Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen spoiler thread
It occurred to me that it might be useful and amusing to set up a thread where people who had already read the book (currently in eARC only) could talk to each other about it freely, and the spoiler-sensitive could safely steer clear. So, you speed readers (the book took me 4 years to write, you know...), this comment space is yours.
The book may be seen at:
http://www.baenebooks.com/p-2892-gent...
if you missed the note. Four free sample chapters are up there.
***
Meanwhile, someone had asked about the audio version -- there will be one, from Blackstone Audio, due to release simultaneously with the hardcover on February 2, 2016.
http://www.blackstonelibrary.com/cata...
The downloadable version, which is 99% of my audiobook sales, does not yet have a page on downpour.com but I expect one will appear closer to time. I'm not sure what the lead-time is over on that e-arm. (I know they can't have recorded it yet, because they won't have the final version in hand for several more weeks.)
***
Later: It also occurs to me this thread could be used by folks to report typos. I already have "as she forced herself though what had seemed the endless gauntlet"... Feel free to mention any others below.
Ta, L.
Later still: The file has gone to the printer, so the shop is now closed for further typo reports. Thanks, all!
Ta, L.
The book may be seen at:
http://www.baenebooks.com/p-2892-gent...
if you missed the note. Four free sample chapters are up there.
***
Meanwhile, someone had asked about the audio version -- there will be one, from Blackstone Audio, due to release simultaneously with the hardcover on February 2, 2016.
http://www.blackstonelibrary.com/cata...
The downloadable version, which is 99% of my audiobook sales, does not yet have a page on downpour.com but I expect one will appear closer to time. I'm not sure what the lead-time is over on that e-arm. (I know they can't have recorded it yet, because they won't have the final version in hand for several more weeks.)
***
Later: It also occurs to me this thread could be used by folks to report typos. I already have "as she forced herself though what had seemed the endless gauntlet"... Feel free to mention any others below.
Ta, L.
Later still: The file has gone to the printer, so the shop is now closed for further typo reports. Thanks, all!
Ta, L.
Matthew wrote: Perhaps I'm losing my mind, but didn't you recount to us a joke/story about Miles appearing before you with a blaster and making dire promises about what he'd do if you tried writing about his children? (And doubtless applying Bujold's Dictum to them, too.)You do put his two eldest in harm's way, here. Granted that you also put Jole between them and it...
So I suppose that makes Jole the rarest of fictional entities, one who is more powerful than his own author?
Kate wrote: "It does make Cordelia's assertion that Aral 'was bisexual. Now he's monogamous' even more weird than it was at the time (the two aren't mutually exclusive in the first place).Not that I have a pr..."
It was a cocktail party conversation, with a drunken near-stranger at that, and Cordelia had already been taken aside by Aral and asked please not to give Betan sex-ed tutorials to the Vor she encountered. Neither she nor I were going to stop the tennis-match rhythm of the exchange for a disquisition on terminology at this point. It was the most succinct remark available to her to toss out to make Vordarian go away and stop bothering her.
Sheesh...
(Not growling at you, be it noted, but this has been brought up over and over and over by earnest misreaders, and I've become a bit sensitized.)
Ta, L.
Producing such elegant bon mots is a two-sided sword. I think you're feeling the other side now.
Lois wrote: "Kate wrote: "It does make Cordelia's assertion that Aral 'was bisexual. Now he's monogamous' even more weird than it was at the time (the two aren't mutually exclusive in the first place).Not tha..."
I've always loved that moment, and I took it as read that Cordelia understood the distinction there. That Vordarian doesn't says more about him than Cordelia. And for what it's worth, I think that the dialogue you write it one of your strengths--it, among other things, keeps me coming back.
Matthew, I have to wonder to what extent you realise how badly you are othering the naturally polyamorous people taking part in this discussion, and indeed, polyamory in general. Your latest comment, #201, is even more in that line.To be perfectly frank, I feel as though I and other poly people are being regarded as - and somewhat treated like - sodding unicorns at this point: mythical beings. It seems to be what you think of our psychology, after all: you even used the word "alien" when referring to the way Cordelia thinks, and her thoughts on relationship dynamics, gender and sexuality are not so unlikely, unusual or unreasonable as you seem to believe. Repressed she's certainly not, least of all in how she thinks.
Back to the original issue, however... Do voluntarily polyamorous women (like me) even exist to you? Particularly the non-heterosexual sort? Or do you believe we are all socialised into polyamory (or polygamy, which is a different thing again), and that our "ape brains" are monoamorous and heterosexual by default?
As for "both sexes", excuse you, sir, but strictly speaking, there are more than two sexes even in terms of the human race's natural biology without chemical or scientific influence or alteration, and if we move onto gender, more variety still.
I think if I identified as fully non-binary in gender, I'd probably be even more frustrated with you. But going from other things you've said, did you assume that hermaphroditism was an invention of modern or fictional societies, just because you read about Lois' Betan society gengineering a group of people with dual genitalia? It isn't. Though the polite term for people with ambiguous or dual genitalia in today's world is intersex, not "hermaphrodite". About 2% of babies are born with genitalia sufficiently ambiguous that a doctor or midwife ends up making some kind of definite decision regarding the gender to which the newborn is assigned. It isn't uncommon. And neither, for that matter, is polyamory - it's just not as widely accepted as it otherwise might be. Yet. Too many monoamorous people wrongly confuse polyamory with infidelity; that's a big part of the problem.
But please, Matthew, could you at least try to respect the other people in this thread and discussion? Your erasure of our identities is getting positively painful.
Many thanks for reading.
Lois, I hope I'm not too late but I've got one I just noticed that I hadn't seen in this thread:"...Molecular biology never having being my forte..."
Page 57/300 in the ebook as I read it. I'm guessing that should be "been", not "being".
Tria wrote: "Lois, I hope I'm not too late but I've got one I just noticed that I hadn't seen in this thread:"...Molecular biology never having being my forte..."
Page 57/300 in the ebook as I read it. I'm g..."
Ooh, you are so right.
I sent it after its friends -- the errata sheet went in to Baen last Wednesday, so it may be too late to correct, but we can hope. Although, clearly, it's not one many people will notice...
Ta and thanks, L.
Lois wrote: "Cordelia, I grant you, did not change as much as Oliver. At one point, I was actually wondering if she was occupying the ecological story-niche usually given over to the villain -- the single-minded plot-driver who keeps coming and coming, and to whom everyone else must respond. Food for thought.I don't really see her as villain. More of "trickster mentor" - the one who does terrible things to the hero, but in return they grow twice as much as they might otherwise....
Any ideas if the Escobar construction firm is the same one (or a rival) to the one whose work Simon Illyan so admired?
Victoria wrote: "Any ideas if the Escobar construction firm is the same one (or a rival) to the one whose work Simon Illyan so admired?"Since Escobar is a large, well-populated, and long-settled planet, statistical chances are, not. (Although the numbers of big firms that can take on such big projects as factories and public buildings will be naturally smaller than those that build, say, houses.)
Ta, L.
I think I figured out why "scientific hypomania" was bugging me. It's because it's a Vorkosigan novel, and when you're talking about Vorkosigans (particularly but not only Miles) mere hypomania is a calm day. Jole was observing the scientific excitement of mere mortals, not Vorkosigans. Still mortals recruited by Vorkosigans, so their enthusiasm is extreme for ordinary folks, but not of the level where it takes an entire planet to explore to keep them occupied.
And Jole, of course, would be used to Vorkosigans, and keenly aware of the graduations in levels of excitement and engagement with an issue. It takes a university's worth of scientific hypomaniacs, and more, to keep up with one Betan Astronomical Survey commander named Cordelia.
Lois wrote: "Tria wrote: "Lois, I hope I'm not too late but I've got one I just noticed that I hadn't seen in this thread:"...Molecular biology never having being my forte..."
Page 57/300 in the ebook as I r..."
Sorry I took so long. I've been a bit distracted lately - a startling and unexpected influx of CouchSurfing guests. I'll probably run into more, later - again I apologise for not running over it with beta eyes earlier. I hope Baen will take it, all the same - and you're welcome :)
Baen tells me that the book went off to the printer on Friday (yay!). So if you find any more errata, keep them a secret. Perhaps no one will notice...:-), L.
I've been thinking about Cordelia's meeting with the mayor and the town councilor, and its narrative purpose. It's certainly entertaining, and continues the approach to politics seen in previous works, but I can't quite decide what its function is in the context of the novel. It doesn't seem like filler, but it's not obviously connected to the major themes in any way I can grok.Ms. Bujold, would you be willing to divulge?
Well, it certainly has a function as spacer, if not filler, between two similar high-intensity one-on-one nighttime conversation scenes, one looking back, the other forward. (Which does make a pleasing progression, past-present-future.) Something had to go there.But before I contaminate the data set with my own theories, I notice here we have a whole pool of readers to survey. What do other people think? What did you learn from that scene, if anything? What did it do for you all? If it were taken away, what would happen?
After that, I suppose I can chime in with what I think.
Ta, L.
I think it brought home the fact that moving the capital wasn't going to be an easy or trivial accomplishment.
It certainly makes Cordelia look even more sensible - contrast heightens perception - and helps us understand why she might value Oliver Jole's steady personality. Surrounded by that much crazymaking, she needs an occasional trip out to Lake Serena.It also demonstrates that she's thinking about the future, and people other than herself, which throws a light upon her plans to have children. The people who signed that petition are thinking only of their own immediate benefits, not posterity. Possibly this is diagnostic of what qualities a person should manifest if they're fit to have children.
For me, it showed her actually governing. We saw her decline to act on some things and then with this meeting, it's a brief glimpse into her duties as well as holding functions in the garden.
Jan wrote: "For me, it showed her actually governing. We saw her decline to act on some things and then with this meeting, it's a brief glimpse into her duties as well as holding functions in the garden."Indeed. Many people talk about wanting power; very few talk about (or even seem aware of) the work that normally goes with it.
I've noticed this in some fic written by some younger fans; good prose, precocious sex scenes, not one clue about what it is adults do all day at work...
Ta, L.
That scene was interesting in how it showed Cordelia's attitudes towards democracy.The fact that the volcano was there was science. What to do about the capitol being next to it was politics.
And, despite her efforts to introduce proto-democracy to Sergyar, Cordelia will throw it out when she thinks it is right to do so. She doesn't even realize that she's undermining her efforts at political reform, or that she appears to support democracy only when it supports her policies.
It's interesting how Cordelia has evolved from a character who grew up taking representative democracy for granted into a literal dictator, comfortably wielding Imperial powers, answerable only to one person who is on an entirely different planet.
The best governments in history were all dictatorships. (Of course, so are all the worst governments in history.) But the point is to make good decisions. If democracy results in stupid, bad decisions, why is it 'good' to implement it? If dictatorship results in good decisions - as with Barrayar under Gregor, or Sergyar under Cordelia - why shouldn't it be welcomed?For that matter, why should the location of the planetary capitol be subject to the populace at all?
Matthew wrote: "The best governments in history were all dictatorships. (Of course, so are all the worst governments in history.) But the point is to make good decisions. If democracy results in stupid, bad decisi..."The best governments in history were all dictatorships? You're going to have to show your work for that claim... And with history, not fiction.
I'm inclined to see the best governments in history being contemporary Scandinavian social democracies.
I'm thinking specifically of the Five Good Emperors, although there are other examples.The Scandinavian governments are 1) propped up by oil, a value-dense resource which needs only a few people to gather and brings in external wealth to keep the extremely generous system going, 2) dependent on the ethnic, genetic, and cultural uniformity of their populations, 3) self-destructing as condition #2 erodes.
The "omg, this ruins my dream couple of Aral/Cordelia" reviews on the eARC's page at baenebooks.com drove me crazy enough to revive my long-dead blog and post a review and commentary post:
http://mikewashere.blogspot.com/2015/...
http://mikewashere.blogspot.com/2015/...
Mike--did you read the last 2 pages of this thread? The problem wasn't as simple as what you describe, but you will also see that Lois has addressed the issue.
I'm a few days behind on this thread - I'll go back and catch up, thanks.
(Edit - ok, went back and read the comments. Are you talking about Lois' comment at "Nov 06, 2015 06:58AM" about the cocktail party conversation? That seems to fit in with what I'm saying just fine...)
(Edit - ok, went back and read the comments. Are you talking about Lois' comment at "Nov 06, 2015 06:58AM" about the cocktail party conversation? That seems to fit in with what I'm saying just fine...)
Mike wrote: "I'm a few days behind on this thread - I'll go back and catch up, thanks.(Edit - ok, went back and read the comments. Are you talking about Lois' comment at "Nov 06, 2015 06:58AM" about the cockt..."
I think it was the part about reassuring the subgroup who were concerned that no, the beginning of the relationship wasn't behind C's back as such, or at least not for the reasons they were imagining, and yes, C & A still loved each other both passionately and wisely, and adding a few lines to the final to countersink that.
As a rule of thumb, I think it useless to try to argue people out of having had the reading experiences they did. However, if one can draw them out and listen, one can sometimes figure out why they were processing the same lines of text so differently from other people.
Books are Rorschach blots, really, they are.
Very rarely, one can point out a factor a reader might not have considered, and get them to rethink the experience. Writer beware, this can work both ways, so be careful what you ask for.
Mostly, though, people hold their opinions not because of reason and logic, but by a varied blend of cultural and family background, and personal psychological need. If one wants to change those opinions, one needs to address people's psychological needs. (Which is not easy. Therapists can work at it for years.) (If one merely wants to manipulate people, politically for example, catering to those needs is much quicker.)
The study of people whose backgrounds and needs don't match up, and how they respond to this stress throughout their lives, is another whole thing, and beyond the scope of this post. But two common responses are to break from the background, or to become rigid in upholding it.
A reader who says, "Eh, meh, not for me," is just expressing their taste; the response of a reader who is passionate about their rejection may have deeper roots, and not be actually arguing about the book. Caution is advised.
And some readers, the writer just has to let go. No book can be all things to all readers, and attempts to make it so never work. The writer, finally, needs to write their own story, and let the readers happen as they will.
Ta, L.
(Mike might be happier with the wider reviews on the book's Goodreads page. The two crowds they sample overlap, but are not the same, which is I think true of my readership generally.)
Lois, I find your post interesting and wise. I take the lines added to be something that makes your original intent clear and not a reworking of the story.
Kim wrote: "Lois, I find your post interesting and wise. I take the lines added to be something that makes your original intent clear and not a reworking of the story."Correct, the added lines were clarifications, not changes.
As more reviewers report in, I may find more tweaks I wish I'd made, but it is now officially Too Late; the file has gone to the printer.
At some point a writer has to let books, as well as readers, go.
Ta, L.
(I am also reminded of the quip that it can sometimes be hard to tell wisdom from exhaustion.)
I can't figure out where the 'blaster' part entered into my recollections - if I didn't confabulate it, it may have been part of the list discussion of that Miles-Lois interview.But it occurred to me that Miles has no grounds for objecting - *he* brought his children into this story, where they would otherwise have been safely out of the action back on Barrayar. If they came into harm's path, even shielded by others, he has no one to blame but himself.
Absolutely loved this one. Read it all in one gulp, the minute I found out about it, and was too breathless to analyze it - but at that point I think that I was a little disappointed that there had not been a villain to crush (someone like Cavilo - not just a greedy company), but then I re-read Gentleman Jole and found it amazing! I think that I've always secretly wanted to be Cordelia. (To have her strength and wisdom, not to have her hardships, which is cowardly of me and probably fundamentally impossible, her hardships were part of what formed her). At first, seeing her doubts from the inside made her seem weaker, then I realized that she seemed just as strong to others - on the outside, so what I was holding was the INSIDERS' MANUAL ON BEING CORDELIA!!!!! (Sorry - but it really struck me like that, in all caps.)
Then I took another deep breath and realized that this one is about the struggle to overcome grief, to build yourself a new life. A more fundamental and universal struggle than battling a madman (or madwoman).
Then I went back and re-read Barrayar (by the way, I do love the line about Aral being monogamous, but clearly that is before Cordelia's trip back home to see her mother, and really, she said it mostly as a way to put a cork in the idiot who was trying to tell her old scandals.)
Then I re-read The Vor Game. I particularly loved, in the conversation between Miles and Gregor at the end, the point where Miles tells Gregor that his mother is capable of keeping secrets. Considering what Gregor knows at that point - the scene is even better than the first time I read it!
I will always mourn Aral, but I'm glad that the way he will be honored in the future will be with great stories and happy memories and wishing that you could see his face as some new thing happens. Very much missed, but not in a way that destroys the people who love him.
Also loved Cordelia's thoughts about Miles' children being the perfect punishment for what he put his parents through. I think that I've been angry at Cordelia's mother since Shards of Honor. Something about the way Cordelia thought about Miles and his children made me re-evaluate how I feel about Cordelia's mother. Cordelia's father was in the Betan Astronomical Survey and died in a ship accident. Cordelia goes into the Betan Astronomical Survey... Cordelia's mother would be perfectly justified in looking at Cordelia when Miles was racing around in space on dangerous missions and thinking "serves you right, kiddo!" I think that Jole's thoughts about Cordelia's mother being a single mother and wondering why Miles didn't think of that example that Cordelia had in her life, made me realize that I'd been unfair.
Anyway, great book. I'm now at the point of dipping back in for favorite scenes and quotes, enjoyed this so much!
Great book based on the four chapters out so far, can’t wait for the rest to drop. I in particular enjoyed seeing Cordelia’s choice of Aurelia as that was the name of our daughter who was stillborn alongside her live twin. It was a cord accident that has helped me to appreciate the idea of uterine replicators even more! Though she was Aurelia Diane rather than Kosigan . Both my husband and I have read all these books and we have all of them as physical copies, ebooks, and audiobooks, so really delightful to see her name here. I actually normally don’t read these books until the whole thing is released, but he told me I needed to go ahead and read now when he saw the use of Aurelia. As such, I have some thoughts on the advanced reader copy for the thread.
I will say that I have been editing books prior to final release for a few years now for both a friend and an author who started releasing them to be as a beta reader after I found enough things in her books as well as occasional friends of each of them, and you are a lot more consistent than most authors that I have edited prior to final release. This is more just notes as I went rather than trying to be a full review. And since I didn’t have a Kindle setup to take notes/edits or a Word document or similar, I just scratched notes in the notepad of my phone as I went. The lack of line numbers like in a manuscript made it harder, but I tried to include enough words to allow for easy searches.
In particular, I’m impressed with your numerical consistency throughout the books. Allowing for characters using some rounding, all seems pretty good here on that basis.
I have noted some things for each of the chapters below. I must preface this by stating that your love of hyphens and them being crucial to your style does make it harder to review/edit. As such, I opted to just always take all hyphens as correct and didn’t try to track if they were always written as such or anything. I also didn’t worry about things that I thought was trying to express a conversational style. Or items that I believe are a part of your style such as till and using then after a comma without an and as I felt quite sure these were intentional. While I hadn’t had the usual conversation with you before reviewing it, I have read everything you’ve published, and that helps. And of course all of these are really more questions of is it possible that there’s another option that would be better rather than statements of fact at all.
--Chapter 1--
Capitalization/order change intentional?
* “Viceroy's Annual Report “
*” annual Viceroy's Report”
Comma after away, maybe?
* “as it pulled away she twisted and studied him through the canopy, striding off to his own vehicle. “
Not familiar with the word hagged, but assuming it’s something in the haggard family?
* “she’d looked downright hagged”
“a Y chromosome from you,” instead of “a Y chromosome from yourself,”
Add a comma after instead perhaps?
* “Instead he said,”
Intended as a question or a statement?
* “This isn’t going to be easy, is it.”
--Chapter 2--
Jole definitely would have shoe covers as well as coveralls and hat in the Kayross tour.
“smooth, gloved, and steady” instead of “smooth and gloved and steady” perhaps?
“limper” versus “more limp”
Typically when using as a descriptor rather than a specific one, going with lower case. So “various viceregal offices” possibly instead of “various Viceregal offices?”
“one of rather eye-grabbingly beautiful young obese ladies” instead of “ eye-grabbing beautiful young obese ladies”
“familiar, androgynous figure of the Betan consul,” instead of “familiar, androgynous figure of Betan consul,”
Commas for the phrase?
* “eyes glint in an appealing but slightly alarming fashion.”
“entailed skirts that were” instead of “entailed skirts which were” as a restrictive pronoun?
Combine with comma instead of period?
* “A server paused to offer Jole a drink on a tray. “Your usual, sir?””
What about the fourth person? The councilman stirrup-rider?
* “the trio coasted off to test their luck with Haines.”
“coin toss between Gridgrad and New Hassadar” instead of “coin toss between Gridgrad or New Hassadar”
What determines “ghem-lord” versus “ghem lord?”
--Chapter 3--
Structure of the ands? Just get rid of the and before "the cleanup," perhaps?
* “Cordelia was able to hand over the task of gently expelling the more inebriated lesser guests to her personal assistants, and the cleanup to her very competent house staff, and motion Oliver after her.”
I should just get over it, but Jole getting keys, notes, or underwear when he doesn't think anyone got close enough to him just isn't right. If he has the situational awareness to make a comment, I feel like he should be right! :-P
“At Cordelia’s raised brows, he added,” instead of “At Cordelia’s raised brows he added,”
“No, I hadn’t gotten that far in my thinking” instead of “No, I hadn’t got that far in my thinking” possibly?
“hometown was always enough” instead of “home town was always enough”
“She sipped more wine, put down her glass on the little table, and drummed her fingers…” instead of “She sipped more wine, put down her glass on the little table, drummed her fingers…”
Is “You’re not just talking frozen embryos here, are you.” actually a question in terms of punctuation?
I'm 98%+ sure this is intentional, but really not sure how I'm supposed to interpret it
* “You that way; we this way”
Is it Jole’s “Imperial base?” That’s below the stratosphere and military, so isn’t General Haines’s as the base commander? Though I can’t remember Jole’s exact title as Sergyar Command, and thinking that it likely is such that Haines is an element under him? That it’s not normal Admiral/General, but it’s Admiral in charge of all military versus a general.
“seized with a burst of unprecedented efficiency, and paid the bill.” instead of “seized with a burst of unprecedented efficiency and paid the bill.”
Jole always seems to get social niceties and chains of command, so I’m not sure he would have “ordered Tan to complete. The fertilizations.”
“she was shorter than him” instead of “she was shorter than himself”
“He had, though he trusted he had concealed it.” instead of “He had to, though he trusted he concealed it.”
Capitalization change: “Hegen Hub War” and then fifteen paragraphs later “Hegen Hub war.”
“I never heard this one” should it be “that one” as Cordelia is speaking?
“Will you always be ahead of me, Cordelia” is an amazing line. No issues, just so amazing that I had to note it.
--Chapter 4--
“assorted contractor’s bids” should it be “assorted contractors’ bids?”
I think this is again a case of my not knowing quite how to interpret, but is the “where” really meant in “just where, in his last few years, had….”
“Part of the time, she’s still…” instead of “Part of the time she’s still…”
“… did not carry families and its far-flung stations … did not encourage dependents…” instead of “… did not carry families, and its far-flung stations … did not encourage dependents…”
Seems inconsistent to say Kareenburg doesn’t offer “any wide array of choices” for meals when first chapter said it was a “city even by galactic standards.”
“Which had an alarming tendency to not so much squash as to explode.” instead of “Which had an alarming tendency to not so much squash as explode.”
At first I thought you were saying that they’d cut apart and so thought sheared off, but I think you mean more like swerved or in the perpendicular meaning of the word and so “they’d both sheered off” should be as is.
--A general thought:--
Seems like replicators would go a bit longer than intrauterine gestational as not limited by pelvic bones. So I've always taken the nine months in the replicators as a subtle nod to that. Though Miles went longer, he seemed an anomaly.
Wait, I just figured out that the whole thing is available now if I just log in. Eek. I really need to do work on my flight this evening, but that seems unlikely now! Poor clients :-)
Chapter five - seems likely "Kayburg guardsmen didn't get overly exercised about anything" is actually excited given the rest of the context, but I guess it could be they mainly get exercised with dead bodies... But this leads to my real question, are you still looking for comments/notes or is it past that point and don't both to record in notes as I go?
Elizabeth wrote: "Wait, I just figured out that the whole thing is available now if I just log in. Eek. I really need to do work on my flight this evening, but that seems unlikely now! Poor clients :-)"Hi Elizabeth --
Thanks so much!
However, the file has gone to the printer (I should add a note up top to that effect), so the shop is now closed for corrections. So you may enjoy the rest of your read without copy-editing impediments, anyway.
bests, Lois.
Elizabeth wrote: "But this leads to my real question, are you still looking for comments/notes or is it past that point and don't both to record in notes as I go? "I think you can just enjoy the book now. Lois posted that it's locked and gone to the printer a few days ago. Have fun!
Lois wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Wait, I just figured out that the whole thing is available now if I just log in. Eek. I really need to do work on my flight this evening, but that seems unlikely now! Poor clients..."Two more notes, though --
The structure of such locutions as
“You’re not just talking frozen embryos here, are you.”
is not a question. It is a rhetorical observation or remark with a little verbal fillip on the end, delivered with the voice going down, not up. If it had been an actual request for information, it would have had a question mark, also indicating the voice going up at the end.
Also, I do not love hyphens at all. I just struggle to use them correctly. "Strike off one hyphen's head, and seven more arise in its place..."
Ta, L.
The hyphen as a hydra may be my new favorite idea.
One of my favorite bits:[Joel and Miles have just been talking about their mothers sending them updates about the lives of relatives who they can barely remember]
"Joel, the occasional victim of similar maternal reports on relatives he'd barely met and wouldn't have recognized in the street, nodded understanding. Obituary column and all, as the extended family aged. It was only in recent years that he'd become able to recognize that as a clumsy expression of her sense of loss, and not a long-distance attempt to depress him. He'd grown better at writing back."
It's a favorite because I've done it - from the mother's end of things. It never occurred to me that I was depressing my sons. I called the eldest and read that passage to him, by way of apology. There was a moment's silence, as I think he processed the idea that I had been clumsily reaching out because of the loss I felt. Helped us both - thank you Lois!
Jill wrote: "One of my favorite bits:[Joel and Miles have just been talking about their mothers sending them updates about the lives of relatives who they can barely remember]
"Joel, the occasional victim of ..."
You are entirely welcome.
I have been on Jole's end; as I move into the opposite side, I understand it all much better, but, of course, Too Late.
Ta, L.
So, I was thinking, these books tend to be about the worst possible thing that can be done to the lead character.And for Cordelia, apparently, the worst possible thing is an unexpected visit from Miles. And not just for the interrupted moment when she discovered the invasion.
Which got me wondering why.
Then I realized, that part of how she makes her life work it to keep it very compartmentalized. She's got a lot of things going on, and strict lines as to who gets to know what, when.
Not unlike Mile's initial attempt at courting Ekatrine.
And did Cordelia really think that she could tell Gregor, Simon and Alys, and yet nosy Miles would remain clueless? Particularly since, unlike the earlier threesome, this one had no real need for security-level discretion, and everyone would be gossiping about her already with the announcement of her new daughter.
Long distance dinner party, anyone?
And telling Gregor while asking him to keep it secret from Miles? Emperor "Let's see what happens"? Of course Gregor would give Miles just enough hints to send him galloping off to Sergyar. Then sit back and laugh (with a completely straight face) at the reports as they came in. Poor fellow has so little he can do just for fun, you can't blame him.
Cordelia's life actually reminded me a bit of Clara (from Doctor Who) at the beginning of "The Caretaker." She's got enough going on for at least two ordinary lives. And she deals by keeping each part of her life separate. And she thinks she has it all under control, until suddenly forces of chaos from one life fall into the other.
Ursula wrote: "So, I was thinking, these books tend to be about the worst possible thing that can be done to the lead character.And for Cordelia, apparently, the worst possible thing is an unexpected visit from..."
Well, the worst possible thing happened to Cordelia three years ago. This book asks a different question: so, then what happens next?
I do think your vision of Gregor is bang on.
Jole... well, Jole, though he shared Cordelia's devastation, has a different sort of plot as well, which is also not the same as hers. Of all the characters portrayed, he's probably the one who learns and changes most.
(Miles certainly has the role of mid-book crisis, a demotion from hero that I'm sure he found quite unexpected.)
I have noticed I have trouble repeating myself, with my books. Pity. Many a writer has made a fine living writing the same book over and over, and pleased their fans, too. I... get bored.
An editor I know has a rant about writers as otters. Otters, she says, can't be trained, because as soon as you have, with great and patient effort, got one successfully performing the desired trick, and think you're home free, the otter thinks, "Oh, great! She liked it! Now I'll do something else that's even cooler!
Ta, L.
I'm in the camp that would enjoy a repeat but has grown to enjoy being surprised every time. Some times I enjoy more than others, I'll admit.
I like "writing to a style" type books and gobble them up as they arrive, but they don't have longevity. I don't tend to reread them much, and I hate when I get to the stage of being unable to tell if I'd read a particular one.For your books, Lois, I'd be much obliged if you carried on in complete and superb otterness.
Karl wrote: "I'm in the camp that would enjoy a repeat but has grown to enjoy being surprised every time. Some times I enjoy more than others, I'll admit."Ayup. The hazard of writing "each book different from all the others" (besides the fact that it grows harder as one goes along), will be just that variation in reader response, as the books vary over a continuum of tastes.
Well, plus readers have been trained to expect uniformity within a series or even from a writer, to the point where writers will adopt different, sometimes transparent, pen names for books in each mode. "Branding", it's called. Which, I admit, does have its uses.
But, really, there are no genre police, who will come and arrest you if you color outside the lines. Very unregulated profession, writing.
Ta, L.
Lois wrote: "I have noticed I have trouble repeating myself, with my books. Pity. Many a writer has made a fine living writing the same book over and over, and pleased their fans, too. I... get bored."And now it's time for something completely different! I like different. I'll take same 'tale in different wrapping' books sometimes, but I generally abandon authors that go too far that way. (Belgariad and its clone-sibs, anyone?)
There is one huge uniformity in your books, namely the incredibly deep explorations of characters. But I would be very sad to see that go away. Some kinds of uniformity are wondrous things.
An editor I know has a rant about writers as otters. Otters, she says, can't be trained, because as soon as you have, with great and patient effort, got one successfully performing the desired trick, and think you're home free, the otter thinks, "Oh, great! She liked it! Now I'll do something else that's even cooler!Huh. I always took that as an observation rather than a rant, because I would have thought the editor in question (I heard it from Teresa Nielsen Hayden) liked cool stuff more than same stuff. I can see how it would complicate an editor's job, though.
Serendi wrote: "An editor I know has a rant about writers as otters. Otters, she says, can't be trained, because as soon as you have, with great and patient effort, got one successfully performing the desired tric..."That is indeed the source, and I suspect she does like cool, but then there is the problem of selling the cool-but-different thing, second to readers, first to the editor's own company.
I called it a "rant" for its passion, not its negativity. :-)
Ta, L.
Lois wrote: "Ursula wrote: "So, I was thinking, these books tend to be about the worst possible thing that can be done to the lead character.And for Cordelia, apparently, the worst possible thing is an unexpe..."
I suppose I should have said the worst thing that could happen to Cordelia at that time.
Which indicates both a level of recovery, and a level of family dysfunction. This is, after all, the second time Cordelia has left all her relatives behind on an entirely different planet and started over.
Which might also have contributed to Miles's anxiety. He knows his mother is capable of walking away from family.
My point about the dinner party was not so much that it felt like a repetition, but rather that it felt like insight into where Miles got some of his ways. The tendency to over-think and over-plan relationships, and to apply inappropriate models for developing a relationship.
Plus, of course, Miles walking in on Cordelia mirrors nicely Cordelia and Aral walking in on the dinner party.
Your books have been significant in my life--I give them to friends more than any other author's (even Pratchett!).
And this generous discussion has been very helpful to me in grasping why ..."
Very interesting analysis.
I think, if you compare my two protagonists at the beginning of the tale and at the end, it is apparent that huge and profound changes have taken place. Exploding ecology aside, it has simply happened, for the most part, without the sort of angst, melodrama, and self-dramatization one would expect if the characters were, say, 15 and 17, or even 25 and 27 (or Miles at any age), as contrasted with 50 and 76.
Because, as the designated drivers/grownups, that sort of self-indulgence is simply not on for them.
I declined to drop an extraneous plot on Cordelia (well, I tried, but she wasn't having any) because, for pity's sake, she's already earned her happy ending five times over. She should not be compelled to earn it again. Jole, now, could I figured stand to stretch, which is why his plot, or at least, through-line, became the backbone of the tale.
I am also entirely bored with the sort of redshirt villains who are called into existence for the sole purpose of being ushered back out of it. And an overdose of shonen anime has really put me off fight sequences. (The sort of anime where 5 minutes of the 25 are spent actually advancing the story, and the remaining 20 are given over to guys hitting each other/monsters/giant fighting robots/whatever. Except you can't fast-forward through them, because every once in a while they will pause long enough to shout another fragment of their angsty backstories at each other. My ghod but those get boring after the umpteenth repetition.) Toss out coincidences ("And just then, the volcano erupts!"), and disallow people having stupid misunderstandings for lack of five minutes of honest conversation, and one has either stripped oneself of plot options, or pared one's tale down to its truest heart, take your pick.
Cordelia, I grant you, did not change as much as Oliver. At one point, I was actually wondering if she was occupying the ecological story-niche usually given over to the villain -- the single-minded plot-driver who keeps coming and coming, and to whom everyone else must respond. Food for thought.
But no, this book is not like the others. Which, with 25 books behind me, is a much harder hat-trick than it looks like.
Ta, L.
...unless one wishes to posit that the villain being defeated in the tale is "crippling grief." Sort of like beating cancer.
L.