Bri’s Comments (group member since Jun 03, 2012)

Bri’s comments from the Not Quite A Topless Robot Book Club group.

Joe wrote: "When this book was chosen out of the list, I ran to the library that very weekend and took it out, then read it in a couple hours, which is something I never do with books...
I have to say, I was m..."

Joe, sorry! You're definitely not the only one who read the book. This was a really quick read - I knocked it out in just a few hours as well.

I'm not sure what to make of Carrie's electroshock therapy. She says in the book that her only exposure before going through the therapy was that scene in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. To be honest, that's my only impression of it, too - so Carrie saying so candidly that she went through it and lost a lot of her memory is actually pretty terrifying.

I do have to say, one of my favorite parts of the book was Carrie's description of Hollywood children trying to figure out if they're related to other Hollywood children they end up dating. How weird!

If I had to choose one word to describe Carrie Fisher's Wishful Drinking, that word would be "Candid." In a good way. In a good, humorous, honest, playful, well-written way.

To be honest, I didn't know much about Carrie Fisher before reading her book. For example, I didn't know that her mom is Debbie Reynolds. I didn't know that she was born into Hollywood. And I didn't know that she was bi-polar. You learn a lot from a book like this.

Fisher's writing about her mental illness was actually pretty eye-opening for me, because that's one particular thing that I'm fortunate enough not to have struggled with in my own life (yet, anyway). And I think it's important for these perspectives to be shared, because in the U.S. at least, mental illness still has one hell of a stigma attached to it. Not to mention a pathetic social safety net.

I think I found Fisher's writing about the convoluted relationships of her parents and friends (as well as her own) to be the most entertaining part. I like how she doesn't pretend that her upbringing was in anyway normal, or that normality is something she missed (how can you miss what you never had?).

I actually thought (based on the book cover, shame on me) that there would be a few more Star Wars-related anecdotes, but the fact that Fisher said that it was Harrison Ford's pot that turned her off the stuff forever was hands-down the best one.

What do you guys think? Which parts did you enjoy? What did you learn that you hadn't before?

And what do you think about reading more autobiographies or memoirs from nerdy celebrities? I quite enjoyed this.

Laura, Tolkien can be hard to love. His conspicuous lack of involved female characters didn't bother me when I first read The Hobbit, and I loved Eowyn from The Lord of the Rings trilogy. But other than she and Galadriel, there aren't many female characters that ere even named, let alone present or with dialogue.

It's much more troubling reading it as an adult, but it didn't alienate me as a kid.

Liz, I've read this book every year since I was ten, and I always feel like I've learned something new each time.

I completely agree that the introduction of Bard was clumsy. To place the destruction of Smaug in the hands of someone who wasn't even part of the original Company seems...strange. The people of Lake Town would have had a legitimate claim to some of Thorin's treasure even if Bard hadn't killed the dragon, because Smaug still burned down their village, and Thorin and Company did take advantage of their hospitality before going off to piss off a ten-ton fire-breathing monster.

I think that the film An Unexpected Journey does a good job of making Bilbo seem like an unlikely hero, but I disagree that Bilbo wasn't as heroic in the book. Not in the same way, certainly, but there were plenty of things that he did that took a lot of courage. Saving the dwarves from the spiders of Mirkwood comes to mind - and just because the narrator is explicit about Bilbo being terrified as he did it doesn't make it less heroic. Bravery, after all, is doing something in spite of your fear. Bilbo has always been a favorite of mine, though, so I will concede the bias on my part. ;)

Jamie wrote: "So much to say about "The Hobbit". I actually reread this book in early June and then the LotR trilogy. What struck me as I read the story in June was how much younger the tone was throughout the b..."

Jamie, Tolkien did originally write The Hobbit for children, and I can't think of a better book to read aloud to kids (even if they haven't been born yet). Honestly, The Lord of the Rings trilogy pales in comparison, and isn't nearly as entertaining. LOTR is important, don't get me wrong - it established a lot of the conventions upon which many other fantasy authors built their own works, and for that alone we can thank Tolkien. But it can't be denied that he can be very dry. I actually read LOTR with a lot more enjoyment now, after Peter Jackson's films were released, than I did when I first read them as a kid.

It's the moment you've all been waiting for, my preciouses. This is the official discussion thread for J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, which has been my favorite book for about eighteen years.

Now, while this is a discussion of the book as a whole, the conversation will undoubtedly range over comparisons to the first installment of Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy, An Unexpected Journey. So for those of you who have not seen the film, please be aware that this is a possible SPOILER zone. The rest of you, if you could take the time to announce any possible film spoilers, it would probably be much appreciated.

Where to begin? Well, in a hole in the ground, there lived a Hobbit. Bilbo Baggins is a delightful main character. I remember when I finished The Hobbit and began to read The Lord of the Rings trilogy, I thought that it needed more Bilbo. LOTR has a much different flavor than The Hobbit. It is more epic in scale and less cheery, slower-paced, and sad.

Although The Hobbit has its share of sad moments, to be sure. People who have been first introduced to this story by An Unexpected Journey will be surprised to learn of Thorin's eventual fate.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. I want to leave some room for discussion, here, so I'm going to focus on my favorite-FAVORITE moments from The Hobbit:

Riddles in the Dark

This is a critical chapter - THE critical chapter - simply because the events therein set the stage for everything that happens in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Bilbo finds the One Ring, seemingly by chance, although we don't learn of its significance until later. Upon first reading, the ring is simply a plot device, allowing Bilbo to accomplish is burglaring with a great deal more ease than would have been possible, otherwise. But Bilbo also meets Gollum, and has a game of riddles with him - with a steep price for losing. Tolkien's descriptions of the total darkness, save for two glowing pinpricks that are Gollum's eyes, is chilling. It's easy to feel Bilbo's terror as Gollum gets closer with every riddle. The contrasts and similiarities between the two of them, given what we find out about Gollum's history, are startling. Gollum had trouble with the riddle about the egg, while poor Bilbo was nearly stumped by the riddle about the fish. And it's all a matter of perspective. Several hundred years of living underground, with no company but a malevolent magical artifact and your split personality leaves one with a very unique perspective.

But it was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand, and that is what made all the difference.

Inside Information

This is definitely one of my favorite chapters, because I love the interaction between Bilbo and Smaug. Smaug the Terrible, who displaced the dwarves of Erebor and caused such Desolation. He is a wicked old Worm, clever and powerful. But I think that he sat upon Thror's gold for too long. A type of sickness, peculiar to that gold and that place, seems to have its effect on many, and I don't think that Smaug was immune - although I believe he enhanced it. Although how much of Thorin's ensuing obsession can be ascribed to the gold-sickness, and how much to his own weakness of character? He is not a displaced King the way that Aragorn is a displaced King in LOTR. Thorin's motivation for his quest was hardly more noble than simply reclaiming his family's wealth.

But then, we only have Bilbo's account on that score. Who's to say it isn't a little biased?

The Clouds Burst

This is literally when the shit hits the fan. Thorin discovers, in one devastating revelation, that Bilbo has betrayed him. Bilbo had taken and hidden the Arkenstone, even though Thorin had called dibs. Bilbo had given it to Thorin's enemies to use as a bargaining chip, knowing that he could not refuse anything for want of the Arkenstone. Bilbo had seen which way the wind was blowing, however, and his betrayal was not out of malice toward Thorin, but rather desperation. He could see the effect that the vast wealth of his grandfather had on the new King Under the Mountain, and he couldn't bear it. Bilbo could see the legitimacy of the claims by the elves of Mirkwood and the people of Lake Town. And of course, Thorin casts the Hobbit out of his company after nearly hurling him off a cliff. By this time, however, the stubbornness of dwarves is the least of everyone's worries - the goblins have amassed their armies, and stand poised to take Erebor, and the wealth within. Thus begins the Battle of Five Armies, and Thorin's opportunity for redemption, though it came at a costly price. That Bilbo had the opportunity to reconcile with the dwarf king upon his deathbed, though, was bittersweet, and probably the saddest part of the book. Additional sadness comes later, when in The Fellowship of the Ring, the Fellowship passes through the Mines of Moria, thinking that they would be welcomed by Balin, only to find Balin's tomb.

I think that's enough to go on. What say you all?

(And please remember to mark film spoilers if you can.)

It's really hard to get into a book when the character descriptions, and the characters themselves, are such a turn-off. I can see how the philosophy of the book would appeal to you, absolutely, but it's kind of buried in pointless, dated, meaningless stereotyping.

To be clear, I'm using the term Fosterites as shorthand for the religion that Mike starts after his clash with them, since most of the Fosterites end up joining him anyway.

My apologies for posting this discussion thread later than I had planned - my increased workload and the craziness of the holiday conspired to make me overfed, lazy, and reluctantly doing work-reading instead of pleasure-reading lately.

Anyhoo, on to the analysis:

Stranger in a Strange Land, I will have to admit, is not my favorite Heinlein novel. Heinlein is not my favorite science fiction author, either, although I fully acknowledge his place in and contribution to the genre. And because of my own personal belief system, I don't have much patience for Messiah tales. I do, however, want to give this novel full props for introducing the word "grok" to the nerdy lexicon. It's such a great word!

Mike is an interesting character, if by interesting you mean mostly passive and useful for high-lighting the characters around him, instead of displaying real personality traits of his own. His bonds with the "water-brothers" he makes during his visit to Earth are strong, and he displays a noble kind of loyalty to them, backed up by his enhanced mental acuity. The power to kill with a thought is no joke.

However, Mike's naivete is never really tempered by his increased understanding of Earth life, even when it appears that he's sold out to become adored by the Fosterite cult. The negative reaction Mike and the Fosterites get from religious fanatics who believe that he is the Antichrist is not something that can be fixed by nudity and "love". Mike is "martyred", if such a meaningless death can be considered martyrdom.

What's really interesting about the Fosterites, on a personal level, is that the timing of the writing of this novel coincides with the founding of a guru religion that my grandparent currently belong to - and one in which they were involved almost immediately after its inception. They, too, went through various interpretations of their guru's teachings - including concepts like free love and other sexual ideologies. The parallels that I saw between what I know of my grandparents' experiences and what Heinlein wrote about the Fosterites made for interesting reading.

Finally, I can't close this brief analysis before commenting on how Heinlein wrote the female characters in Stranger (this type of writing appearing in Heinlein's other novels as well). I realize that we must, to an extent, consider Heinlein to be a product of his time. But the way that gender is framed in Stranger is problematic. Mike comes from Mars, completely ignorant of the fact that there are female members of his own species (men are from Mars, anyone?). And looking at this as Heinlein intends (for the first part of the novel, anyway), he presents human women as the alien species. It is not Mike who is the Stranger here - it's women. Women, whose worth is determined by the men they associate with, who are blamed for aspects of their own marginalization (like when Jill claims that 90% of women are responsible for their own rapes), and who are mere vehicles for the philosophy that Mike and the Fosterites celebrate in their cult.

What do you all think?

Jamie wrote: "I did find Z's ability to remember things at the most opportune moment eyerolling, at best."

Amazing, wasn't it? ;) My favorite is how the murder of his aunt and all the other people in the stacks didn't really bother Wade until and unless it was convenient for him.

And I can see your point about the reading list being from Halliday's point of view. It does make sense. And it's a fantastic reading list - it's almost identical to mine.

But the difference between that reading list and mine is that mine has female authors and female protagonists.

Come on! Not even one?

General Apathy wrote: "Maybe it's because I'm not the target audience---I didn't grow up in the 80's, just the second-hand modern nostalgia you see now---but I didn't really like the first half of the book. It felt like ..."

Yeah, Zoe, that's very true. I wasn't kidding when I said that I thought it was a 372-page love letter to the 1980s.

And the meta Easter Egg hunt in Cline's book is pretty awesome.

I completely thought the same when I saw how mysterious Aech's character was, and the whole time I was thinking "H is for Halliday", just like you were.

As far as the ending goes, I felt that the revolutionary part of it was Wade deciding that the real world, for once, was preferable to the OASIS. I think that in the future, especially if IOI ever managed to take control of it, Wade would completely erase it. But I don't think that was on the table at the end of the book as it is.

Switching gears for a moment:

One of the things that really bothered me about the book, and that doesn't get better with subsequent re-reading, is the idea that Only Men Did Anything Cool During The Eighties. Have you guys noticed this? All of the references, all of the clues, 99% of Anorak's Almanac focuses on books, movies, computer games, etc. written and developed by men.

For example, just glancing through Chapter 0006, we have the recommended Gunter reading list:

Douglas Adams, Kurt Vonnegut, Neal Stephenson, Richard K. Morgan, Stephen King, Orson Scott Card, Terry Pratchett, Terry Brooks, Alfred Bester, Ray Bradbury, Joe Haldeman, Robert A. Heinlein, J.R.R. Tolkien, Jack Vance, William Gibson, Neil Gaiman, Bruce Sterling, Michael Moorcock, John Scalzi, Roger Zelazny.

Seriously. Does that seem a little one-sided to anyone else?

Laura wrote: "I picked this book up when it came out, read a chapter, and put it down. Growing up in a dystopian landscape? Watching as the ties that once bound us together unravel? Watching as corporations get more and more powerful as the Holocene ends? Having the most emotionally and intellectually meaningful events in your life happen in the geekoverse? I don’t need to read that, Martha. I lived it. "

I completely agree, Laura. The beginning of the book makes it seem both predictable and formulaic, which is why I feared that it would fall into a ho-hum "type" and not be worth my time. But absorbing it as a whole makes me love it for its potential as a film.

"and I less than three Wil Wheaton"

I had to think about what you meant here, but then I got it. ;)

First off, I'd just like to say this up front:

I would LOVE for this to be made into a movie, and according to my research, Ernest Cline has actually sold the movie rights.

BUT (and that's a big "but") I can't even fathom the licensing hell that any film-makers would need to go through in order to make a completely accurate film. What a nightmare! And yet as much as I would sympathize with the seemingly-impossible goal of making an accurate film, that is the ONLY way I would want to see it.

It's funny how a book can be so futuristic and yet so nostalgic at the same time. Let's face it: Cline wrote a 372-page love letter to the Eighties. The man did his homework, that's for damn sure.

I have to confess, however, that when I first started the book I was afraid that it was going to be yet another incarnation of a "type". I'm sure you know the one. It goes like this: Poor Young White Boy has Almost No Family but embarks on a Hero's Journey/Quest and Saves Everything. You see this type played out over and over: Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Luke Skywalker, etc.

Now, I'm in no way saying that those kinds of stories can't be well done, but I was afraid that Ready Player One was going to be another one, two Gary Stus deep (Parzival and Halliday). It would be Gary Stu-ception, gag. But my worries were soon laid to rest, because the Hunt for Halliday's Egg was incredibly well done.

I was a little worried that the novel would play into the "There are no women on the Internet" or "Girls can't play video games" tropes, but Art3mis and Aech were extremely welcome surprises in that regard - Aech in particular, because her reveal toward the end really highlights the problems that women really face in life online.

The love story between Parzival and Art3mis was bittersweet for me, but mostly sweet. I admired Art3mis' focus and competency, especially in the face of distraction and danger.

My first exposure to Ready Player One was through my Audible membership. The audio version is narrated by Wil Wheaton, and he does a fantastic job (as I was listening, I was tickled to hear him mention himself). If you have access to it, I'd recommend that you give it a listen.

As for discussion questions, I don't even know where to begin, but here are some for starters:

1. What were your favorite references and/or Hunt challenges?

2. If this were to become a film, who would you cast?

Feel free to share your own discussion points in the reply!

I'll go ahead and start: Ready Player One. I've been dying to talk nerdy about this.

I welcome everyone's suggestions for future group reads! I need some ideas so that I can put together a new poll, and we can make a decision.

Any books, even those that are tangentially nerdy, are worth suggesting!

To start things off on a personal note, I'm so glad that we decided to read something of Bradbury's. It's not like I ever need an excuse, but it's the first book of his that I've read since his death, and it seems remarkably appropriate somehow.

As a more thoughtful analysis, reading Something Wicked This Way Comes in this particular frame of mind has just reinforced the themes of youth and age present in this book. The relationship between Will and his father is especially poignant, because Charles' fears that he's too old to be the father that Will deserves seems to parallel the fears of loss, particularly of lost time.

And that's what Something Wicked is all about, isn't it? You've got Jim, who is impatient to grow up, and Will, who is in no hurry to get older before his time. When they discover the potential inherent in the carousel of Cooger and Dark's carnival, Jim is easily seduced at the prospect of getting older without the growing pains. But in all instances of the carousel's use, it leads to disastrous results. Mr. Cooger tricks Miss Foley and tries to get Jim and Will in trouble. When Mr. Cooger next meets the carousel, it eventually ends in his death, delayed only by his stint as Mr. Electrico.

Another theme that ties in with the novel's focus on time is the loss of childhood innocence. Jim and Will are in the golden summer of their childhood, which will end all too soon. Charles has already left that far behind.

Then there's the concept that evil and fear can only be conquered through joy and laughter. Indeed, that's Charles' only defense against the Dust Witch and Mr. Dark. This seems like a simplistic idea on its face, but there is absolutely truth behind it. Examples of this can be found even before the climax of the book, such as when Will and Charles play together for a bit after Will is caught sneaking back into the house.

And the last thing that seems quite significant to me is that intelligence and knowledge completely useless if they're not put to some kind of use. Being plagued by self-doubt and indecisiveness, it's possible that he could have saved Will and Jim from the carnival earlier, or prevented them from getting in so deep.

So here are some discussion questions:

Jim and Charles seem to be opposite characters, with Will caught between them. How do you think the differences between these two characters manifest themselves within the main themes of the book?

What are some examples of the way that Bradbury uses mood to reinforce the overall mood of the book, and the sense of loss regarding the passage of time?

For those of you who have read Dandelion Wine, how could Something Wicked be interpreted as the dark side to that work? Both of them deal with childhood, but what are the differences?

Okay, now discuss! Feel free to talk about anything in the novel without fear of spoilers.

Simone wrote: "Heaven and Hell are sides, in this case; good and evil are broader concepts, and God is above all of this, superior enough to be extraneous to the conflict itself."

I think that's a fantastic point Simone, and it's supported by the fact that Crowley, in his work against Heaven, was less about actively creating "Evil" and more about inspiring humans to create it themselves. Aziraphale's works are more along the Heavenly company lines of healing, fixing things, etc., and his real interest is in his bookshop and making sure that the status quo stays more or less unchanged.

If the Plan was really to have the Apocalypse run as scripted, and there was no ulterior design, then I think it's clear that neither Crowley or Aziraphale knew which side would win. And they came to the realization that really, there was no point to winning.

William wrote: "I think that Adam having Them really influenced him in ways that not even the other characters realized. Yes he was their general, their total boss (in ways only ten year old boys can be) but at th..."

I agree, William, and I think that the way Adam made himself have an idyllic childhood played a large part in his ultimate decision as well. It makes me wonder how things would have turned out if Crowley and Aziraphale had been able to use their net-neutral influence on him, instead of on Warlock (the American boy they believed to be the Antichrist).

Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch

Good Omens is a good example of layered story-telling, without defined chapters and the way that the plot moves from character to character in order to move right along. It's as fluffy or as deep as you care to read it, though it deals with ostensibly heavy subject matter: the Apocalypse.

But funnily enough, the deep stuff contained in this book isn't about the Apocalypse itself: it's about the people (and angels, demons and horsemen) involved. There's a script that must be followed, and prophecies fulfilled. There is a Plan, and it is Ineffable. But Good Omens is a perfect example of how and why plans break down, and go awry. It's because of the individuals - the ones that have their own ideas about things, no matter how long they've been in existence. Crowley and Aziraphale knew each other in Heaven before Lucifer Fell. They worked (more or less) in opposition to each other since Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden (Crowley had a little something to do with that). And it stands to reason that when you work together for so long, you get used to the way things are done - and perhaps prefer them to the way things are supposed to go. Which is why it's not always a bad thing to mislay the Antichrist.

Good Omens is rife with rich characters, which are more than just mere interpretations of a story that's been around for thousands of years. The Four Horsemen are gathered one by one, abandoning their respective labors that have be come oh-so-modern. But the reader is still left with the feeling that the more things change, the more things stay the same. There are timeless forces at work, which is why the human characters are so important. You've got Agnes Nutter and her descendents, who are relatively peripheral players in the events leading to the Apocalypse - that is, until Anathema Device. You've got Adam, who, while not technically human, believes himself to be, and that makes it so. And Adam of course has the Them, and that ultimately makes a big difference.

There are a few intriguing questions raised in the course of this book - questions that are worth discussing:

Is there such a thing as Good and Evil? If so, what's the difference, and how can you know which is which? If not, then how much influence does the idea of these ideological extremes have?

We never actually hear directly from God or from Lucifer in the course of the book, only their appointed representatives. Some of those representatives act on their orders, and some do not. But how much of that was actually part of the Plan all along?

Did you feel that there was more of a Terry Pratchett-y influence on the overall style of the book, or more of a Neil Gaiman-y influence? Were there sections, characters or descriptions that you feel confident in attributing to one author or the other?

Death was clearly on loan from the Discworld universe for the purposes of this Apocalypse. What do you think his presence added to the climax of the story, and his role as one of the Four Horsemen?

Now, discuss! And feel free to range all over the content of the book without fear of posting spoiler warnings - those shouldn't be necessary in threads about the group read.

I keep coming back to Fahrenheit 451 and I still think that I learn something new, or see it in a different way every time I read it. I don't have much of a taste for dystopian fiction, but this one happened to sneak its way in to my favorite books of all time.

Something Wicked This Way Comes is also a wonderful read - creepy and subversive. I re-visit that one a lot, too.