporate persona.  When you start working at a company, it doesn't matter what your work reputation was before; now you have the chance to remake yourself and control people's initial perceptions about you!

I laughed because it reminded me of junior high and then college.  Whenever you start some place new, you get the chance to reinvent yourself.  You have baggage, but the new people you meet don't know about it, and when you're with them, you can, to some extent, create a new you with them.  (You just can't ever let them see you interacting with your family. :)

Maybe you were a slob who was always late, but in your new job, you can dress neatly and be on time, and everyone will assume you have always been so.  Sometimes, that baggage gives you so much drag that you can't stop it and change how people perceive you where you are.  Sometimes you have to go where nobody knows your name, so you can become a you more like the you you aspire to be rather than the you who's dragging you down. Eventually, you may grow into that person.  Yeah, deep.

I was pretty deliberate about my corporate persona, in that I didn't really build one.  I tried to do the opposite, actually, and bring my non-businesslike qualities to the fore.  I played the book-nerdy, slightly goofy, plushie-loving, non-threatening, a tad spacey, non-ambitious role I created, and it has served me well so far.  I have avoided the pitfall of appearing driven, dedicated, and focused because that's not who I am able to be anymore.  I could play it for a time, but I don't have the energy to keep that mask on for long.  I wouldn't want to set false expectations at the beginning.  Better to be more who I am; less weight on the mask, that way.  Competent but hardly exceptional.  That's what I aimed for.

How about you?  Have you ever reinvented yourself (corporate persona or new school or anything)?  What did you change about how people perceived you and why?

Book cover woes

So, there are a few things we know about the character on the left:

• He has blond hair.
• He always wears some sort of long coat to conceal the arsenal of knives and swords he perpetually carries.
• He has a huge Roman nose.

I suppose 1 out of 3 isn't terrible for a fantasy book cover. 

It still irks me.  Possibly especially because I like the covers on this series.  Is it really so impossible to get things right in urban fantasy where you have the option of using real people as models?  Really?  Sigh.

Are there any covers that really irked you by being off-model/out of character?

Reading Madhouse by Rob Thurman

If you thought the Dresden files weren't gory enough but you wanted more character development than Simon Green's shorter novels, you may want to check this series out. 

• More concentrated horror. Yech.
• More gross and drippy things.  'Nough said.
• A higher body count.  Yuck.
• Way more bad language and bad attitude.  Amusing.
• A more fragile main character.  He may be half-demon, but he gets the crap beaten out of him regularly; his older brother is the real butt-kicker in the family. Also, he has even more family issues than Dresden.  Really.
• Some interesting but not all that savory side-characters.  Way more R-rated than Dresden.
• Characters making hard and sad decisions. It's tough watching them get hurt and making poor decisions with consequences they'll have to deal with.

Of course, I find myself comparing these to the Dresden files, and they are found wanting because they are more horror than I really care for and because the world isn't as complex and because the characters aren't as well-developed.  However I'm not really being fair. If I really want to fairly compare this third book to Dresden, I would need to compare it to the third Dresden files book, and I do remember that, though I got a kick out of the first three Dresden books, I wasn't hopelessly hooked until #4 was exponentially better than 1-3 (and #5 was better than that). 

In conclusion, I'm going back to read #1 and 2 in this series, and then maybe I'll make another review of how I feel about it.  If I don't throw up.

Only fifteen?

Brought to you by my friend J who spent over a year with me in RetailPurgatory a lifetime ago.

Name fifteen fictional characters (television, films, plays, books) who’ve influenced you or that will always stick with you. List the first 15 you can recall in no more than 15 minutes.

This one's hard for me because I'm an ensemble cast sort of person.  I often like whole casts of characters, and it's hard (sometimes impossible) to choose a favorite. 

It's also hard because there's, like, a couple hundred I have to choose from, and no matter which ones I choose, I will feel inadequate for choosing them, and I will spend days stopping short at random places going, "Darg!  I should have said ____!"  But that's what comments are for.  :)

• Ender Wiggin from Ender's Game
• Miles Vorkosigan from Lois McMaster Bujold's Miles books
• Caz from Curse of Chalion
• MacGyver
• Kvothe from Name of the Wind
• Kel from Tamora Pierce's Protector of the Small series
• Ash Lynx from Banana Fish
• Harry Dresden from Butcher's Dresden Files series
• Eugenides from Megan Whalen Turner's books
• Heero from Gundam Wing
• Wolfwood from Trigun
• Folken from Escaflowne
• Charles Wallace from Madeleine L'Engle's books
• Joshua from The Arm of the Starfish
• Vimes from the Pratchett books
• Otori Takeo from Tales of the Otori
• Harvey from the Kieli series

Better stop before I get to one hundred . . .

What about you?

Thinking with Fire

I adored Graceling (along with a lot of other people including critics), but I have to say I was afraid that the next book would be too similar, so I held off buying and reading it.  Unfortunate repetition happens to a lot of YA authors.  In Fire's favor was the fact that it was not a sequel, always a good sign.  Also in its favor was the fact that it took place in the same world as Graceling but in another part of it where the rules were different.  (Echoes of Tamora  Pierce, hooray!)  I found the world fascinating and was all for more exploration of it.

In Fire, the situation the heroine was in was sort of vaguely similar, and it was destined to be a romance from the beginning, so there was a certain amount of predictability there, but there was also a lot of court intrigue and reversals and hard decisions and bad things happening to lots of people and misunderstandings and nuanced characters and other bits to keep one reading and guessing.  I enjoyed Fire. 

I must admit that, at first, while I was reading it, I wondered if it sold very well.  Lots of people are sort of Method Readers: they have to find something they can identify with in the main character to keep them reading.  I wonder how many teenaged girls struggle with being so effortlessly, ridiculously beautiful that they literally have to fight off men attracted to them.  The answer is probably not many.  So what would make this book appealing and relevant to them?

I actually found my answer in the responses of those around this main character.  Many wanted her dead because she was by her very nature a temptress (even though she didn't consciously use her powers, especially not for evil) who caused strife, and they were afraid of her potential if she chose to be evil.  They were scared of their weakness and her power over them, so they hated her and tried to confine her or even kill her. 

I found myself remembering that in many places in our real, modern world, women are forced to cover themselves completely and hide away because the men around them believe that their existence and visibility leads men to sin.  Of course, the men can't be expected to control themselves; that would be too hard, so let's blame the women.  It's their nature to tempt men to sin simply by existing, right?  The way the story raised and handled these issues was great.  There wasn't any preaching; no one made speeches they wouldn't have made if they really existed, and I still walked away thoughtful.

I like the conclusions Fire comes to by the end of the novel.  I really do.  She wrestles with her demons and her nature, and she comes to a peace with them.  If only other women in captivity to the weak men around them could have such a hard-fought, hard-won happy ending.  If only all teen girls could successfully fight their way to peace with themselves about their bodies and their responsibility to the people around them.  I hope some of them can.  Maybe reading this book will make them think about it. If not, it's still a great read full of adventure and romance and sacrifice and redemption and good and evil and other things that make a story worth hearing.  I'm looking forward to Cashore's next book.  It's coming out . . . soon, I hope.

Are you more of a "Method Reader" or a total omnivore (omnibibliovore)?

Protecting/Defending Innocence

There's a fun discussion about one of my favorite series going on right now, and in this one, several people brought up something that was bothering them: one character seems to be going out of his way to protect the other character's innocence, even to the extent of not wanting the poor kid to learn how to protect himself (by hurting/maiming/killing other people).  This seems very two-dimensional to the readers, like it's turning the protected into some sort of lesser person.

(NOTE: The referenced discussion only covers up to the first third of the work in question; I've read the whole thing, which might color some of what I think.  Also, if you're a Princess Bride fan, you should definitely check out the rather hilarious references that pop up in the discussion, especially if you've read Banana Fish.)

It's true I'm pretty generous with characters.  I work hard so authors don't have to.  It is very difficult to make me believe your characer is two-dimensional; I will do all sorts of extra work in the background to flesh out that character unless you go above and beyond. That said, I don't really think this character is two-dimensional at all.  Out of his depth?  Totally.  Frustrated and helpless and conflicted and protected?  Yeah.  Unrealistically simple?  Not really.

One of the ideas I was getting from the discussion is one that I've encountered before, the one that says it's wrong to protect someone because it's the same as reducing them somehow.  I think that idea comes from the way we protect children from as much reality as we can.  Kids hate that as they grow older; it makes them mad.  I think that anger's still sort of fresh in the minds of disillusioned young adults, especially ones who were raised by people who denied them reality and the chance to face it in a more controlled environment.  I don't think that every attempt to protect someone else's innocence is necessarily like saying you think they're a child.

I'm totally willing to buy that one young adult male might really respect and cherish another young adult male's relative innocence without that reducing the one being cherished and protected.  And of course there's a risk of transforming the one you cherish into an object on a pedestal, a thing that must be protected rather than a person, but I don't feel like that's really happening in this story.

[ASIDE: There's another character who is really irritated by that same character's innocence at least partly because it represents everything he never had (peace, a loving family, a life of relative ease, etc.).  I suppose you could say he's two-dimensional because you can infer all that quite easily (more because the author is skilled than because it's blatantly spelled out).  I don't think that being able to figure out part of what motivates someone renders them less-complex, whether they are fictional or non-fictional.]

Another more recent pop-culture example I've been considering is from the TV show Chuck.  Chuck ends up with a head full of government secrets and all kinds of danger his nearly-completed engineering degree and several years in retail hell have really not prepared him for.  He is kind of goofy and adorable, and he has a huge heart and is a good guy.  People like him, even spies.  They like his innocence and his willingness to trust and his desire to do the right thing.  And they don't want him to change.  They are there to protect him from the bad guys, but at least one of them is also interested in protecting him from becoming just another spy.  And one of the bad guys is even very concerned that he'll turn into just another jaded public servant putting his rights and freedom on the line every day to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

(Apparently, in season three when he comes into some special skills, he starts acting like just another spy.  The more cognizant viewers saw what the writers were trying to do; the less-cognizant just got mad because Chuck wasn't good-ole' sit-com Chuck anymore.  And while the show has always had a healthy lot of comedy, it's never been a sit-com because the characters are in flux and changing as they go, you know, like people.  People don't always make the right choices; sometimes they choose very poorly, and we have to watch them live with the consequences (and often share those consequences with us).  That doesn't make them less realistic.  Perhaps it makes them more realistic and thus less funny.  :)  And we wouldn't want any reality in our science fiction because it's all just supposed to be brainless genre-fluff anyway, right?  Riiiiiight . . . )

Anyway, do you have any thoughts on protecting someone's innocence and/or what makes a character two-dimensional for you?

Loving the fallen sparrow

We're back from the dead and ready to roll.  Thank you for your concern about my dead computer and lack of internet access for, er, too long.  My lack of access to the net (and several delayed and canceled flights) meant I read a great book lately, and I wanted to tell you about it while I am still gobsmacked.

READER GEEKING OUT

I loved the characters.  I loved the plot.  I loved this book.  It made me cry so much that my nose peeled from tissue over-use, and I had to do all kinds of wonky things to prevent my awkwardly peeling nose from being what people at my new job remembered about me henceforth. 

This is a difficult and beautiful story.  The characters are lovable and believable and painfully awkward and broken in so many different, normal ways, and that's why this book may break your heart.  It's challenging and moving and heartbreaking and harrowing and full of fragile happiness and despair and death and sadness and tragedy and seeking and surviving and not-finding and truth and grace and faith and hope and love in so many forms.  I can't give you details because it must be read to be understood. 


WRITER GEEKING OUT

No plot summary could possibly do it justice.  Such summaries only serve to cheapen it (as I have proven by trying and getting less-than enthusiastic reactions.  This is a tight book, a finely crafted piece of speculative fiction no "literary fiction" reader should feel ashamed of reading.  World and plot and characters are melded to each other.

The parallel narrative structure is pulled off wonderfully.  I've read other books that try to be this good at a parallel story, and I ended up feeling jerked back and forth, always in the middle of things, as if constantly being in media res is a good thing.  No thank you; I don't appreciate the whiplash.  There is no whiplash here, just elegant execution.

Great balance of new information, great use of point of view to control what is withheld and what we learn and what the characters learn without making the readers feel like the writer is toying with or torturing them.  It's all remarkably organic.  We are on a journey with the main character in the present, and we are reliving the past with him.  We are restricted, but it doesn't feel manipulative because it rises from the story itself and the way it is being told.

It deals extensively with ideas and themes I wish more people would think about (good and evil, maturity, change, celibacy, society, community, mistakes, hindsight, judgment [without facts or love], respect, kindness, tenderness, love and friendship, dignity, fate, good intentions, God, sin, nature, and some other things).  This is a smart book with smart characters, and you will think whether you plan to or not.  Also, regard the calm foreshadowing with awe and dread.

The paperback version I read had some extras at the end, including author insights, and I was blown away by Russell's comments about how we look back at the past and judge harshly, as if we are better people now who would not do these things, as if we are not still the same human beings who make the same mistakes ad nauseum, as if we have the right to judge based on our imperfect information and the twisting of facts and historical records.  If you have any smugness in you, it might be beaten out of you by the end.  Read the book before you read the extra bits because it's kind of like being punched (in a thought-provoking way) if you read it in the context of the whole story.

AND FINALLY

One of the most amazing things about the book is that when you come to the end of the story, having been pummelled and rung out and smashed, somehow there is hope.  This is a miracle.  Don't miss it.

If you've read The Sparrow, feel free to gush or just talk about it or recommend other books people might like.  It's vaguely similar to but clearly better than Out of the Silent Planet and is somewhat redolent of Madeleine L'Engle to me (criticisms I've seen of this work and some of her thinkier works are very similar, and I couldn't help but connect this with The Arm of the Starfish for the sparrow quotes alone).

I'm sorry I waited so long to read this for the first time.  Feel free not to repeat my mistake.

Psyching you out, Sherlock

What if Sherlock Holmes lived in modern times, and no one would believe his awesome "deductive" reasoning?  What would he have to resort to in order to get modern police to take him and his ideas seriously? 

I wonder if he wouldn't have to pretend to be psychic, like the main character of the TV show Psych.  Raised with fearful powers of observation by a strict father on the police force, Shawn Spencer has finally found a way to use his powers for good AND tick off his dad at the same time.


One of the best things about this show is the continuing storyline interaction between Shawn and his dad.  They don't get along, but they really care about each other, and their awkward interactions are really a treasure.  Then there's Shawn's relationship with best friend Gus.  As the production staff comments over and over again: they've been friends forever and will sell each other out at the drop of a hat.  Kind of priceless sometimes, especially considering how low the budget for this show apparently is. 

If you ever wondered what it would be like if Sherlock Holmes was a comedy that follows a sharp boy who really never grew up and his goofy, nerdy best friend since childhood (not exactly Watson) as they solve mysteries and pretend to be psychic, check Psych out.  Even if you never wondered, it's worth a watch, not for the mystery but for the banter and character relationships.  (And the commentaries, which are sometimes astonishingly funny and informative.)

Man solves mysteries using mostly powers of observation: this situation is quite different depending on what "genre" it's set in, and I find that fascinating.

I bet if Gus told Shawn the world was round, Shawn would get mad at him, too.

Are there any TV shows you like where the set-up for an older story seems ported into a new time and place with interesting results?  Or, if you're a Psych fan, do you have any episodes to recommend for the new viewer?