Taming of the Shrewd

Mad Marco
Annie L. Jones

     This is at least the fifth self-published first novel i have read in the past couple of years, all of them, funnily enough, in the genre i have been taught by my clever friend Stephanie to call SF ~ speculative fiction, though i used to use those initials for sci-fi alone.  One might almost thing that i could set up in some kind of pre-reading business (and, oh, how i would enjoy that!), if this trend continues.

     Two of these five were written by Stephanie and i have an emotional tie to them, not least because i beta-read them and have seen them grow and mature until publication, so i am not able to fairly judge or compare them; of the other three, however, this by Jones is in mine opinion clearly the best.  The other two, Miss Mabel's School and Joshua's Key (i have linked each title to my review of the novel), were by no means failures ~ i suspect that almost no one would throw away the time and, i imagine, money required for proper self-publication if the product were not at least reasonable ~ but each, including this one, had flaws.  The flaws here are, however, lesser than the strengths, which are what are worth exploring in this review.

     The plot is, at root, The Taming of the Shrew thrown into a fantasy setting, and given some elaboration with a bit of adventure thrown in.  I recognised the plot basis very early on, but that did not spoil mine enjoyment ~ indeed, perhaps it enhanced it as i was pleased with myself! ~ as the differences were sufficient that it is not simply a retelling of Shrew but a development.  The major difference is that after the Petruchio analogue, the Marco of the title, has won over his bride he is suddenly put in a position of peril and she, almost without understanding what is happening, is put in the position of rescuing him.

     Part of the plot is built around the setting, a valley or plain, a region almost, with in impassible mountains, with enemies of some form on the outside of the mountains, some form of magic or sorcery which has in some measure been used to set up the communities within the region and protect them from the outsiders.  Marco is the eldest son of the family whose task is the coordination of that protection, which is exceptionally physical at times.  I find that i want to know more, more than Jones has given us, about the land, the sorcery, the history, the reasons for the way things are.  I wonder, is this an initial introduction or is it all that Jones is planning on doing; i believe she has made herself a setting she could use in the future to tell further stories ~ if they were of the same quality i, for one, would read them.  And that statement alone, using my criterion, makes Mad Marco a success.

A Little Witchery

Miss Mabel's School for Girls

Katie Cross

     At the very top of the cover of this novel it says, “Book One in the Network Series”, so i have no excuse for being surprised; let me merely state, for the record then, that while i knew there would be sequels, i did not expect this book to almost require them ~ it is not, by any means, a standalone novel, the way The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (to name but two novels which are also the first books in series) are. I expected a certain amount of unfinished business, i suppose, but what we have here is a book which sets up a plot with a lot of tension and antagonism in it, but insufficient resolution; not satisfactory to me, i'm afraid.

     When i read something like this, which has what to me is a large drawback, i can only fall back on my single criterion to help me decide if it is a success: Would i read another book by Katie Cross, based solely on the fact that she is the author of this one? If yes, then Miss Mabel is a success; if no, then it's not. So, then, how do i feel? Funnily, i struggle to know exactly how to respond. Indeed, i find i need to lay out the positive and negative stimuli and reactions in order to find my response.

     On the upside, i enjoyed the thing almost all the way through; that should be enough for me, but clearly it wasn't. The characters are fairly well drawn ~ at least the major ones; the minor ones are not, to my mind, sufficiently in focus that they can be told apart. Character is essential to me to cause me to want to read on; if i don't care for a character and don't care what happens (for good or for ill) to him then i don't have a lot pulling me to finish or read another. Here i care about the two main characters, the protagonist/narrator Bianca and her antagonist Miss Mabel; that is good. Unfortunately, not only do i not really care about the others, i don't really know anything about them, there is not enough detail given ~ or i didn't pick up on enough ~ to know the difference between Bianca's classmates or the other teachers in the school.

     In general, the plot falls on the upside as well, in that it is deliberately structured to pull the reader in, the conflict is strong and requires resolution. It is by no means a unique plot, after all, how many are, but it is given enough that is new that it feels exciting and fresh. On the downside, the driving conflict, between Bianca and her teacher, Miss Mabel, is not resolved, indeed, shows signs of not being resolved until the end of the series, however many books that might turn out to be; this is not necessarily the death knell for a book (the conflict between Harry Potter and Voldemort isn't finally resolved until the end of the septology, for example), but it must be sufficiently resolved to bring some satisfaction to the reader and Cross doesn't give enough, in mine opinion. In addition, within that conflict and around it, there are a lot of questions raised which i am not confident are ever going to be answered; i have to assume that they will be, but that is my assumption about Cross's intentions as author rather than any deduction from the book itself. I want to know more, for example, about the curse laid on Bianca, and then about curses in general in this world.

     In fact, i am led to a certain amount of frustration by my lack of knowledge, as i want to know more about the setting ~ the Networks, their geography and history ~ and the characters ~ other students and teachers at the school ~ and the results of the plot against the leadership which lies in the fairly immediate past. This lack is for me definitely on the downside, quite strongly so. The result is that, torn as i am, i shall probably read another of the series, if i come across it when it is released, but not with the bated breath that i love pulling me towards a book i want to read. Still, in the end, if mild, yet a success.

Fast Pace

Siege

Simon Kernick

Like the others of Kernick's books i have read, this was zipped through in one or two sittings, the sole difference being the time of day when i pick it is and what commitments i have over the next four to six hours. The essential theme of the plot was taken from the events in Mumbai in the autumn of 2009 when terrorists attacked and took control of several buildings there; here, the action is transported to London, and the motivations of the criminals are not so transparent or unitary, as there are some who appear to be terrorists of a vaguely Middle-Eastern variety but others who are acting solely for financial gain.

Kernick has the knack of creating characters and giving us sufficient information about them and their situation that we become sympathetic to them, which obviously is and excellent ability for a writer of suspense novels as he can ratchet up the suspense by worrying us about the future of the characters we have been taught to like. I find that, although once started i have to read the book as fast as i can, once done i am satiated for the foreseeable future with the level of tension he creates. This is good, i suppose, as it means that i am in no hurry to rush and find another of Kernick's books but, in some months or more, if i come across one as they are rotated around the various branches of the Powys library system, i can be free to pick it up and have another race for the end.

Speaking of the Powys library, the most annoying thing about this book was a part of the the physical artefact itself: Whoever covered it for the library did a less than perfect job, so that the dust-cover and its plastic protection were not correctly folded around the front cover. I constantly found myself trying to adjust it, to make it fit properly, but it was not possible to do so. Mind you, i am aware that this may say more about me than the book!

The Lost Stradivarius

J. Mead Falkner

There was no question of passing this book by when i saw it in the library: Falkner wrote Moonfleet, one of the best children's stories ever written, so clearly i was going to have to see if i enjoyed this as much as the other. It is different, quite different, that is important to say at the outset. Stradivarius is a lot shorter, possibly a novella or novelette, though i'm never sure of definitions with those words, and intended for adults not children (not to say that Moonfleet can't be enjoyed by adults). It is more of a ghost or Gothic tale rather than an adventure; indeed, very little adventurous happens at all: It is more what happens within the characters, most especially the protagonist, who is almost possessed by a ghost or a piece of music or a violin, or all three.

Falkner has purposely reached back into the past ~ his past, as well as ours ~ to create his story, telling it by means of a letter from an aunt to a nephew ~ the protagonist's sister and son ~ some number of years after the event, as an explanation of his family's past. I have to say that, were this the first of Falkner's books i had read, i would not now be considering it a success; my reception of it, however, is affected by my affection for the other. Gothic is not my favourite genre, though i don't hate it; nor am i overly enthusiastic about the narration technique ~ not just here, but in general the epistlatory style is not one i love. These are not enough to make me turn from it, though; i think that more of my response is due to the story itself, which is curiously plain, meaning that the events do not seem to flow properly from the character and actions given. It is more forced, in other words, than i am comfortable with.

A Brace of Robinsons

Gilead

Marilynne Robinson

I read the first page or so of this, just for the flavour, several years ago, when Lynne gave it to me as a birthday gift; i wasn't impressed. Today i'm happy to report that i was incorrect in that very quick assessment, as i have greatly enjoyed reading this novel. It is very simple, in some ways, and yet lovely and complex in its entirety. The text is a letter written by the narrator, minister in a Congregational church in a small Iowa town, to his young son, explaining things he wants his son to know that he knows he will never have the chance to tell him, as he is a very old father, having been sixtyfive or so when his son was born. The letter is written in about 1957, and the story it tells ranges from roughly the American Civil War until its present; the key characters are the narrator, his father and grandfather, his lifelong friend, and that friend's son, named after the narrator himself. All woven together it is the story of families falling apart, struggling to survive the tensions within them, the sorrow that parents both give and are given, and, this being America, race relations.

Strange Affair

Peter Robinson

The second Robinson i have read (and, funnily enough, the second finished in the same day by someone called Robinson; coincidence is bizarre stuff), and i enjoyed this one at least as much as the previous. Peter Robinson's books are very much a part of a series, and i was feeling, as i read, that i really needed to read others ~ perhaps all others ~ in the series to fully understand the characters, who is who, and the relationships between them. Of course, i do recognise that this is partially a function of or attributable to a certain amount of my necessity for order and understanding, and that in fact i am perfectly capable of enjoying any of the series (if they're well written) without having to relate them to any others ~ just as it is possible to read, say, Lieutenant Hornblower without having to follow all the rest of the novels. Because something is possible, though, does not necessarily make it desirable. So, all in all, despite this wandering review, i enjoyed this novel, which kept me reading later than intended, and hooked me into trying to solve and work it out.

Non-Holmes Doyle, hmmm

The Lost World

Arthur Conan Doyle

It is curious how completely Conan Doyle's reputation has been attached to his creation Sherlock Holmes; so strong is the tie between the two of them that one just about forgets that he did anything else, let alone wrote much else; often the only other thing he is remembered for is his interest in spiritualism and being taken in by photographs of fairies at the bottom of the garden. In fact, though, i know he wrote more; i read at least one of his Medieval adventures about ten or fifteen years ago, and i was aware, vaguely, of Professor Challenger through the influence on subsequent generations of science fiction authors. This was, though, the first of Doyle's SF that i have read.

Professor Challenger is almost a character out of a farce, he is so much the easily offended intellectual, sublimely confident in himself (with some justification, it must be said), always ready to resort to physical violence to back up his mental powers. Doyle has provided him with a challenge sufficient to his abilities in the lost world plateau in the middle of South America somewhere, where remnants from past aeons of Earth's history are living together in some imitation of harmony. This lost world is clearly the precursor to any number of other isolated environments where a series of characters can explore and interact with no reference to the outside world, from Burroughs' Barsoom (not to mention the jungles of his Tarzan) to Lewis's Malacandra and Niven's Ring.

I am glad that i bought this edition, which contains all three Professor Challenger novels, as well as the two short stories Conan Doyle wrote, as i shall return to it in the future and read the rest; The Lost World is obviously a success for me.

Another classic completed (again?)

Sons and Lovers

D.H.Lawrence

It's a strange thing, but i have finished this without being reminded of the previous reading. I am certain i did read it, at Loretto, maybe for O Level, maybe not. But reading it i have not had the flash of recognition that i usually have at some point while rereading a book. Thus i have been forced to reconsider, have i read it? did i perhaps misremember, remember other pupils reading it? Who knows. Parts of it are familiar, but perhaps only in the sense that i am familiar with books which are a part of my cultural heritage, even if i haven't read them myself.

Without worrying further, i need to respond to the book itself, though, and decide how i felt about it and whether, which is more important that possible past events, i will read another Lawrence in the future. I have to own that, to my regret, i was not as impressed with the writing as i probably should have been. For one thing, Paul Morel, the Lawrence stand-in, is an unattractive character, tied to his mother’s apron-strings, either unable or not willing to make a decision for himself, and in the process he hurts at least two other people, the two women he is interested in but unwilling to make a commitment to.

Another point i found irritating (laughable, really, me, with no credit, being irritated by someone universally acknowledged to be one of the Giants of the Twentieth Century) is that for much of the plot, while not much is happening in the lives of the characters, Lawrence spends his time telling his readers what the interior life of the characters, Paul in particular, is; he does not show it, does not allow the readers to grow their own perceptions and understandings, but lays out in detail how Paul feels, why he reacts in a particular way. I cannot but help think that the better novel is one in which the character is revealed through action. I cannot say that i won't read Lawrence again; i have read some of his poetry before, and perhaps some of the travel writings also; but i can say that i am not inspired to rush out and find another to read immediately. Which reaction, given his stature, and the place of this novel in his canon, makes me question mine own critical ability.

Three from One

The Day of the Triffids

John Wyndham

I found a collection of six of Wyndham's novels a couple of weeks ago, at one of the charity shops in town, and snapped it up immediately; at one pound there was no question but that it would go with me. There is a bit of overlap with the three i already own, but it does mean that i'll be able to send one to Stephanie for her opinion of him. Mine own opinion, of course, is clear and without doubt: He was one of the best of the British writers of science fiction, whose control of plot may have been slightly less than perfect, but who forced the reader to think about consequences and ideas with every story he wrote. The Day of the Triffids, then: This is probably the most successful of his novels, from either writing period (before and after the War), both in terms of critical and cultural (and maybe financial, though i wouldn't know) success; certainly it is the one which has been the best known, having been made into a film (which i have never seen; one of those 'fifties sci-fi/horror genre, i suspect, it could have been appalling, but it was popular, i believe), and spawning at least one sequel which i read and reviewed about half a dozen years ago.

Seeds of Time

John Wyndham

A collection of short stories; i think this is the lesser of the (i think) two collections made in Wyndham's later period (not including The Outward Urge which could, arguably, be considered a novel), the other being Consider her Ways. I have read neither of them recently (well, not until i just reread this one, obviously), but it seems to me that Consider has the stronger stories in it. This is not to say, however, that those in this collection are weak; they are not, in the main. Wyndham clearly wrote attempting different styles and genres in these stories ~ he says as much in his introduction ~ with fair success. To my mind the better of the stories include the first (“Chronoclasm”), a romance between time-crossed lovers, “Survival”, a horrible development of the idea in Asimov's first published story, “Marooned off Vesta”, “Pillar to Post”, a very complicated story of time travel and body swapping which ends rather unsatisfactorily, and “Dumb Martian”, which shows almost more clearly than any fiction about actual racism the pointlessness and foolishness of prejudice.

Trouble with Lichen

John Wyndham

Though i can see flaws in it, this has always been my favourite Wyndham ever since i read it; i'm not altogether sure that i can pinpoint why, other than sheer pleasure in the clever simplicity of the plot and characters, along with, as always with Wyndham, a necessity for the reader to think about what would happen if.... It is hard to be critical in some reviews, and this is one, because i feel too invested in the book that i'm reviewing; i don't feel as though i can ever write less than effusively about Wyndham or, for a further example, Dick Francis, because i enjoy them too much, though, as i say, i can see imperfections in what they write those imperfections seem less important than the whole which surrounds them. So, clearly, i enjoyed reading this, and i'm glad i now own a copy, so i can reread it any time i choose.

Not Hornblower

Plain Murder

C.S. Forester

I have, obviously, known C.S. Forester for many years as an excellent story-teller (the Hornblower books are old favourites). I had never come across him previously as a murder/suspense writer, unless i allow The Peacemaker (first read about forty years ago, before even Hornblower) to fall into that category; i clearly have to increase my understanding of his abilities.

This was a delightful, though horrible too, book, telling the story of a man who murders once to secure his future and comes to find that he is prepared to see it as a way of answering many more of his needs than he anticipated. Indeed, there are few characters in the book whom he would not be ready to murder should the need arise. Forester's skill is shown as he makes his protagonist, the murderer, while clearly an unattractive person, sympathetic to the reader, such that i was almost rooting for him to succeed, hoping that he'd have just one more successful killing. When i thought about it, of course, i was horrified; while immersed in the book, though, clearly Morris had my sympathy.

Undoubtedly a success by my criterion, i had not expected otherwise, knowing Forester's other work; i shall definitely look for his other works in the same genre.

"Lists" usually = "Goodness"

The Royal Book of Lists

Matt Richardson

Just the sort of book i would write, and therefore find interesting ~ nay, fascinating ~ full of facts, trivial and otherwise, in this case about the British royal family, arranged in easy to consume lists. A couple of small annoyances to the thing: The adjective in the title is surely in the wrong place ~ they must have intended it to modify lists not book in order to make real sense ~ that i can put down to the publisher, though; the responsibility for error of fact, on the other hand, belongs squarely on the shoulders of the author, and leads me to question just how reliable he is in other facts, ones i didn't previously know, when he can give Richard II Edward II's dates. Such a simple error is really unforgivable, if for no other reason than that it is so basic, so easily verifiable. I have to admit, however, that this was the only real horror i found ~ though i wasn't looking for them ~ for which i was grateful. There is something about a list which is satisfying, to me at least, as it consists of almost nothing but information; the selection of that information does lend a certain amount of authorial interpretation to it, but a good list or series of lists is relatively complete, the selection is not biased, and the unmediated facts are pleasurable. This series meets these criteria.

Bizarrely Unsatisfying

The God Delusion

Richard Dawkins

I was curiously disappointed in Dawkins in this book. For some years i have read about him ~ i think i've read one or two of his previous works, but i can't be certain ~ and read a number of refutations of him and, more particularly, this work, and he has been built up as a great and terrible foe of the Church, of God (or any god) and of religion. I expected, then, to be challenged, to be logically argued into submission, to read strong and convincing prose of a scientific nature. Not what happened. In fact i found that Dawkins wrote in a fashion that, to my perception, is surprisingly close to what he stands against with all his force: The book reminds me of nothing so much as an evangelical preacher ensuring that the choir stay convinced and and strangers in the congregation are whipped along into following him. I'm afraid that his arguments generally were, to say the least, unconvincing, and he attempted to cover that up by using rhetoric designed to bludgeon his readers into agreeing. Let me explain.

Towards the beginning of the book Dawkins writes that he amused himself by noting in the margin of a book he was reading the false arguments used by one or other of his opponents; i have a healthy respect for books, and library books in particular, so i did not actually do so, but i noted in my mind at least a dozen times during Dawkins debating points at which i would have written BISS in the margin as a comment on the paucity of his argument: It solely consisted of “This is so, Because I Say So”, which really is not at all convincing as a means of persuasion. He does this, for example, in dismissing the idea of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) as suggested by Stephen Jay Gould, among others. He does not really argue against NOMA, other than to say that there is no reason to think that, if there are questions science cannot answer, they may be questions religion is capable of answering ~ or even exploring. There are, as i indicated above, a number of occasions on which Dawkins uses this argument from authority; it's simply a shame that the authority he uses ~ his own ~ is not actually sufficient to support the argument he makes. It is possible that NOMA is a poor idea, but not possible to discover that by reading this book; as far as Dawkins' argument goes, there is nothing wrong with NOMA at all ~ except that he doesn't like it.

The second point at which i found the book frustrating is the style. I likened him earlier to someone preaching to the choir; to explain that image a little let me point out that he uses rhetorical devices which are frequently and usefully used by preachers on Sunday mornings in church services to carry the congregation along a path they already believe and travel willingly: humour, exaggeration, straw man arguments, appeal to authority, and others. The most annoying, maybe offensive, was the use of humour; i find it offensive, i'm afraid, from a couple of perspectives, because it feels as though i am being patronised since he clearly believes i'm stupid enough to be convinced something is wrong if i can be made to laugh at it, and because on many occasions his humour is more vitriolic than funny, especially when he is relating anecdotes (and when did a personal anecdote become a strong logical argument?) about how he either has or should have demolished his opponents with his wit. It may be the case, as has been argued elsewhere, that harm to someone else in one or another form is the basis of all humour; when taken to extremes, however, it serves no purpose other than to make me uncomfortable and to rather dislike the instigator.

To be honest, quite a lot of the book seems surprisingly personal to Dawkins, as though he takes it as a personal affront that anyone should disagree with him (i suppose that this links back to my feeling that BISS was his major argument). That this is so is illustrated by the anecdotes i mentioned above as well as by the authorities he tends to appeal to. It may not be that they are the most common in the book, but certainly high among his authorities are Carl Sagan, admittedly a scientist, though more of a science-explainer than an active discoverer, and Douglas Adams, an author (non-scientific) and comic. The two primary reasons Dawkins seems to appeal to them are that he liked them personally, and they both agreed with his point of view. Neither of these is a sufficient reason.

A further way in which the book seems personal rather than reasoned is the way in which Dawkins seems to go out of his way to be offensive to theologians for no other reason than that they are theologians. He argues that there is no reason to be polite about religious beliefs, that religion is given a free pass in society because people are not willing to offend one another over their God and faith. The truth, of course, is that, in fact, there are all sorts of things people do not say to one another (i cannot imagine, for example, that Dawkins would be comfortable saying to a stranger, “Goodness, your wife is ugly”, or “What a stupid daughter you have”), because we have evolved (within the species, genetically, or in society, through trial and error, i do not know) a certain self-censorship over what we say in order that society may function. Religion falls into this category of Things We Are Polite About, yet Dawkins is attempting to remove from the category with no explanation or justification. Indeed, he treats it as falling in the opposite category, Things We Can Be Vitriolic About, as he all but personally insults theologians. Not, i am afraid, the actions of the reasoned, reasoning man he would portray himself as.

In the end, as i mentioned above, i found reading this book disappointing. I expected a real challenge to my thinking capacity, but what i found was similar to a secondary school level response to Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian ~ from the other perspective, of course! Less than satisfying, i'm afraid.

How to be Happy?

The Geography of Bliss

Eric Weiner

Stephanie gave me this for Christmas, saying it was quite interesting ~ and the reason that she shows her location on Facebook as Iceland. Weiner claims to be a largely unhappy person, so considers himself perfect for conducting an investigation into happiness, specifically how the country one inhabits affects one's happiness. I suppose i like the idea; the writing was a little cuter than i care for usually; not enough to put me off reading the book, but perhaps enough to slow me down before picking up another by Weiner. The actual research ~ the book itself is largely anecdotal ~ is interesting, fascinating, one might almost say, as one's location and culture do seem to have some effect on happiness. In particular, monocultural places seem to be happier than multicultural, which is information that large swathes of the liberal West would do well to know and appreciate. Still, some of the responsibility must lie with the individual person, and Weiner seems to accept this, embrace it even, as he finds that his happiness level doesn't seem to change much no matter where he is nor how his circumstances vary.

Five books; two reviews

Nine Princes in Amber

The Guns of Avalon

The Sign of the Unicorn

Roger Zelazny

I stayed with Chen and Tony for the weekend, and while she was showing me her books Chen and i talked a bit about this series, how i encouraged her to start it one time when she was bored, how i had read it with Kathy White back in the summer of 1980 on the Oyster River farm, how it is so good and easy to read. I remembered the opening lines of Nine Princes, or thought i did, and opened it to take a look, and i was hooked, again.

It is surely a sign of a classic that i can remember the first time i read this series, the events surrounding that reading, when and where i bought the books, as well as the appearance of the first ones i read and the set i bought ~ which is, sadly, a part of the huge collection we have “temporarily” left in the US ~ and at least one other time i read the whole thing. I have, on at least one occasion, gone on to reading more, beyond the original five, which Zelazny added some years later, but did not find them of the same compelling quality; i know, for example, that i have read more, but i don't remember how many, nor am i certain where i got them, nor when (those two are close to the same, libraries depending on geography and personal history for me), nor anything about them other than a certain disappointment. That lack of compulsion, the relative loss of memory about the sequels, tends to show me that the subsequent books are of a lower quality; understandable, as the originals are so high, but disappointing nonetheless.

So, looking at the opening lines, as i say, i was immediately drawn in, as i suspected, if i am honest, i would be. The books read so quickly that i really had no difficulty in racing through them, finishing three of the five in the fortyeight hours or so i was in Cardiff. As well as the conversations, the walk to the city, the music we listened to, the films we watched. What is it, then, which makes these so easy to read? Part of it has to be the plot, which is fairly simple, but quite compelling; who doesn't understand family strife, the desire to change situation or circumstances, and the struggle to better ourselves? Another part is clearly the language; Zelazny is not prone to complex grammar or sentences, nor is his vocabulary awkward or specialised, which makes the whole easy going. The characters, too, are a part of the attraction, as it is possible to see truth in all of them, their interactions, their different facets. Overall, whatever the reasons, this is a series i love, and it was delightful to be able to renew acquaintanceship with it again.

The Hand of Oberon

The Courts of Chaos

Roger Zelazny

Visiting Chenowyth again, so reading more of her collection of Zelazny's Amber Chronicles, finishing them, in fact, and liking them in just the same measure and way as i have previously. I have always found certain portions of the novels a bit too florid, confusing, ultimately pointless, for my taste. Zelazny has Corwin, his narrator give several descriptions of what he calls hell-rides, and he describes Chaos on one or two occasions as well; to my mind they are unnecessary and distracting ~ to be perfectly honest, i often skip them altogether, leaving me a slight feeling of guilt ~ and more about showing that Zelazny is more than just a story-teller, that he can write exciting prose too. There are more of these passages in the final book, The Courts of Chaos, than in any of the others, and ~ coincidence? probably not ~ it is the weakest book. Not actually weak, though; the whole pentology is excellent, despite one or two untied loose ends which are probably because the whole is so complex that there simply would have been too much to pull everything together and answer every single question properly. Or maybe Zelazny just missed some. I just wish that the later books lived up to these five.

Surreal

The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake

Aimee Bender

Judging by the picture on the front cover (a young girl holding some lemons) and Jodi Picoult's name endorsing it, i assumed when Abi lent it to me that this was going to be a (female oriented) juvenile such as she and Bailey used to read. Now, having finished, i'm not sure. Not sure at all, in fact, what category or genre it might fit into: There are elements of that juvenile (the protagonist/narrator is female and, for a large portion of the book, prepubescent or adolescent), to be sure; there are also pointers towards the adult (not least the themes of broken people and relationships); not only that, but also a strong current of the surreal which doesn't really aid in genre-assignment but certainly adds to the interest of the book. 

The first element of surrealism encountered is the ability of the narrator to taste the emotions of a cook in their products. Actually, it might be fairer to say, the inability of her not to taste their truest emotions and desires in anything they make. As interesting as this sounds, it is for her the most awful ability, as she does not have a happy home life and, in particular, her mother (chief cook) is lonely and sad to begin with, then guilty over an affair later. There are other surreal elements, not least the knack that her brother has of completely disappearing, at first for a few minutes while babysitting, later for days or weeks at a time. 

I'm glad i have read it, mostly for the oddity; the portrayal of characters is good, particularly the relationship, such as it is, between the narrator and her brother's best friend, which is perhaps the realest portion of the book.

Oh. Yes!

Full disclosure:  I had some small part in helping to prepare this book for publication.

Warrior of the Ages
S.R. Karfelt

Why should you read Warrior of the Ages?  Great story; well defined characters who are easy to like (love); an unusual idea of immortality (dying some thirty times a millennium); an easy, flowing narrative style.

Why not read it?  I've given it thought, and for the reader of fiction, especially speculative fiction (a rather wide genre), i can only think of one reason:  There is a religious element, in that some form of non-corporeal beings form a part of the structure of the book.  On the one hand, this might be enough to turn some off; on the other, it's only religious in the sense that A Bear Called Paddington is ursine.  In other words, that's no reason not to read the thing.

To be perfectly honest, i love this book; and i am not shy about spelling out the flaws of books i read and review (see others of my reviews ~ this one ~ or ~ that one ~ for proof).

A Mixed Review

Joshua's Key

H. Brading

Rather funny that two books i finish within consecutive days are both ones i have complex reactions to. There are a number of things to be said about Joshua's Key, the question is, where to start? Perhaps, in this case, with the greatest strength of the book, its plot. Something over five hundred pages long, it is filled with the action and development of a strong plot. While there is never any true doubt that good will triumph (the result of the opposite being the entire destruction of the world Brading has created), the threat to that triumph is strong and, while it lasts, well developed.

In addition to the plot, another strength is the characters; they are numerous and varied, from wizards to aquatic men with gills and webbed feet to, perhaps her greatest thought, nurturers who whisper to plants and encourage them to grow usefully. The world itself is quite an invention also, stretching from a land beneath the sea to the Garden of Eden. Each of these, plot, characters, world, is a reason for a positive element to the complex reaction Joshua's Key has evoked in me.

There is, however, a negative element provoked by other aspects of the book. The first thing i think of in this regard is something i have actually written about previously in reaction to reading this very book, some months ago, and it is very annoying to me, and that is the use of punctuation ~ or misuse, to be exact. Consistently, for example, Brading writes “tree's” when she means the plural of “tree”; i could give many other examples of the same or a similar errors with apostrophes. Clearly the book lacked a good, strong copy edit before it was published ~ or, if it had one, the copy editor was not worth his salt. There is no denying that i am a pedant and many errors i notice and am frustrated by would not be a problem for the average reader; nevertheless, the level of errors here is sufficient that, i have to think, even normal people (non-pedants) would be annoyed.  (I should not that i have written previously about this issue in Joshua's Key, at the other end of this link.)

The bigger issue, though, than the misuse of punctuation is another prepublication lack. I mentioned above the quality of the plot; unfortunately that quality is marred, for me, by a need for an editor to go through and reorganise and smooth out parts of it. Brading tells an excellent story, but she allows her reader to get muddled by whose story she is telling, at points, or how they link together, at other points. The problem arises, i think, because an author knows his story intimately, so is less able to see any weaknesses or quirks in the flow; it is the editor's job to point these out, maybe make suggestions as to corrections, and not allow the thing to go further until the story flows and is as strong as it can be.

I have no proof of it, but it is my suspicion that the story began as a series of bed-time stories which developed and grew into this huge novel. In mine opinion each of the flaws i have found can be explained by this origin and development as, for example, if the recipient of the story forgets a character it is easy for them to ask the story-teller quickly. The large plot is explained by the ability of the story-teller nightly to expand on what has happened, is happening, and, again, benefits from the intimate relationship between teller and listener. The occasional jumpiness of the episodes is explained by the necessity of nightly breaks and restarting the story after reminding the child what had happened. The huge character list is a result of not needing to work to the physical constraints of the space of a book, but having the time and luxury to expand and expound organically and as the demands of the story seem to require. None of these are fatal flaws, of necessity, to my mind, but they each lead to a build-up of annoyances and frustrations which made the book increasingly difficult to read, so much so that it has taken me several months to read what could have been done (by me, at least) in no more than one or even less.

I mentioned copy problems earlier; having been peripherally involved recently with the independent publication of a friend's book, i suspect that the manuscript was not submitted to a beta reader, nor to an external editor, which has proven to be a mistake. I think either, or both, would have caught and suggested corrections to many of the issues i have perceived as flaws (structural, grammatical, and typographical). In the end, my mixed response comes down on the “good book” side, but not heavily; i would, however, more than likely read another by the same author based on the name on the jacket, which is my criterion of success, especially if it had been through a stronger editing process. Brading clearly has great imagination, she merely needs additional prepublication discipline to tame it and make her creation fully accessible.

Happy to be pushed

Mystic River

Dennis Lehane

Abi ranted and raved about Dennis Lehane until i felt i had to read one of his books to see what she had enjoyed. And i am glad i did: By my severe but simple criterion, i would call this a successful book.

Lehane is a skilful producer of characters he is able to make the reader like; his murder victim, for a start, was more than just a bland entity to be killed, and i felt particularly sorry for her though i knew from before she was introduced that she was destined for a sticky end. Also the beginning of the book, taking place some twenty years before the main action, was an interesting touch; many authors have important events in the pasts of their characters, but they do not always make them such a complete part of the plot. Here the fact that Dave got into the car and Sean and Jimmy did not was essential, given totemic significance maybe, by the actual telling of the story, although Lehane, as is the wont of mystery writers, kept secrets to himself until he felt like revealing them.

The end of a the book was a little surprising ~ not the solution, well, that was a surprise as well, nicely done ~ but in the end a character i had grown to like (though he was becoming more and more fearsome) eventually essentially decides to ignore the forces of good and law in the city and run or rule his own neighbourhood himself; it was a bit like watching Vito Corleone become the Godfather, and not the ending i had wanted for him. Part of what makes a good author is the ability to be both predictable and surprising.

Playing with Early Reviewers'

It’s Game Time Somewhere

Tim Forbes

A month and a half since i’ve finished a book! Surely a record for me ~ and not one i would care to surpass ever again.

This was an Early Reviewers’ book, and one which i enjoyed, albeit not one i probably would have picked up of mine own accord. Sports is not something which particularly interests me, to participate in, to watch, or to read about. I can, obviously, do all three, and have done, in the past: Most especially playing at school or, less frequently, with friends (football, rugby, cricket, hockey, softball, among others) and watching ice hockey in Canada. Usually it is merely chance, though, that brings me a book on sport, and that chance this time has done me a favour, as Forbes is quite interesting in his quest to spend a year watching different sports.

He is a man of about the same age as me, who has a mid-life crisis by way of suddenly realising that his chosen field of labour ~ specifically chosen for its pleasure potential, as he left finance to work in golf tournament promotion ~ no longer holds joy for him; he begins to wonder if he has the capacity to enjoy sport, any sport, any more, or if working in it has drained it for him. Similar, i suppose, to what might happen if i had left retail to work in publishing then, after some years, discovered i no longer read nor missed it. This quest which he gives himself, watching 100 games in fifty sports in a year, is his attempt to discover if he has entirely lost the enjoyment ability, or if he can recapture it.

For much of the year, it seems, his quest is not very successful, as he is shown over and over that professional sports has little to offer, and is intent on making money in any way it possibly can. This he calls the Monster. Apparently later in the year, however, certainly later in the book, Forbes starts to undergo a change, driven by the sports he is compelled to watch in order to complete the quest under the original terms ~ there not being fifty professional sports available to watch he has to go to some lengths to find amateur games and finds some he had never run across before. During this latter portion, he is given several experiences which renew his faith in sport, cover or remove the bad taste left by the Monster, and help him to understand that those who participate in a sport purely for the love of it have a great advantage over those who have other motivations. In the end the moral is fairly predictable, not entirely believable, but worth the time put in to it.

I have some reservations about the book, partly Forbes' style (which is perhaps a little overly humorous and casual for my taste), as well as quirks of the digitalisation which left the second of every double “f” capitalised (you have no idea how tired i got of reading “ofF” or variations thereof), and put in paragraph breaks where none were needed or expected. I'm not certain i'd read another based purely on Forbes' name ~ perhaps if it were a subject i wanted to learn more about, which would leave most sports out ~ so i cannot sincerely call the book a success by my criterion. On the other hand, certainly not a complete failure, either, as many of his descriptions of events, places, and people, are well done (by no means did i intend to imply above that his style is appalling, just not entirely to my taste), and he is clearly knowledgeable about his subject.

The Last Frontier

Alistair MacLean

One of MacLean's earlier books, and perhaps stronger for being that. The action depends more on character and plans than coincidence or deus ex machina, which is more satisfying than some of his later books' plots. The characters are his usual types, almost superhuman, a man who drinks ridiculous quantities of alcohol without being affected, men who are willing to die but, generally do not have to; interestingly, there is a woman who functions as a romantic interest for the protagonist, which is fairly unusual for MacLean ~ perhaps he needed to put her in to further the plot, which her presence does do a few times, so overcame his usual reluctance for romance which might slow down the action.

Curiously, for a man who was concerned about keeping the action going, there is quite a large amount of moralising or philosophising in the novel, largely in the mouth of one character; certainly the character who expresses the opinions, which are essentially those which say all men are brothers and must learn to live together, is a man who is in a position to speak with authority: He had been a partisan during the Second World War, successfully and violently fighting the Russians in Ukraine, then ending up as an anti-government actor in post-War Hungary, helping his fellows to escape the torture and inhumanity of the Communist government. Unfortunately, i found that the philosophy slowed down the action at a point when really it should have been racing towards the end. Still, it seems to me that MacLean was willing to take this action because this character seems to speak for him, and he believed it essential that the world think about his points.

As mentioned above, the book takes place in Hungary; as it was released in 1959, it seems likely that it was inspired (some of the action makes this clear also) by the events of the Hungarian Revolution and its awful oppression by the USSR, and fairly clearly MacLean was so horrified by these actions that he found it necessary to use his available pulpit to publish his opinion of the Cold War.

History, Times Two

Washington and the American Revolution

Esmond Wright

I still don't have the almost instinctive grasp of American history that i find in myself over the British variety; i suppose this is because the one was not put into my brain through stories, books, classes, while i was young enough to take it in without realising it, whereas the other most certainly was. Influenced, i suppose, by my many years of living in the United States, i feel strongly that this lack of grasp is a weakness in me, though i am well aware that the average American probably doesn't know as much of their own history as do i, and it is a weakness i am always willing to correct; Wright's book was the latest venture in that direction.

I have learned some, though of course the outlines were familiar to me previously, of both Washington's biography and the course of the Revolution ~ as well as some of its causes; more, though, i have taken pleasure in the quality of the writing, which is never preachy, nor overly rhetorical, but simple and easy to follow (i only recall one name i had to chase down for a previous reference, despite taking some weeks to read the book), clear and good prose. I shall, which i don't often do with history, see if i can find more of Wright's writings to pursue.

Courage: Eight Portraits

Gordon Brown

I was a little disappointed in this book, i have to confess. I could not help comparing it, even unconsciously, with JFK's Portraits of Courage, which comparison must have been in the back of Brown's mind when he conceived of and produced the work; and i am not sure that the comparison is to Brown's benefit.

Kennedy's book has its drawbacks or weaknesses, not least the suspicion that it was largely written by someone else, but it was and is an enjoyable book; though this one is, i would suspect, more completely “All my own work!” than Kennedy's, Brown does not have a sparkling prose style. A highly successful Chancellor, in part because he had the earned reputation of being able to destroy his detractors in Parliament or the press, the iron fist style is not so useful in writing what was surely conceived as a collection of popular biographies. Writing for the public, one does not want to bludgeon one's readers into appreciation; that way lies an ever diminishing audience.

A further problem i found was that Brown tries to analyse what he means by “courage”, and i'm not sure that i followed him properly; either that or i just disagree with his definition. He seems to be using a definition different from the usual, and it appears that it is on occasion flexible to the point of not really meaning anything other than “something i admire”; the chapter on Cicely Saunders, for example, completely puzzles me, because i don't understand what about her or her actions was courageous: Admirable, certainly, needed, appropriate, difficult, each of these would be apposite adjectives, but courageous

I was ready to be pleased by Brown's choices of portrayers of courage, a modern continuation of JFK's book in some sense, and was pleased to see Mandela (obvious choice), Cavell (a uniquely British heroine), and Wallenberg (unbelievably heroic, and not well-known enough) on the cover. King and Kennedy (RFK, not his brother) and even Bonhoeffer i imagined were particular and personal choices for Brown. Saunders i knew nothing about, not even the name, so i had no opinion; i have to say, having read the book, i can only imagine that she is a personal hero of Brown's for some reason he feels unable to bring out, or she is a cultural hero i haven't heard of (not an uncommon thing), and he felt he couldn't miss her out, even though she doesn't fit the scheme.

All in all, not a successful book, by my criterion. Certainly, if i come across it, i am quite likely to read another book by Brown; it won't be on the basis of my pleasure in this one, though, so much as who he is.