Meghan's comments (member since Mar 03, 2008)

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

rytr_1 wrote: "I am now about a fourth of the way through the book. Wow. This is some amazing stuff. I love how Atwood drops a little bit of background at a time, just enough so the picture emerges gradually; ..."

Alias Grace is loosely based on a true story. While the story itself wasn't a roaring favorite of mine, I thought how Atwood weaved the facts with speculation was quite well done. It's a satisfying read at least.

I really, really, really like Oryx and Crake. However, a lot of people I know find it confusing and weird. To me it's her best science fiction (speculative fiction?). If you can get past the blue baboon butt people, you should enjoy the story.

Blind Assassin is good. But honestly, I enjoyed after I read it and had time to think about it all. It's a story within a story and sometimes it was a bit of a challenge to keep everyone straight.

Robber Bride, Lady Oracle, and Cat's Eye are her "normal" fiction. I enjoyed them, but they are so vastly different from her speculative fiction it took me a bit to adjust. I enjoyed them, but not in the same way that I enjoyed O&C and THT.

Greyweather wrote: "I've read that collection, and it is a good one. Howard was an excellent writer. Unfortunately, Howard was also a huge racist (hardly surprising considering when and where he lived), and a lot of..."

That is a great fun fact and interesting note to keep in mind while reading. This is my first time delving into his work, even though I've known about it forever. What boy my age didn't play Conan at one time or the other at recess?

Lara Amber wrote: "Meghan,

A slight correction on your post. They didn't have to change the Constitution to allow FDR to run for a third and fourth term. The Constitution didn't have any term limits on the preside..."

Oh thanks. I was so way off in what I said, I deleted it. I was confusing George Washington's refusal to run beyond two terms and thinking that's when they established term limits. I knew FDR was the time though when there was the controversy over going beyond 2 terms.

And my point about the President is that if he had the backing of our military it doesn't really matter if he has the authority or not--he has the power, which essentially gives him the authority, to make such decisions. (I made a slight edit in hopes that it clarified my point.)

But it does give you pause to offer up a brief thanks to the forefathers who put together our system. They made it EXTREMELY difficult for any one person or small group of people to overthrow our government.

This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "You can also get (free) copies of this book in other (non-Kindle) formats from Suvudu.com (which is the generating site for the Kindle/Amazon book).

Numerous other science fiction and fantasy boo..."

very cool! Thanks.

I wasn't exactly sure where to post this, but if you're a Howard fan or would like to try his work, amazon is offering Vol 1 - The Shadow Kingdom (a collection of his stories and poems) for free on kindle right now. Howard is best known for his Conan stories.

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Robert-E-Howa...

MB wrote: "Hmmm... Lara, I think my thought was that the status quo can and has changed rapidly due to sudden, or somewhat sudden, cataclysmic changes. (I.e. economic devastation after a war (Germany), or p..."

And don't discount the power of a charismatic leader. Looking at Hitler, one would not think he would be of great importance, let alone dictator (hence Europe's complete dismissal of him in the beginning). But it was his ability to charm the masses that got him where he was.

And don't forget the President IS the Commander in Chief. And if we ever elect one who has the military pedigree of someone who's actually commanded forces and gained the respect of our armed servicemen (and women), it wouldn't take a whole lot for said President (with the military backing) to seize control of DC, dissolve Congress, and declare martial law on the major cities of our country. We Americans believe down to our DNA in the idea of government by the people. However, world history has shown us time and again, that whoever weilds the biggest stick gets to rule.

Rachel wrote: "I agree with you Meghan (as evidenced by my earlier posts), the only point I disagree with is that it is a uniquely American behavior. The point I was trying to make was that I believe it to be a ..."

Well, I never said it was uniquely American. I said we were just exceptionally good at it. And it is easy to be uninvolved if you are unaware of what's happening. And Americans are unaware because they choose to be unaware. And that ignorance has been our excuse for far too long. It shouldn't be a matter of who is worse, but fixing our own mistakes and improving our own selves.

Our global ignorance doesn't make us bad people in the world's eyes. But it does lessen us, as ignorance always does. If we want our fellow Americans to take a stronger stance against the injustices of the world, we need to understand what's really happening within it and be an active participant. Then Gilead remains relegated to "speculative" fiction.

(But I do appreciate your arguments. I haven't had this much fun in a book discussion in a while. Thanks!)

Okay, I am an American first thing. So I don't mean to come off as a hater. But yes, Americans ARE isolationists. That's not to generalize and say ALL Americans don't have a global interest, but the overall population does not care--and I don't mean care on a humanity level, but on poltical one.

And it's not me who says this. Pick up a newspaper and read how many people comment on this. How many Americans can name the prime minister of ENGLAND (our "best" friend)? Let alone China? Because I can guarantee you, the majority from those countries can tell you who our president is. And does anyone know the current state of politics in Pakistan (a holder of nuclear weapons)? Or how many can name the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council? Living in another country and traveling the world, I witness how the rest of the world is very educated on global events (even poor rural villages), whereas the common American's global knowledge is extremely limited.

And I don't believe it's because Americans are stupid or snobbish or elitest. Most of it factors into location. We're an island (practically) to ourselves with no direct ties to the "old" world. Our fierce desire for independence has made it a mindset that we depend on no one. We also don't have the history that everyone else has. We are still a young nation compared to everyone else. Europe and Asia are all tied together because of their history together, as well as the other Americas. We have in recent years been pressured by various allies to step in and "help" out in various crisises and unless it's on our own initiative, we do not get involved.

And I agree about what you all said about WWII. My point was only that beyond the Jews and the holocaust (because you're right, everyone ignored that one), Hitler invaded France and England--two very important political allies to the US. They asked us for help. France was occupied by the Germans! And yet we still chose to do nothing.

My comment wasn't a humanitarian response. It was in response to the argument that people wouldn't tolerate a repressive government taking over. And I'm arguing that yes they would because historically it's done all the time.

We find it difficult to imagine under current parameters. But what happens if the economy tanks harshly (the next Great Depression) and jobs are scarce? What family is going to complain that the government institutes a one-member-only job guarantee? (Say, all male head of households are guaranteed a job so long as the females remain at home to care for the children?)

Fear changes the playing field. It doesn't take a whole lot to go from where we are now to undergoing our own Cultural Revolution.

Lara Amber wrote: "See I found the bank account takeover completely unbelievable. Banks would fight back because of the negative press of taking accounts away from the signed account holders (and possibly find themselves barred from international business). Credit card companies would scream because legally they can only go after the person who signed the credit card agreement, so if the credit card is in the wife's name, they can't go after the husband for payment. Plus all the people who aren't married, or keep completely separate finances...."

But it starts with the federalization of banks...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for one. If you have the power, you get to make the rules. And it would happen so quietly and so indirectly. First there would be changes in your banking policy. (How many of us REALLY read all the paperwork your bank and credit card companies send you? You give up more of your rights simply because within the fine print, it says if you do NOT reply by a certain date you legally abdicate your right of refusal. But if you do refuse these changes, the bank holds the right to close your account.) You wouldn't really notice it until you went into the bank to go do some routine but out-of-norm change to your account. That's when they tell you, oh, by the way, the policy changed and this is what you have to do. I'm terribly sorry for the inconvenience, but you could please sign forms A, B, and C. And before you know it, your husband now has all the legal rights to your account and you mysteriously have none.

I have to say that I don't find this any more "chilling" as a woman than I do as an Asian. Atwood's Gilead may or may not ever come to be, but this kind of dictatorship has existed throughout humanity's long history--Nazi Germany anyone? This type of behavior exists because as long as it doesn't happen to you specifically, it doesn't really matter. Americans are exceptionally good at this on the global level. It's easy to say, "I've got my own problems" and turn your head from someone else's.

How easy would it have been for all women to have just said "No"? The government couldn't kill them all. But the ones who weren't handmaids just gave thanks that they weren't in their place. It was easy. It was the human instinct to survive.

Melisa wrote: "Has anyone here already read The Handmaid's Tale? I'm trying to decide if I want to get it. I have only read 2 books by Atwood. I loved the first and hated the second. Didn't even finish the second..."

Oh and while The Handmaid's Tale is sci-fi like Oryx and Crake, it's a completely different beast. I liken it more to 1984 or A Brave New World whereas Oryx and Crake is more apocalyptic and science-gone-mad. Blind Assassin is also considered sci-fi, but it's more mystery (to me) than anything else. It also can be very confusing to some as there is a story within the story. It's very intregal to the main plot, but it can get a bit convoluted.

Melisa wrote: "Thanks Brad and Cindy. I've had so much trouble with our library that I finally just gave up on them and don't go there at all. I don't care much for books with really disturbing scenes, since I re..."

Alias Grace was based off a true story, and I think it's the only kind in her canon. The Blind Assassin, Oryx and Crake, and The Handmaid's Tale are part of her sci-fi writing. Cat's Eye, Robber Bride, and Lady Oracle are part of (what I dub) her "Canada" stories (as they are all set in Canada (her homeland) and are completely different from her sci-fi stuff.

If you like Alias Grace, you may like the canada stuff. But she's a favorite, so I think it's all good.

Libby wrote: "Don't worry - I had the same experience. It suddenly hit me that the title "The Graveyard Book" is just like "The Jungle Book" - I felt like a moron but its easy to miss the obvious sometimes
..."

I feel dumb because the whole time I was reading the book, I thought the title was so odd. I had to see it next to TJB to get the relevance. OY.

Ryan wrote: "If only there were a Riki-Tiki-Tavi story in The Graveyard Book ...i>

Oy. That takes me back to going to my local library on Saturday and getting to see a "free" movie, back in the day where libraries still used projectors with film on reels. I love that movie (the book is good too).

Maybe Neal Stephenson can do a cyberpunk version. heh

Hey, I just realized (like a giant Homer "Doh!") that the title's work the same way. I'm only mentioning it because no one else has in this thread. But that The Jungle Book is titled aptly as Mowgli grew up in the jungle. Thus The Graveyard Book title gives the most obvious homage.

Sam wrote: "I don't think I agree ... Mowgli plays with his pack brothers, but not with his teachers. He gets smacked around by Baloo, but I don't think that counts. But Bod plays with the kids in the graveyar..."

Interesting point on the growth rate.

I'm terrible with the small details. Was Bod able to actually touch the ghosts? I guess I'm really thinking in that Mowgli got more physical contact than Bod. But I concede your point, good sir! :)

I also agree that was one of the more frustrating parts of TGB was that you weren't able to get to know the secondary characters. But taking that TJB's length compared to TGB's, it's understandable.

Oh definitely. He missed out on the physical-ness of live humans. Silas wasn't exactly "warm and affectionate". Both were loved, but physical interaction is a part of being alive.

And you make another point. Mowgli gets to "play" as a young child. And not that Bod didn't play, but wrestling or hide-and-seek--games in general--were lacking for him. And while he didn't necessarily miss it (how can miss something you don't know exists), I think he understood on some level that there was something lacking.

BunWat wrote: "I liked the transmutation very much. One big difference for me was I felt Bod was a lot more lonely than Mowgli. Mowgli had emotional bonds with his adopted pack and his friends, much more than B..."

Do you think that Bod was more "lonely" because Bod had more access to the outside world? He always knew there were living humans out there, whereas Mowgli never really was aware of them until he was much older.

Libby wrote: "He was my first thought too but I don't know if its too close to Snape."

That's interesting because my other bookclub read this book in June and HP was the book they made the most parallels. Although, they compared Silas more with Sirius Black.