Best and Worst of 2016

[Kristie, Moderator]

I agree. I felt that I had read the story before only better. There wasn't anything much original in it.

[Elizabeth ♛Smart Girls Love Trashy Books♛]

Janice wrote: "I was very disappointed in Red Queen as well. Cover is amazing, but that's it."

Someone else who agrees with me! We are a very rare bunch, so all I gotta say is LET US BURN IT TOGETHER!!!

I actually like the covers too though.

[Janice, Moderator]

Funny you should mention that, Kristie. I looked back over my review and said that it kind of reminded me of Cinder, except that Cinder was so much better.

[Camilla]

Janice wrote: "I was very disappointed in Red Queen as well. Cover is amazing, but that's it."

I actually quite liked it, ended up giving four stars, which is a high praise coming from me. I think one of those stars was due to the IMHO very good audio; had I read it as a paper book it would possible have ended up with three stars.

[Janice, Moderator]

I listened to it as well. My major issue with it was that it felt too young for me. I think my 15 yr old granddaughter would love it. And, it was too similar to Cinder but not as good. I didn't hate it - gave it 3 stars, but I was disappointed in it. I had high hopes for it.

[Kristie, Moderator]

I also gave it three stars. I thought I might have really liked it if I was a lot younger. So it seems we felt similarly.

[Elizabeth ♛Smart Girls Love Trashy Books♛]

I gave it two stars, I don't think I would've liked it even if I was younger.

[Peggy]

Lol Elizabeth, from your post I would have expected -2 stars ;-) What does a book need to be like to get 1 star? I would like to see your comments on one of those :D

[Elizabeth ♛Smart Girls Love Trashy Books♛]

I actually have rated a book one star! I hope I never read a book as bad as that! It horribly portrayed an important (in my eyes) historical figure and claimed it was 'true' and just blech.

[Peggy]

Which one was it?

[Elizabeth ♛Smart Girls Love Trashy Books♛]

Anastasia's secret bu Suzanne Dunlap. I really wish I could copy-paste the review here, but it's far too long, so here is just a little taste of it:

It's one thing to write about an obscure event or person of history that barely has a lot of resources about them, like journals or photos. Or maybe they lived too long ago and those resources weren't widely available to them anyway. But the Romanovs have literally dozens upon dozens of letters and diaries and accounts written by themselves and their friends and servants and other people close to them detailing how they looked, acted, and carried themselves. They even have photos! The Romanovs loved cameras! So, what is your excuse for portraying a family so tragic and so famous in such a shitty way?

[Peggy]

I hate it too when I read HF about a real person and they don't even get the basic facts straight..

[Elizabeth ♛Smart Girls Love Trashy Books♛]

What makes it worse is that I'm the only one who read this book and was bothered by it! Even huge Romanov nuts like I am think it's the best portrayal they've ever seen and I'm just like: "....What?!"

[Lisa]

When it comes to HF, I prefer authors to stick as close to the facts as possible when it comes to actual historical figures and events but at the same time, I can understand why some authors choose to play fast and loose with said facts as they are essentially writing a piece of fiction so they can use some artistic licence if they want. What annoys me more is when authors change things and then try and pass it off as fact. If they want to change some details, fine, but they should make it clear that is what they have done.

[Sandra, Moderator]

Exactly what I think, Lisa. I like when at the end of an HF book there's an afterword, or similar, explaining what is true and what is a work of fiction. I enjoy the things made up well enough to link with the actual facts, and this is what HF is about, but I want to know what is true and what is fiction.

[Peggy]

Completely agree!

[Janice, Moderator]

There's historical fiction, and then there's alternative history. If an author is attempting the latter, it needs to be stated clearly. Otherwise, stick to the facts.

[Cherie]

Janice wrote: "There's historical fiction, and then there's alternative history. If an author is attempting the latter, it needs to be stated clearly. Otherwise, stick to the facts."

Isn't that what historical fiction actually is, though, Janice?

[Elizabeth ♛Smart Girls Love Trashy Books♛]

Historical fiction in my opinion IS fictional, but a lot of the historical details are accurate to the time period and the real figures act how they should. If it isn't that, then it's not historical fiction.

[Sandra, Moderator]

Cherie wrote: "Isn't that what historical fiction actually is, though, Janice? "

In my opinion, alternative history is a work of fiction from a "what if" premise, how things would have been if the real historical fact had been different.

In historical fiction, a fictional story is braided with the real historical facts. The historical facts should be real and faithful to what actually happened, while the fictional story is that, fiction. A good historical fiction makes the "fiction" part perfectly possible and in tune with the "historical" part.

[Lisa]

Sandra wrote: "Cherie wrote: "Isn't that what historical fiction actually is, though, Janice? "

In my opinion, alternative history is a work of fiction from a "what if" premise, how things would have been if the..."

That's my view of historical fiction too, Sandra.

[Kristie, Moderator]

I mostly agree, except some historical fiction is completely made up, not based on a real historical person or event. Those are just historical fiction based on the time period.

Also, I don't have a problem if a real person is used in historical fiction and they aren't as you expected as long as the author explains either preemptively or in a note why they are that way or what information the story is based off of. I recently read The Other Einstein and some people didn't like it because of the way Einstein was represented, but the author explained what research she used and that it was only one interpretation of events. I loved it. Of course, when I was reading, I pretended Einstein was a fictional character, so there's that.

[Elizabeth ♛Smart Girls Love Trashy Books♛]

The thing was with the book I hated, the author gave no explanation for why Anastasia acted the complete polar opposite of how she was in real life. She never said it was an interpretation or a different portrayal of events, she just did it. Oh, she said she did research, but no remaining files on Anastasia nor her family paint them in that light, even the negative ones.

THAT is why it made me angry-she deliberately wrote about a tragic figure in history and turned her into every other YA heroine bubblegum pop. Yuck.

[Janice, Moderator]

Cherie wrote: "Isn't that what historical fiction actually is, though, Janice? "

You're just trying to wind me up, aren't you, Cherie? LOL!

Historical fiction and alternative fiction are two separate animals. Historical fiction is a fictionalized account of an actual event in my opinion. Alternative fiction rewrites the event with a different outcome. Prime example of that is 11/22/63.

[Kristie, Moderator]

Elizabeth - I see why that would be frustrating, especially if it's something you're interested in so you already know information and it goes against what you know. The research should support her writing unless she specifically states that she took liberties and made it up.

[Cherie]

I was and I wasn't, trying to get you wound up Janice. I think we have had the conversations before, but there are some new players here and I wanted more than a rant (please take this kindly - I am attacking no one) about a disliked book.

We all feel that historical fiction has to revolve around an an event, and that event has to be portrayed correctly - not changed. The "known" facts, anyway. If an author makes up things to proceed or follow after to enhance their story, then that is okay - as long as there is an alert stating it so. That is what I am reading. This would hold true for real people.

So, if the real people act differently and do things differently in the pursuit of a story, it can't be historical fiction and must be assumed to be alternative fiction.

That, I am not sure I agree with. If the writing is good and the story is captivating, I do not think I care what it is called. It is FICTION. If I am reading and if I have an interest in a person or an event in a story, I can look things up and find out more, if I want to. I enjoy author's notes and their comments about how/why they came up with their story and their research info, but if there is none, it is still ok too.

I never would call 11/22/63 historical fiction although there were "real" people and events discussed in the story. It was not alternative history either, because the events were not changed - as hard as they tried. Time travel and alternate reality are still science fiction or fantasy in my book.

[Sarah]

Just to throw something else in to the mix. Any so called historical account of an event or a person is only one persons interpretation of it. So yes you can potentially corroberate but then you still have multiple interpretations. Memory is fallible so in theory every account of history and historical people is fiction to some degree. We can never 100% guarantee that what we know of a person is accurate and so when i read about a real person in a fictional book, i assume the book to be another representation of that person and do not worry myself with whether it is true to what i had known/perceived before. Historical fiction is fiction. I expect it to be different to what happened to some extent because otherwise I'd just be reading a history book.

[Janice, Moderator]

Cherie wrote: "I was and I wasn't, trying to get you wound up Janice. I think we have had the conversations before, but there are some new players here and I wanted more than a rant (please take this kindly - I a..."S

I think it's perfectly fine if a person dislikes a book and substantiates it with a valid reason. We all have differing tastes and are free to express them in this group without rancour. This thread is, after all, a discussion about our favourites and least favourites.

[Cherie]

Well said Sarah! Just jump in there and write what I was struggling to spit out, history book and all!

I agree, Janice. Everyone's opinion is valid and the best part about being in this group. We don't judge people - only books - and my favorite read today can be on someone else's worst list tomorrow.

[Rusalka, Moderator]

Camilla wrote: "Almeta wrote: "I read what I consider an extraordinary amount of five star books this year.
❤❤❤❤❤ Troll: A Love Story, Johanna Sinisalo..."

Oh, I'm so pleased when I hear somebody liked this! Finnish books aren't that widely known, and I really find Johanna Sinisalo an exceptional fantasy author. "

I really want to read this too, so glad there are two recommendations!

[Rusalka, Moderator]

I have finally got my act together and my lists. Also I have only one book left to read this year, which makes these lists easier the closer to the end of the year it is for me. I'm a pedant. What can you do.

As I didn't have a great reading year, 4 of both. In no particular order, but reasonably chronological.

Best:
Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World
Broken Monsters
The Natural Way of Things
A Thousand Splendid Suns

Interestingly, the first was read over NYs last year, and the second was the Jan challenge read. I had lots of 4 stars (over 50%), but not many 5.

Worst:
All of these were two stars

Open City - Just a lot of wankery, screaming "I want to be a migrant version of Catcher in the Rye, but more pretentious!"

Tiger Milk - Bleak. Unnecessarily bleak, not clever, and seems like it's only aim is to shock.

Under the Frangipani - If you ever thought South American magical realism is confusing, may I introduce you to Mozambique magic realism. The South American stuff will be a doddle. Thank goodness for the anteater, although I don't really get his point in the novel either, but I like talking anteaters.

The Shape of Water - This would have been fine except for 5 sentences or so that ruined the book. Not amazing, but probably a 3 star instead of the 2. However, if it was a good book I probably could have dealt with it. So maybe it just wasn't great and that made it easier to get angry at it.

I'll update you if the last read of the year makes it on either of these lists.

[Janice, Moderator]

Your assessments make me chuckle, Rusalka. I'll be sure to pass on your least favourites.

The Natural Way of Things sounds like it would be a tense read. Added!

[Rusalka, Moderator]

Janice wrote: "Your assessments make me chuckle, Rusalka. I'll be sure to pass on your least favourites.

The Natural Way of Things sounds like it would be a tense read. Added!"

So much easier to talk about what you dislike!

I thought it would be more full on than it was. I highly recommend it. It's beautifully written as well, which helps. It's won nearly every literary prize in Aus, but I'm not sure how well known it is outside.

[Sandra, Moderator]

You made me laugh, Rusalka! :D

[Peggy]

Nice to see A thousand splendid suns on your list Rusalka. I didn't read it this year (2014 I think), but it was one of my favourites then too.

[Rusalka, Moderator]

Sandra wrote: "You made me laugh, Rusalka! :D"

Glad I made you laugh :D

[Rusalka, Moderator]

Peggy wrote: "Nice to see A thousand splendid suns on your list Rusalka. I didn't read it this year (2014 I think), but it was one of my favourites then too."

I didn't expect it to be there, but I haven't stopped thinking about it.

And I had a good chat with my good friend who was deployed to Afghanistan a few times about it. He hadn't heard of the book but it allowed us to talk about the history of Kabul more than I would have been able to before with him. And so many Aussie have no idea about the history of Afghanistan, it's hard for military personnel to get understanding back home of what they did/were doing.

Whether we had a decent reason to be there is another matter entirely, but trying to explain to Australians how you are trying to provide stability when they don't understand the past 40 years of history is very hard.

[Tasha]

I added The Natural Way of Things Rusalka, sounds very intriguing.