Britain Kalai Soderquist's Blog

Book Release Announcement!

NEW BOOK HYPE!

Just in time for Valentine's Day, my new book "Apple Blossoms: A Regency Fairytale" is now available for pre-order through Amazon!

Check out my website for more details, including information on how you can enter my pre-order flash giveaways! https://britainkalai.wordpress.com/pr...

The print and Kindle Unlimited editions of the book will be available on February 14th, 2020.

Happy Reading!

"Glass Roses" Free Promotion: Monday Only!

Heads up, Everyone!

The "Glass Roses" eBook is available for FREE today! Head on over to Amazon and pick up your copy before midnight PST if you want to take advantage of this promotion.

Here is a link to make it nice and easy for you: https://www.amazon.com/Glass-Roses-Br...

Happy Reading!

Book Review

Frederica by Georgette Heyer

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


This is the first of a series of reviews I plan to write on several Georgette Heyer novels. They were gifted to me in a stack by my mother-in-law, and I have finally finished reading through all of them. As this is the one I finished most recently, I will start here.

I have to begin by admitting that I had my reservations about Heyer's work. I was convinced they would turn out to be semi-decent imitations of Jane Austen's novels, and were themselves the model for all of the tremendously terrible Regency romances that have since been/continue to be published. With the exception of a few minor details, I have been proved wrong.

-What Heyer Does Well-

1. Characters

Heyer populates her novels with wonderfully interesting people. She has a talent for writing characters that hit all the traditional points while never feeling rote. Her people are genuine, and their emotions are extremely real and relate-able. This is a big part of why I liked her work. Specifically in "Frederica," Heyer does a fantastic job of making her heroine both a strong, intelligent woman and someone who is still ultimately feminine. The fact that Frederica enjoys being her younger siblings' caretaker and has lots of domestic skill is not overwritten by a desire to make her appear tough and capable. Instead, her intelligence and her rational approach to life add to her character and abilities, and she comes across as just the kind of young woman we should all hope to be/know. Other characters in the book bound off the page with similar realism, and the whole cast is fresh, vibrant, and fun.

2. Research

Heyer's research is top-notch. Her attention to detail brings an appreciated amount of accuracy to her portrayal of the era. So many authors of historical fiction ignore this important step, and their laziness is obvious to people who care about such things. Unfortunately, many readers these days are themselves unaware of this lack of accuracy, and are now receiving incorrect information about the eras they are studying. Not so with Heyer. Even the fabrics and fashions are meticulously researched.

3. Plot

Heyer does an excellent job of turning commonplace happenings into interesting stories. This was a talent Austen had as well, and I think it shows in the staying power of both these authors that flashy plots are not required to make readers fall in love with a novel. "Frederica" is full of little family scrapes that feel like they could happen to anyone. It's the realism that makes it fun. ;)

-What Heyer Gets A Little Wrong-

I dislike of how rambling Heyer sometimes becomes. Some conversations and descriptions are much, much longer than needed, and are only included for the sake of historical flavor. They aren't necessary, and they slow the pace of the novel quite sadly.

I also think that Heyer's attempts at period narration are too clunky and uncomfortable, particularly at the beginning of her novels. "Frederica" starts off a little less rambling, but the problem shows itself within the first three pages. The elegance and comfort of description and backstory are completely missing. Also, sometimes she "tells" when she should "show." That was not as big of a problem in this novel, but I will bring it up in my review of "The Civil Contract," where it showed the most.

-What Heyer Gets Really Wrong-

1. Characters Through Language

This is probably my biggest complaint with Heyer's work. She makes such an effort to immerse the reader in an accurate portrayal of 1800's England that she misses one of the most crucial elements of Austen's literary genius. All of Heyer's characters, from her Marquises and Dukes to her farm hands, use Regency slang. Their use of it is varied by their station in life, but everyone uses it. Austen, however, only gives slang to the characters she wants us to despise or dislike the most. Emma never uses slang, but Mrs. Elton does. Henry Tilney never uses slang, but John Thorpe is full of it (arguably more than any other character in her novels). Elizabeth and Lydia Bennett are sisters, but one speaks properly while the other does not. Ultimately, I felt that this had a lowering effect on all of Heyer's characters, and also on her novels. I just could not believe that the Marquis of Alverstoke was as highly educated and intelligent as he was made out to be, because he was missing the elegance of language that should have accompanied his elegance of dress and carriage. Even the incredibly awesome Frederica is unable to avoid this attempt at period accuracy.

2. Normalization of Affairs and Moral Indecency

This is the other problem I have with Heyer's writing. Too many of her main male characters are hinted at indulging in or formerly indulging in immoral behavior, and their friends and family respond by saying "Well, we can't do anything about it. It's just going to happen. Everyone does it anyway, so it's not like it's just him." Nothing is ever shown, but still... what a terrible thing to teach readers! Especially when we consider that Austen's heroes were always impeccably moral people. Only her antagonists were morally questionable or corrupt, and the heroes and heroines alike always looked upon such behavior as scandalous and inexcusable. Why Heyer felt it would be appropriate to endorse the opposite attitude in her novels when Austen explicitly did not is beyond me.

These last two points bring about the loss of a star in my review, and extend to all of the Heyer novels I have read thus far. I loved "Frederica," possibly the most of all the ones my mother-in-law gave me. It was amusing, charming, and full of the period details and interesting characters I enjoy. But I have a rule for my Regency fiction, both as a reader and a writer: "If Jane Austen (who lived in the era) didn't write it, neither should we." Heyer's less than perfect adherence to this rule marred my opinion enough to remove a star. Otherwise, this is a great book and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys reading well-written historical fiction and who wants to avoid the garbage that most HF publishers are printing these days.

Book Review

Shades of Milk and Honey by Mary Robinette Kowal

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


I read this book more than a year ago, along with most of the others in the series, but I decided to read it again before giving it a review.

This one sits in the middle for me for a LOT of reasons. Let's do a list:

Pros:
-Regency Era setting (always a bonus with me)
-Magic (again, love it)
-Decent amount of historical accuracy
-Clean subject matter

Cons:
-Poor character development
-Minimal explanation of the magic system
-Predictable plot
-Uncomfortable, unrealistic emotions and emotional relationships between the characters
-Main character who is very hard to relate to/believe her emotions and motivations are sincere

Jane is a very odd duck. She feels like a stranger in her own family, especially with her sister. Yes, it makes sense that growing up an only child for ten years would make it difficult to relate to a younger sibling, but if Jane Austen could do it (Darcy and his sister, who care about each other and trust each other), Kowal should do it too. Melody's jealousy of her sister falls flat because they don't have a relationship I can ever believe was loving. Jane is too stiff, too formal, when no one else in her family is, even her father. Her father is kind and jovial and comfortable, Melody is petty and fanciful, and her mother is familiar and oppressing in her feigned illness, but Jane is a block of wood. Who taught her to be that stiff, and how did she avoid picking up even some of the more comfortable ease of her family? Not only that, but Jane is unfailing dim for all that Kowal tries to convince us otherwise. I have a very difficult time believing that Jane couldn't guess anything about the true state of her sister's flirtations and hints. It was SO obvious what was going on that there is no way Jane could have missed it. There is an attempt to convince us that Jane is just a girl ahead of her time, but I don't buy it. If Kowal meant to paint her as a bitter, emotionally insincere feminist from the 1970s, she achieved her goal. As a character built on the brilliant legacy of strong, feminine characters written by Jane Austen, this is a poor tribute.

Now for the magic, which is an interesting system, if poorly organized and explained. I love the idea of magic being part of the womanly arts. That is neat. Small magic is interesting to me because it affords more opportunities for uniqueness among authors. However, even small magic needs to be organized and explained in a way that makes sense to the readers. Instead, our knowledge of what is possible with glamour comes in fits and spurts, often throwing our assumptions about its workings for a loop we should not have needed to experience. The scope of the magic is very difficult to grasp because the rules and limits are only explained when it is of vital importance. It is also difficult to imagine at times, but I have a hard time explaining why. That is a comment that applies more to later books, I think.

The research done for the book is thorough, but I question why certain details were so important to include. A good example is the custom of the "table turning" for conversation at dinner. This is NEVER shown in Austen's work, in part because people probably would have assumed it was happening, and also because her characters almost always dined in very intimate settings, not with 40+ neighbors that we have never heard of until that moment in the book. They talked to everyone at the table, or held conversations between the people they were closest to without worrying about formalities. My basic opinion when it comes to Regency-era writing is that if Austen included it or wrote it, we can feel comfortable doing the same. Notice that it never detracts from an Austen novel to not know that the table turns half-way through the meal. This feels more as though it is Heyer-inspired than Austen-inspired, and I consider no one to be better than Austen.

The same stiffness that exists in Jane emotionally and behaviorally also exists in Kowal's portrayal of the era. Austen's characters were much more comfortable, even when in a more formal or even awkward setting. The ease of Austen's prose is not very well mimicked by Kowal either. I can't help wondering if Kowal herself is a stiff, uncomfortable person, because it keeps popping up in her writing. In general, too, I feel as though all of the characters are the kinds of people Jane Austen would have disliked in real life. She would have written them into her stories as people like Lucy Steele and Mrs. Elton--less refined, less informed, and worthy subjects of censure and satire.

I could go on, but I will stop here for now. My plan is to re-read the other books as well, and read the one book I missed last time. Overall, it was not a waste of my time to read this book twice, because there are enough good things to keep me reading. I'd probably read it again in spite of all this complaining because it is hard enough to find clean Regency romances. But Kowal has not absolutely impressed me with her abilities. I would only purchase this series if it was on a very good sale.



View all my reviews

"Glass Roses" Giveaway

Hey Everyone!

I am very excited to announce that the giveaway for "Glass Roses: A Victorian Fairytale" is now officially underway! There are two copies available for this first giveaway, but there is a strong possibility for more in the future if the response is good.

The giveaway is open to all U.S. readers, and will run until April 10th, 2016.

Good luck to those who enter!

Book Review

Calamity by Brandon Sanderson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


The third book in the Reckoners trilogy, I read this one in just a couple of days (even accounting for child interruptions).

There was a lot to like about this book. David's habit of coming up with weird similes has settled down to a bearable level; Cody was much less present than in the first book, which was a big improvement (Cody is like Wayne for me... nice to have in a pinch, but full of talk that is really obnoxious to slog through on the page); Megan has thawed into a normal human being (she was great, as always); interesting new Epic powers and weaknesses; a fascinating concept for the city location in this story.

There were things I didn't like as well. The pacing is probably the biggest thing to mention. The whole time I felt that the story was both rushed and dragging (an odd sensation). There was both too much detail and not enough at the same time. At times I felt that Sanderson chose the wrong situations or locations to describe in detail, leaving more important ones maddeningly sparse. Even this description feels insufficient, because I'm not exactly sure it is accurate. There was just something slightly off about the pacing that I have had a very hard time articulating.

The book spent way too much time dealing with Prof and not nearly enough time dealing with its namesake, Calamity. The reveal at the end had some build-up, but it was poorly executed, in my opinion. It felt tossed in, not meticulously laid out and hidden in Sanderson's usual manner. Perhaps he did it on purpose, the way David's similes always seem to be done, but ultimately it didn't sit well with me.

Lots of things felt tossed in rather than planned, just so that Sanderson could claim there was "build-up" for it, no matter how insufficient. I just felt that there were a lot of things that could have been handled with more finesse.

In spite of these complaints, it was a good read. I think it says something about the quality of the author that he can write a work readers have such big issues with and still have them like it. I'm definitely going to keep following the Reckoners if Sanderson writes anything more in the world.

A Thank-you Note

Hello All,

"Glass Roses" has been out for nearly four months now, and I want to take a moment and thank those of you who have added, read, and reviewed my book.

To those who have gone the distance and actually written a review, I cannot begin to express my gratitude for the careful thought each one of you has put into sharing your insights on my novel. Being a reader of independent fiction is a brave action, and you deserve to be commended every time you step out of your comfort zone or take some other kind of chance on an unproven author. Your reviews have been full of substance and overwhelmingly kind. Thank you.

To those who have given my novel ratings, this means you too have taken a chance that requires a leap of faith. Every star rating also has a little phrase attached to it, indicating the level to which you enjoyed the book. Since I consider anything above the "it was okay" two stars to be incredibly generous for a first-time author, I am sincerely grateful for your kindness.

Finally, to those who have merely added my book to their reading lists and are still considering, I want to thank you as well. Your willingness to consider reading my work helps to spread the word that my novel exists. I can only do so much on my own; you help drive the generation of interest in a massive way.

This all sounds pretty flowery, but I really do mean it. I don't know most of you, and you don't know me, but you have been willing to give me a shot. I can't thank you enough for that.

Happy Weekend!

Book Review

Divergent by Veronica Roth

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


The upcoming release of the third installment of the "Divergent" trilogy prompted my re-read of the series. Since I did not take the time to review the book last time, I thought I would do it now.

I stand by my 4-star rating from my first read-through; it is a solid "really liked it" for me. Yes, there are flaws, and those who say that the premise does not make sense have some reason to feel that way. But these things don't really matter to me because the story still catches me. Most stories written in present first-person are terribly annoying, but Roth manages to make this style readable in a way I've never seen before. I also love the irony in being given the illusion of choice during the Choosing Ceremony. Tris realizing that the factions are all just predetermined limits to her freedom is probably my most favorite part of the whole book.

Honestly, though, the thing that makes this book a solid 4 for me is Tris and her parents. Actually, several of the characters and their families. Notice how few of the initiates did not have family members come see them. Despite the "faction before blood" ideal, I liked that Roth showed her nicer characters coming from families that did not blindly follow it to the letter. That's a tangent, but one that matters to me.

Back to Tris... Tris is the exact opposite of Katniss to me in pretty much every way, and probably the biggest reason why I prefer this book to "Hunger Games." Katniss feels scattered, uncertain, and unskilled, even though the author expects us to accept that she is good with a bow and has survival skills. Tris starts from the beginning and learns her skills in front of our eyes, with her vulnerabilities on display the whole time. She also has a sharpness to her intellect that I don't see in Katniss. Tris's family relationships are also more realistic to me. In the end of HG, Katniss falls apart after she loses her sister, just like her mother did when she lost her husband, so the blame she places on her mother becomes very hypocritical. By contrast, Tris has a strong and loving relationship with her mother that she draws on to keep her going even after she loses her mother. Yes, she isn't perfect, but her will to live and fight feels real.

Yes, the factionless running things like the trains and also looking like hobos is very inconsistent (if they wanted to, they could really interrupt life for the factions), and the book is a little too violent for my liking at times, but overall this is one I have enjoyed reading.


View all my reviews

Book Review

Winter by Marissa Meyer

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


My rating for this book is probably more of 3.7 or 3.8 than it is an actual three, but they don't let us put decimals on here, so I used the descriptor "liked it" to make my rating choice.

"Liked it" is a good way to describe my feelings about this book. There were lots of things to like about it, really. The general sci-fi fairytale concept is probably the strongest selling point of the whole series. (I mean, Rapunzel in a satellite that crashes to earth??? SO cool!)

Cress is my favorite of the four main ladies, and Thorne is easily the most interesting guy in the book. Kai is lovable, which totally fits him, but he frustrated me at times with his inconsistent behavior. I wanted him to either truly own his duties as an emperor, or mess everything up because he was young and inexperienced. His weird blend of capable-and-purposefully-foolhardy started to wear on me after a while. Scarlet came across as mean rather than tough in this book. Perhaps it had something to do with the long break between reading #3 and #4. I thought she could have been a little more sympathetic to Winter's condition when she realized the girl meant her no harm and was treating her well. I didn't feel like Scarlet's later concern and care was as sincere as it could have been because she was so rude at the beginning.

The biggest problems with this book for me were length and a tendency for some of the characters and relationships to be too similar to one another after a while. The book is far longer than it needed to be. She has two big confrontations between Levana and Cinder, two dramatic attempts on Winter's life, two spectacular ceremonies, etc. It left me wondering if there was not some way to have cut the other characters down so that the story could focus mostly on Winter and Cinder, or to have condensed the Snow White side of the story a little more. The elaborate nature of the Lunar world resulted in a LOT of description of things that people in the middle of fighting or running probably would never have noticed. As for the characters and their relationships becoming similar, there were numerous times where I couldn't remember which couple I was following because they were all leaving kisses on the forehead or saying essentially the same things to one another. The individual differences of the characters didn't balance it out enough. And Winter was too much like Cress and Cinder to actually be her own unique individual, in spite of her craziness. Oh, and her sanity shifts between being totally lucid and knowledgeable one minute and crazy the next were a bit of a stretch for me to believe.

I would have only taken off one star for these things, but another star had to come off in protest of my biggest beef with the whole series: the loose morals included in the world-building of the series. Escort droids, the Lunar aristocratic indecency, Levana's romantic manipulations in "Fairest" (basically the entire book... it deeply disturbed me). I just think the series could have stood on its own without adding this element. Manipulating people is bad enough... does Meyer have to be so overt with the cultural acceptance of these things too? Personally, I don't think so.

Oh, and the book is gory... much more than I felt it needed to be.

Anyway, I did finish the book in spite of these things because Meyer did a good job of drawing me in and making want to know what happened to Cinder and the gang. I agree with other reviewers that the ending left something to be desired, but overall the book was interesting, and the twists Meyer introduced to the original fairytales were great. She has always been very good at that.




View all my reviews

Book Review

Shadows of Self by Brandon Sanderson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Overall, I enjoyed this book. Sanderson did a great job bringing back the image of the old Mistborn that we loved from the original series in Wax and his Steel Pushing abilities. It was almost like having Kelsier back again. Steris was also a nice surprise; I finished the book with good feelings toward her. Marasi was tougher, but mostly the same; Wayne was useful, but I feel like Sanderson only includes scenes from his point of view because Sanderson wants to write from Wayne's perspective. Most of the time I found switching to Wayne made the story drag a little bit.

As usual, I guessed the flavor of the ending without actually getting everything right. However, once I did know a couple of things about the ending, I was slightly disappointed at how cliche they were. I was also slightly annoyed by what I felt were several rushed assumptions that Sanderson requires of the reader in the book. It made the world-building element a little difficult to follow. Still, Sanderson's writing is wonderful, as usual, and the world itself is dynamic and interesting. Definitely a good read!



View all my reviews