JuliAnna's comments (member since Jun 27, 2008)

JuliAnna's comments from the SciFi and Fantasy Book Club group.

I guess I'm going to have to try The Book Thief, but I think I'll put it off for a while longer. My TBR pile just keep growing.

I recently read my first Murakami, The Wind-up Bird Chronicle, which was very interesting. It had the potential to be great but never quite made it. I also read The Sparrow, which is definitely worth reading. I think I'm going to try Clarke and Pohl'sThe Last Theorem next.

Jon, thanks for the helpful info on the Kindle format. Sounds like that is the way to go for The Crown Conspiracy. I'm so glad Danielle asked about it.

Also, thanks to Chris for the robot info.

I think Watchment is well suited to a classroom, given all the cultural, historical and scientific references. Somehow this kind of forum doesn't lend itself to discussing those aspects as well as I wish it did. Still, my reading definitely benefited from what I did learn here from folks who knew more about the history of comics and the context in which Watchmen was written.

John wrote: "So, I just started Melissa Scott's Burning Bright today. Anyone ever read it? "

It has probably been a decade since I have read Melissa Scott, but I remember liking her, including "Burning Bright." As I recall, "Trouble and her Friends" was the novel of hers that I most enjoyed.

Dana, thanks for the recommendations. I also enjoyed the double posting. It is always interesting to me how different the experience of reading a book can be from one time to another.

I definitely enjoyed this book. Does anybody know how it compares to other McKillip novels or have specific recommendations for those of us who liked this one?

***SPOILERS*****


I don't think McKillip's world is exactly free of gender bias. Certainly, it not free of the bias of the past, as seen primarily in the assumptions that the first King (presented as a warrior) and the Hooded One were men. On the other hand, despite some initial resistance by some to these ideas, everyone seems to adjust fairly well. There were certainly extensive limitations on women in the days of Axis and Kane and in the histories of those times. But, even in Nepenthe's time, there seem to be some gender divisions. While there is a Queen being crowned and her primary adviser is a woman, I got the impression that most of the others in the political arena were male. Despite this, there doesn’t seem to be any resistance to the Queen and the advisor based on their gender. In addition, war seems to be almost exclusively the domain of men, but admittedly this is not clear.


****END SPOILERS****



More fundamentally, I object the implicit critiques of feminism and fantasy in the review by Publisher’s Weekly.

Best of all, the strong female leads neither rail against nor submit to patriarchy. In this magical world blissfully free of bias, people are simply themselves, equally intelligent and witty and thoroughly capable while prone to the occasional error, in a manner that transcends feminism and becomes a celebration of essential humanity.

I hardly think that what is “best of all” about the novel is that it doesn’t “rail against or submit to patriarchy.” There are numerous fantasy works that present strong female characters, and neither “rail against or submit to patriarchy.” Nor, given the centrality of the medieval settings in fantasy, is a little “railing” uncalled for.

Finally, I don't see why one couldn’t see “a world blissfully free of [gender:] bias” as a distinctly feminist vision (rather than one that “transcends feminism").

Oh dear. I seem to have done a little railing of my own.

I didn't have to go into work yesterday, thanks to the snowstorm. So, for the first time in a while I got to spend a day reading a book from cover to cover. I enjoyed McKillip's writing style from the beginning. There were a couple of moments where I thought it was trying a little too hard, but basically I loved it.

Robin, I think you are probably right about World War Z. I enjoyed it, but it doesn't seem to be your kind of book. It is worth a try, but if you don't like the beginning, I wouldn't bother to continue. The rest of the book is just more of the same.

Jon, I'll be interested in hearing what you think about both The Book Thief and Master and Commander. I'm oddly resistant to trying the first despite all the good things I have heard. And, I really like the O'Brian series, so I am curious as to whether it will appeal to your taste.

Shannon wrote: "I'm struggling a bit with Watchmen, to be honest. I'm just finding it very choppy."

Shannon, it was pretty slow going for me as well, especially at the beginning. It seemed to go a little more smoothly later on. I think this had less to do with any changes in the writing/graphics than the fact that I got more used to it the style as I went along.

Judy wrote: "Just finished "The Virgin Suicides" by Jeffrey Eugenides, which I loved. BTW -- also a huge fan of the Barrayar books! "

I thought "The Virgin Suicides" was excellent. Much more tightly crafted and very different in tone than the wide ranging "Middlesex" (which I also enjoyed). You are the first person that I have heard comment on "The Virgin Suicides." I don't know if no one reads it, or if they just don't think it is worth commenting on.

Robin wrote: "I also started reading Howl's Moving Castle."

Robin, I've been considering reading that. Let me know what you think of it.

I just finished Living Dead in Dallas, which I liked better than the first Sookie Stackhouse, but it is definitely a romance novel first and foremost. It is not something I would recommend for someone looking for much more than that. I am beginning to understand the usefulness of the genre title "paranormal romance."

I've started Bridge of Birds, which I am definitely enjoying. It is a fun, engaging read (but it does raise some disturbing questions about cultural stereotypes).

I'm finishing Anna Karenina this weekend. And, I've started on another Stephen Johnson book, The Invention of Air.

Sandi, I really liked The Ghost Map. I hope you do as well. And, Jasper Fforde is always a delight. Sounds like a good month.

Thanks, Meghan. The interview is a lot of fun. I especially liked the second part on microcosms.

Robin wrote: "Fantastic Fiction is a great site to find the order of books I got this information from there. "

Thanks for the link, Robin. I'm always trying to figure out where particular books fall in their series.

I notice that they have two books recommended by Bujold at the bottom: Kerr's The Wild Swans and Carl's Shadows in Scarlet: A Haunting Novel of Romantic Mystery. Has anyone read either of these?

I didn't think Falling Free was as good as some of the later one's in the Vorkosigin series, so I am always afraid that folks won't like it and will never get to the real stunners.

Jeffrey wrote: "Personally, I never tried to draw parallels between these characters and other DC characters. To me doing so diminishes these charactes as original creations. However..."

I'm quite the opposite. I think Moore is constantly referring to and commenting on other comics (beyond just DC as others have mentioned), and I kept wishing that I knew more about comics so that I could make the connections.

Meaghan, when you list characters as templates is this based on your own knowledge of the comics, something Moore said, or another source? I'm asking because I would be very interested in reading more about this.

My favorite section of the book was the document that discussed the comic book writer and his relationship to the artists that he work with. And, it gets another layer of meaning later on.