Jolly Old England! (November Reading)

[ase]

Empire of Ivory (Naomi Novik / naominovik): Way to cliffhanger, Novik! I'm reasonably sure Laurence is safe, because Novik is writing to entertain. His truck won't break (too much), his dog won't die, his wife won't leave him. I really liked Hannah Erasmus, the missionary's wife, who body-checks Laurence's assumptions when she stays in Africa. Best quote from the entire book: "My husband is dead," she said, with finality, "and my daughters will be raised proud children of the Tswana here, not as beggars in England." It's nicely telling that Laurence completely fails to notice she's adapted quite well to being the Kefentse's favorite child. Laurence really should have seen that coming, given his bond with Temeraire, but - acculturation much? - he's still not coping with the concept of England being a second-best choice, or that women aren't going to automatically follow English social roles. It's a nice PoV trick that Laurence isn't getting this, but Novik communicates events Laurence witnesses without observing the finer points. I have no idea how this will play out with respect to Catherine Harcourt and Bailey's marriage, which Laurence pushed hard on both parties. ("Babies! Married! You have to be married to have babies! Stop looking at me like I've grown a second head!") I suspect it's going to turn out to be a terrible, horrible mistake for all parties, but I'm lousy at predicting book twists, so maybe it'll work out after all.

The epidemic plot: I got nothing. Oh look, it's a terrible disease, and there's a cure! I have absolutely no idea if the dragons got nailed by something bacterial, viral or even fungal, but as McGuffins go, it did its job.

The treason / biowarfare plot: now that the American dragon plague is free in Europe, it's going to become a fact of life, like pneumonia and TB and polio. The long term implications of this are probably beyond the scope of the series, for the moment.

Ha'Penny (Jo Walton / papersky): Remember what I was saying about writing to entertain? Walton is writing to tell an idea in story form. Her character's trucks are gonna break, their dogs will be shot, their wives will leave them. I want to say something about gender roles and Carmichael and Jack, whose PoV would probably be enlightening. Why doesn't Jack get a job too? I come from the two income household assumption, and also from the "construction workers are hot" mindset, so I may be missing the point here. Series structure note: Carmichael PoV limited 3rd past; female protagonist limited 1st epistolary. Nifty trick, since it gives you a reserved point of view, and a distorted one.

Uncle Tungsten: Memories of a Chemical Childhood (Oliver Sacks): For anyone like me, who hasn't been paying attention, Oliver Sacks is awesome. The title pretty much encapsulates the book: childhood, science, colorful twist. It's a love letter to science. Sacks talks about such and such a part of growing up - uncles, parents, the nanny, World War Two child evacuations - and then wanders off to talk about physics, or the history of chemistry. Sacks also includes many, many entertaining footnotes (he blames Mendeleev's footnotes in The Principles of Chemistry, which he writes about in terms that make me want to read it too). Sacks loves science, and is well-versed in the history of science, which he uses to lead into and out of his own childhood. Sacks had a large family, including several uncles involved in industry and applied chemistry or physics. If you think this didn't impact his life, you'd be so wrong. There's something to be said for family expectations and how they play out in your life (see also Sacks's mother arranging an introduction to human anatomy at age fourteen - because every 14 year old wants to dissect the corpse of another 14 year old). It's difficult to write a biography without saying something about the people who impacted that life, and in this case, chemistry and chemical concepts are at least as prominent as the people. Very fun biography.

Comments

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

Humph. I must now add three more books to my reading list. (Which was getting a bit on the small side, so the hmphing is mostly for show.) I read one Sacks once, Awakenings, which was so depressing I hesitated to pick up another, but this one sounds like a lot more fun.

Hmm... so what would you call someone like Bujold or Cherryh, where the truck breaks and the dogs are shot, but the wife might stay (or be found) and the breaking truck may pave the way for a new better job as an auto mechanic? Probably neither writing to entertain nor to tell an idea. Maybe writing for character arc?

Have you ever read Ayn Rand? I thoroughly don't recommend her if you haven't, but I was quite amused and actually enjoy her quite a bit, because she takes "writing to tell an idea" to ridiculous extremes. (And even then I feel like, rarely, her characters turn around and say, "Wait, this is my story, and here's what I want to do, which is not quite what you[Rand] wanted.")

[ase.livejournal.com]

First of all, don't blame me. Blame the many excellent writers who keep publishing - it's all their fault!

The Sacks autobiography is not unremittingly cheerful - the WW2 evacuation did nothing good for young Oliver Sacks - but it's probably more fundamentally happy than wacky neurological clinical descriptions. However, the loving descriptions of youthful chemical experiments, the history of chemistry, accidents with cuttlefish, and chemistry and lightbulbs are wonderfully engaging. I am deadly envious of the ways Sacks was allowed to try to damage himself with chemicals in his early teens.

Bujold... I think LMB's writing to entertain, with depth? She's trying to say something about the human condition, or maybe people as they are in her day and age? I'm tempted to invoke Austen, which doesn't help much since I've read only Pride and Prejudice. I have no idea what Cherryh is trying to do in her writing, but I've enjoyed it a great deal. (Bacon.) Write to work out ideas, and incidentally inform? I don't think it's character arc, I think it's plot. Cherryh and Bujold don't approach book construction the same way, which may reflect two authors trying to do two different things. See me try to talk my way toward an understanding!

I haven't read Rand, and nothing I've heard makes me think I'd enjoy doing so. I'm a little sad I'm missing out on a significant contribution to the 20th C literary conversation, but not sad enough to do anything about it. I'm glad her characters occasionally stand up for themelves!

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

Hee. Can I blame you for introducing me? :)

Hm, with the Austen comparison I was all, "what? ...yeah, you have a point." This may be why I love Bujold so much, because I am an absolute sucker (due partially to an insanely good Brit Lit teacher) for authors who say something about the human condition. (And why I don't like Dag and Fawn, who seem to say "The human condition is 'schmoopy.'")

(Bacon.)

This made me laugh out loud. Yeah, Cherryh seems more of an... architect? With characters!

[ase.livejournal.com]

(And why I don't like Dag and Fawn, who seem to say "The human condition is 'schmoopy.'")

*snorts* Yeah, really. I'm starting to think Beguilement and Legacy suffer a lot from being split into two books. You can only end by walking - or riding - out on your family so many times before I lose interest. If you consider the two as one narrative unit, it might not maul my narrative expectations as much.

Yeah, Cherryh seems more of an... architect? With characters!

Yes. Or a fireworks expert? Spends three-quarters of the book setting up the display, and then lets loose with pell-mell action? She's using her characters to make a point... which is sort of what Jo Walton is doing, isn't it? I don't think Cherryh's out to entertain, full stop, but she's not pushing a technological or political idea either. (Examples of same: Singularity, mil SF, feminist utopia, feminist dystopia - hi, Sherri Tepper! - the evils of the liberal/conservative/etc agenda.) I think Cherryh may be looking at the human condition from a sociological bent, where Bujold is looking at it from a psychological bent? It's worth remembering Cherryh's background is in classics. Getting into the mindset of strange and distant in time, but human, culture isn't a novel experience for her.

[mareklamo.livejournal.com]

I have _Empire of Ivory_ on my to-read pile, so I appreciate your cut. I'll probably read it over Christmas.

I like Oliver Sacks, but I wasn't able to get thru _Awakenings_. Perhaps I'll borrow _Uncle Tungsten_ from the library.

Hmmm, I really need a book icon. Time to whip out the camera. Say, if I send you a picture and text, would you be able to make a spiffy icon for me?

[ase.livejournal.com]

Oh, good, someone's getting the benefit of the spoiler-cuts. You're the second person to mention Awakenings, which makes me glad I pulled the biography off the shelves before reading his other books.

Say, if I send you a picture and text, would you be able to make a spiffy icon for me?

For you? Absolutely! Pop it over in email when you can.

Thanks!

[mareklamo.livejournal.com]

Yay, icon! It can wait until after Christmas though. Unless you want a project to take your mind off the holidays.

[litalex.livejournal.com]

I mean, Novik's whole series is basically Laurence getting his assumptions checked. :)

[ase.livejournal.com]

And that is one of its redeeming characteristics. Book 1: Laurence gets his assumptions about aviators knocked out from under him. Book 2: Laurence gets his assumptions about dragons and their proper place knocked out from under him. Book 3: Um, er, it's been a while. But I'm sure Laurence got shocked, maybe by Napoleon's ferocious adaptability in the face of new tactical possbilities (Lien). Book 4: see above.