They say that the past is a foreign country. When I read books like Tender is the Night, I tend to agree. Filled with people I cannot understand or respect, it is a very dreary and depressing tale of a couple who outwardly seem to be perfect, but are actually in a serious spiral of depression and destruction--rather like the author's own life at the time he wrote it.
Tender is the Night begins with a woman and her teenaged daughter arriving at a hotel on the Riviera in the summer, when it is mostly deserted. The girl, Rosemary, turns out to have just begun a very successful film career after starring in a film called Daddy's Girl. Rosemary goes down to the beach to swim and sunbathe, and there she joins a group of clever and fun people who have set up a little encampment under several beach umbrellas. She immediately likes the hosts of the group, Dick and Nicole Diver. Nicole is beautiful and quiet and occasionally makes calm, clever remarks. Dick is animated and handsome and really enjoys being charming. He turns his attentions on Rosemary, who instantly falls into infatuation with him.
The group later go to Paris for a few days, and Rosemary goes with them. Her mother has calmly urged her to try to seduce Dick Diver, as she feels Rosemary needs to become more independent. (That was probably my first WTF? moment) The trip turns out to be somewhat unpleasant, as Rosemary throws herself at Dick, one of the Divers' friends goes into a serious alcoholic spiral of destruction, they witness one murder and stumble across a corpse following another, and Nicole has a hysterical breakdown because she can see how things are going between Dick and Rosemary. Then Rosemary sails off to America with her mother and the story shifts into Dick's point of view.
We learn that things are not as Rosemary had perceived them. Dick is a psychiatrist and Nicole a former mental patient (though not one of Dick's patients). When they meet, Nicole is a teenager and is beautiful and is unstable. Over time she pulls herself together and fixates on the handsome and charming Dr. Diver. He meets her older sister, who basically tells him that they hope to send Nicole to college and hope that she meets a suitable doctor to marry, so that her wealthy family can rest comfortable that she will be well cared for if her sanity wavers again. Dick is repelled by the idea that they plan to basically buy Nicole a doctor husband, but then goes ahead and marries her anyway.
Naturally, he later regrets his decision. Nicole is beautiful and he loves her. But living with her is very stressful, and Dick has many regrets about what his life could have been if he hadn't married the pretty crazy rich girl. Her family helps him buy into a psychiatric clinic so that he'll have something to do and Nicole will have good care if something goes wrong. And then he gets involved with Rosemary again and sinks into alcoholism.
Bought out of the clinic by his business partner, Dick and Nicole return to the Riviera, but by now Dick has lost his spark and all control over his life. He drinks too much, offends everyone, and Nicole grows tired of him and divorces him. At the end of the novel, he is living in obscurity and failure in a series of small towns in upstate New York, while Nicole is happily married to someone else and living in Europe.
The theme of the novel seems to be that Dick began as man of limitless potential and charm, and ended in obscurity and failure, driven there by his unfortunate association with Nicole. Or perhaps I'm projecting too much on to Fitzgerald. However, reading a bit about Fitgerald's life, it's easy to see how autobiographical Tender is the Night is, and I am not sympathetic to the character or the writer. For what he is describing is a normal part of life, and I"m not sure Fitzgerald understood that. Everyone starts out as a young adult with potential and ambition. And then we have to grow up, and make decisions, and reality is often not as shiny and limitless as we dream it will be. Every decision you make opens some doors for you and closes others. If you go into law, that means you won't be an astronaut or a brain surgeon. If you decide to camp out on the beach in the Riviera living on your wife's wealth, your career won't advance. If you open a clinic and work, your career will advance but it's not as fun as lying on the beach with your friends. These are tradeoffs adults make, though of course most of us are facing different choices in our lives than Dick Diver did.
And as I mentioned in the opening paragraph, I found all of the characters in Tender is the Night to be alien to me. Really, I'd rather read modern novels about homicidally insane androids or mystery-solving cats or magical Vietnamese coroners, because all of them are more comprehensible and empathetic to me than the spoiled, self-absorbed, unlikeable characters of Fitzgerald's novel. I really, really hated this book.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
American writing?
I hang out on the Big Readers board, which is a descendant of the BBC Big Read project. It's an international group, but mostly British of one variety or another. They read all sorts of books, and the quality of commentary is much higher than I find on most book forums, which is why I hang out there.
Nevertheless, most of the books they talk about aren't the sort of books I read. They like to talk about classics I either haven't read or didn't like, or mainstream novels that don't interest me. A few have said that they like SF, Fantasy, or mysteries, but more have said they can't stand those genres. All of which means I don't post there very often, but still I lurk fairly regularly.
One thing that I occasionally see there is comments about American books. The context is usually that they don't read many American books, or occasionally that they don't like them, such as this comment: "I haven't read Steinbeck and tend to think he might be rather too much how I imagine American writing to be - full of red dust and red necks." I don't mean to pick on that poster, because her reading preferences are just as valid as any of mine, but I find it an interesting perspective. I read freely of North American and British authors, and sometimes novels by other nationalities in translation. I don't tend to notice any particular difference in the American point of view, or American sorts of books, but then to me it's everyday and anyway I mostly read genre. Possibly mainstream fiction is different. For what it's worth, my impression of mainstream American fiction is that way too many mainstream novels are either about midlife crises or feature a protagonist going back to face something from their childhood. That's just my observation from browsing the general fiction shelves at the library.
So, is there something about American novels are different than European books? In such a way that they can be lumped together in a category? I'm not sure, so I'm interested to hear what other people think.
Nevertheless, most of the books they talk about aren't the sort of books I read. They like to talk about classics I either haven't read or didn't like, or mainstream novels that don't interest me. A few have said that they like SF, Fantasy, or mysteries, but more have said they can't stand those genres. All of which means I don't post there very often, but still I lurk fairly regularly.
One thing that I occasionally see there is comments about American books. The context is usually that they don't read many American books, or occasionally that they don't like them, such as this comment: "I haven't read Steinbeck and tend to think he might be rather too much how I imagine American writing to be - full of red dust and red necks." I don't mean to pick on that poster, because her reading preferences are just as valid as any of mine, but I find it an interesting perspective. I read freely of North American and British authors, and sometimes novels by other nationalities in translation. I don't tend to notice any particular difference in the American point of view, or American sorts of books, but then to me it's everyday and anyway I mostly read genre. Possibly mainstream fiction is different. For what it's worth, my impression of mainstream American fiction is that way too many mainstream novels are either about midlife crises or feature a protagonist going back to face something from their childhood. That's just my observation from browsing the general fiction shelves at the library.
So, is there something about American novels are different than European books? In such a way that they can be lumped together in a category? I'm not sure, so I'm interested to hear what other people think.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Knights of the Cornerstone by James Blaylock
Secret societies battle it out over a relic looted from the Holy Land by the Knights Templar.
Not good. Really, really not good.
Not good. Really, really not good.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Mamma Mia!
I don't often feel like reviewing the DVDs I watch, but today I'm going to.
Twenty-one years ago, Donna had summer flings with three different men. Summer ended and they all went home, and she found she was pregnant, but didn't know which was the father. Donna had the baby, a girl, and raised her as a single mother while running a run-down hotel on a beautiful Greek island. Sophie is now twenty and about to get married, and she wants her father to give her away. Unfortunately, she doesn't know who her father is. She finds her mother's diary from that summer and realizes there are three possibilities, so she secretly invites them all to the wedding, and they all accept.
So here we have the cast of characters: the groom, Sky, who has a fairly small role; Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) and her two best friends, who will be the bridesmaids; Donna (Meryl Streep) and her two best friends (Crhstine Baranaski & Julie Walters), who have come for the wedding; and the three prospective fathers, Bill, Sam, and Harry (Stellan Skarsgard, Pierce Brosnan, and Colin Firth).
Sophie imagines that she will know instantly when she meets her father, and is disappointed and confused when she can't. All three men are good guys. She likes them, they like her. She does her best to keep their presence a secret from Donna, but it doesn't work, and Donna is roiling with old memories and emotions. In the end, everyone is very nice and civilized and there are no hard feelings.
Mamma Mia! is a musical, set to the music of ABBA. I like ABBA, but I don't generally like musicals. But the advantage of seeing films at home is that you can fast forward through the more painful musical numbers, and Mamma Mia! had a few. The title song, Mamma Mia, was a good number. The Dancing Queen number was actually very moving. Some of the others, though, weren't so good. Specifically, I have to say that when casting a musical, it would be a good idea to find actors who can sing. Famous names and good looks cannot overcome the agony of listening to someone butchering several long songs. Thank God for the fast forward button.
Overall, Mamma Mia! is a feel-good movie. It's got upbeat music and lots of energy. The three prospective fathers are all nicer and less competitive than anyone in such a real-world situation would ever be. I didn't love it, but it was a pleasant way to spend the evening.
Twenty-one years ago, Donna had summer flings with three different men. Summer ended and they all went home, and she found she was pregnant, but didn't know which was the father. Donna had the baby, a girl, and raised her as a single mother while running a run-down hotel on a beautiful Greek island. Sophie is now twenty and about to get married, and she wants her father to give her away. Unfortunately, she doesn't know who her father is. She finds her mother's diary from that summer and realizes there are three possibilities, so she secretly invites them all to the wedding, and they all accept.
So here we have the cast of characters: the groom, Sky, who has a fairly small role; Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) and her two best friends, who will be the bridesmaids; Donna (Meryl Streep) and her two best friends (Crhstine Baranaski & Julie Walters), who have come for the wedding; and the three prospective fathers, Bill, Sam, and Harry (Stellan Skarsgard, Pierce Brosnan, and Colin Firth).
Sophie imagines that she will know instantly when she meets her father, and is disappointed and confused when she can't. All three men are good guys. She likes them, they like her. She does her best to keep their presence a secret from Donna, but it doesn't work, and Donna is roiling with old memories and emotions. In the end, everyone is very nice and civilized and there are no hard feelings.
Mamma Mia! is a musical, set to the music of ABBA. I like ABBA, but I don't generally like musicals. But the advantage of seeing films at home is that you can fast forward through the more painful musical numbers, and Mamma Mia! had a few. The title song, Mamma Mia, was a good number. The Dancing Queen number was actually very moving. Some of the others, though, weren't so good. Specifically, I have to say that when casting a musical, it would be a good idea to find actors who can sing. Famous names and good looks cannot overcome the agony of listening to someone butchering several long songs. Thank God for the fast forward button.
Overall, Mamma Mia! is a feel-good movie. It's got upbeat music and lots of energy. The three prospective fathers are all nicer and less competitive than anyone in such a real-world situation would ever be. I didn't love it, but it was a pleasant way to spend the evening.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Thunderer by Felix Gilman
I read most of Thunderer two weeks ago, then set it down and didn't get around to finishing it until now, so I may be hazy on a few of the details.
Thunderer is a fantasy novel set in a sprawling, corrupt city called Ararat. Ararat is infested with Gods, and constantly changing under their influence. It is considered an abomination to try to map the city, and it's somewhat pointless anyway because things keep changing. The influence of the Gods can bring miracles or disaster to the people who get too close, but they all yearn for those encounters. And a countess has found a way to capture the power of the Bird God to create the Thunderer, a flying warship which she uses to assert her dominance over her political rivals.
The book has several point of view characters, but the main protagonist is Arjun, a visitor to the city from the distant south. He comes from an order of musical scholars. They draw their strength and inspiration from their God, who they call the Voice. But the Voice seems to have left them, and Arjun hopes to find it in Ararat, where so many Gods can be found. Arjun is a thoughtful and intelligent man who finds himself drawn into events as Ararat goes through a period of revolution and anarchy. And however much he looks to others for assistance, he eventually realizes that he has to resolve things on his own--which I rather liked, actually.
First, let me say that Gilman writes very well. I am quite serious when I say that he is an unusually good writer, and this is far better than I would ever have expected from a first novel. My problem, however, was with the plot. It isn't a bad plot at all, just one that didn't really appeal to me. I really enjoyed the first half, but when things started getting ugly and political and there were riots and violence and people being thrown in prison and tortured--I have to say, it just really wasn't much fun. Nor do I imagine that it was supposed to be. Gilman certainly does a good job of portraying a city that is tearing itself apart and falling into despair and anarachy. But really--ick. It was a relief, however, when Arjun slips away from the politicals and starts acting on his own. I think I liked the first section and the last section of the novel better than the middle.
However, despite my comments, I would recommend this novel without hesitation for people who like China Mieville or even swashbuckling pirate adventures. There is a lot of action, the characters are all intelligent and capable, and it's an absorbing, if occasionally grim, read. I will probably read the next book by this author.
Thunderer is a fantasy novel set in a sprawling, corrupt city called Ararat. Ararat is infested with Gods, and constantly changing under their influence. It is considered an abomination to try to map the city, and it's somewhat pointless anyway because things keep changing. The influence of the Gods can bring miracles or disaster to the people who get too close, but they all yearn for those encounters. And a countess has found a way to capture the power of the Bird God to create the Thunderer, a flying warship which she uses to assert her dominance over her political rivals.
The book has several point of view characters, but the main protagonist is Arjun, a visitor to the city from the distant south. He comes from an order of musical scholars. They draw their strength and inspiration from their God, who they call the Voice. But the Voice seems to have left them, and Arjun hopes to find it in Ararat, where so many Gods can be found. Arjun is a thoughtful and intelligent man who finds himself drawn into events as Ararat goes through a period of revolution and anarchy. And however much he looks to others for assistance, he eventually realizes that he has to resolve things on his own--which I rather liked, actually.
First, let me say that Gilman writes very well. I am quite serious when I say that he is an unusually good writer, and this is far better than I would ever have expected from a first novel. My problem, however, was with the plot. It isn't a bad plot at all, just one that didn't really appeal to me. I really enjoyed the first half, but when things started getting ugly and political and there were riots and violence and people being thrown in prison and tortured--I have to say, it just really wasn't much fun. Nor do I imagine that it was supposed to be. Gilman certainly does a good job of portraying a city that is tearing itself apart and falling into despair and anarachy. But really--ick. It was a relief, however, when Arjun slips away from the politicals and starts acting on his own. I think I liked the first section and the last section of the novel better than the middle.
However, despite my comments, I would recommend this novel without hesitation for people who like China Mieville or even swashbuckling pirate adventures. There is a lot of action, the characters are all intelligent and capable, and it's an absorbing, if occasionally grim, read. I will probably read the next book by this author.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Mrs. McGinty's Dead/Murder Most Foul
Murder Most Foul is a movie made in the 1960s featuring Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple, Agatha Christie's mild-mannered spinster detective. The credits of the film said it was based on Christie's novel Mrs. McGinty's Dead, so I decided to dig out the book and read it after I'd seen the movie. I suppose it will come as no shock that the two barely resemble one another.
In Murder Most Foul (I keep typing Fowl and having to correct it), a bar maid named Mrs. McGinty was found hanging in her sitting room, money strewn about on the floor beneath her. The police arrest her lodger and put him on trial. He is saved, temporarily, from the hangman's noose because Miss Marple is on the jury and is certain that the facts of the case don't add up. A mistrial is declared, and Miss Marple sets about discovering who the real killer is. She is a hale and powerful woman, and is involved in an amateur theater company. She visits the dead woman's house and collects her effects for a church jumble sale. Clues there lead her attention to a touring theater troupe, and Miss Marple auditions and joins them. The day she auditions, one of the actors is poisoned and drops dead on stage. Undeterred, Miss Marple moves into the boarding house where the theatricals live, and narrowly escapes cyanide poisoning. Then, on the night of her opening performance, two members of the cast try to kill her. One is a creepy, straight-haired 60s sort of girl who sleep walks and is supposedly psychic. The other is the fiance of a girl who is from the gentry. The police inspector and the company's director wind up in the hospital, and Miss Marple walks out after telling a joke. It's all very jovial and makes no sense at all.
In Mrs. McGinty's Dead, Mrs. McGinty is a cleaning lady who likes to snoop about a bit as she works. Someone chops her head open, and her lodger is arrested and sentenced to death. A police detective seeks the help of Hercule Poirot because he suspects the man is innocent. Poirot goes to the village where Mrs. McGinty lived, and starts poking around. It quickly becomes obvious that many of the townsfolk, though outwardly Nice People, nevertheless have dark secrets. In improbable circumstances, several people involved in two 30-year-old murder cases have all settled down here, and are anxious to keep their identities secret. Like A Murder is Announced, it all hinges on discovering who people really are. Mrs. McGinty was killed to keep her from sharing her knowledge, and later another old woman dies for the same reason. Poirot eventually unmasks the murderer, and all is right again in the world. It was written in 1951, and is actually pretty good.
It is a theme that I have noticed lately in several Christie novels and dramatizations I've consumed -- she talks a lot about how the War changed things, and particularly village life. Christie seems to imply that things were better in the old days, when it was easy to get servants and people couldn't move about freely and make a new life for themselves. Plots seem to often hinge on people presenting themselves as more respectable then they really are, and trying to determine their true identity. I really do wonder if Britain after the war was filled with unmarried women presenting themselves as war widows and shadowy men on the run who had been deserters, or if these themes just caught Christie's imagination and were used again and again.
Now, as to the differences between the movie and the book--I don't know who to blame. I know that writers who sell movie rights usually don't have much say in how the movie turns out. But I also know that Agatha Christie was still alive when Murder Most Foul was made, and I wonder if she was in any way involved or approved of the modifications. Given that the film bears almost no resemblance to the book it is supposedly based on, I wonder that they even bothered to name the novel it had been adapted from. And, though it seems weird to many people now that the recent Geraldine McEwen adaptations have featured Miss Marple in stories she never appeared in--they were doing it 45 years ago, too. It just makes me appreciate the 1980s Joan Hickson versions even more.
In Murder Most Foul (I keep typing Fowl and having to correct it), a bar maid named Mrs. McGinty was found hanging in her sitting room, money strewn about on the floor beneath her. The police arrest her lodger and put him on trial. He is saved, temporarily, from the hangman's noose because Miss Marple is on the jury and is certain that the facts of the case don't add up. A mistrial is declared, and Miss Marple sets about discovering who the real killer is. She is a hale and powerful woman, and is involved in an amateur theater company. She visits the dead woman's house and collects her effects for a church jumble sale. Clues there lead her attention to a touring theater troupe, and Miss Marple auditions and joins them. The day she auditions, one of the actors is poisoned and drops dead on stage. Undeterred, Miss Marple moves into the boarding house where the theatricals live, and narrowly escapes cyanide poisoning. Then, on the night of her opening performance, two members of the cast try to kill her. One is a creepy, straight-haired 60s sort of girl who sleep walks and is supposedly psychic. The other is the fiance of a girl who is from the gentry. The police inspector and the company's director wind up in the hospital, and Miss Marple walks out after telling a joke. It's all very jovial and makes no sense at all.
In Mrs. McGinty's Dead, Mrs. McGinty is a cleaning lady who likes to snoop about a bit as she works. Someone chops her head open, and her lodger is arrested and sentenced to death. A police detective seeks the help of Hercule Poirot because he suspects the man is innocent. Poirot goes to the village where Mrs. McGinty lived, and starts poking around. It quickly becomes obvious that many of the townsfolk, though outwardly Nice People, nevertheless have dark secrets. In improbable circumstances, several people involved in two 30-year-old murder cases have all settled down here, and are anxious to keep their identities secret. Like A Murder is Announced, it all hinges on discovering who people really are. Mrs. McGinty was killed to keep her from sharing her knowledge, and later another old woman dies for the same reason. Poirot eventually unmasks the murderer, and all is right again in the world. It was written in 1951, and is actually pretty good.
It is a theme that I have noticed lately in several Christie novels and dramatizations I've consumed -- she talks a lot about how the War changed things, and particularly village life. Christie seems to imply that things were better in the old days, when it was easy to get servants and people couldn't move about freely and make a new life for themselves. Plots seem to often hinge on people presenting themselves as more respectable then they really are, and trying to determine their true identity. I really do wonder if Britain after the war was filled with unmarried women presenting themselves as war widows and shadowy men on the run who had been deserters, or if these themes just caught Christie's imagination and were used again and again.
Now, as to the differences between the movie and the book--I don't know who to blame. I know that writers who sell movie rights usually don't have much say in how the movie turns out. But I also know that Agatha Christie was still alive when Murder Most Foul was made, and I wonder if she was in any way involved or approved of the modifications. Given that the film bears almost no resemblance to the book it is supposedly based on, I wonder that they even bothered to name the novel it had been adapted from. And, though it seems weird to many people now that the recent Geraldine McEwen adaptations have featured Miss Marple in stories she never appeared in--they were doing it 45 years ago, too. It just makes me appreciate the 1980s Joan Hickson versions even more.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Territory by Emma Bull
This is going to be short, because I"m sick and my brain isn't really working very well right now.
I vaguely meant to track down this book last year before submitting my Hugo nominating ballot, but didn't run across it because the library had it shelved as a Western, and I don't browse those shelves. Territory is a fantasy novel set in Tombstone and concerns the events around the shootout at the OK Corral. It begins much as a normal Western, but as events proceed it becomes clear that there is magic lurking under the surface of events. I'm too tired to go into any more detail. Sorry.
I was pretty unfamiliar with the events portrayed in the book before I read it, and I think that was actually a benefit. I was sort of vaguely aware that there was likely to be a showdown at the end, but by the time I got there I was sufficiently absorbed in the story that I didn't try to compare the book to my very limited knowledge of actual events. Because I'm not very interested in the history of the West, I wasn't worrying about how it conformed to the facts, nor did I know ahead of time who was going to wind up dead. That said, I think that Bull was pretty careful in her research, and probably portrayed things pretty accurately. Well, except for Wyatt Earp being an evil sorcerer who has Doc Holliday under his power. But the rest of it.
Bull is a very good writer, and it's a shame how few books she has written. There was a ten year gap between Territory and the previous, Freedom & Necessity, which was co-written with Steve Brust. I hope that we don't have a to wait another ten years for her next book, because she's really, really good.
I vaguely meant to track down this book last year before submitting my Hugo nominating ballot, but didn't run across it because the library had it shelved as a Western, and I don't browse those shelves. Territory is a fantasy novel set in Tombstone and concerns the events around the shootout at the OK Corral. It begins much as a normal Western, but as events proceed it becomes clear that there is magic lurking under the surface of events. I'm too tired to go into any more detail. Sorry.
I was pretty unfamiliar with the events portrayed in the book before I read it, and I think that was actually a benefit. I was sort of vaguely aware that there was likely to be a showdown at the end, but by the time I got there I was sufficiently absorbed in the story that I didn't try to compare the book to my very limited knowledge of actual events. Because I'm not very interested in the history of the West, I wasn't worrying about how it conformed to the facts, nor did I know ahead of time who was going to wind up dead. That said, I think that Bull was pretty careful in her research, and probably portrayed things pretty accurately. Well, except for Wyatt Earp being an evil sorcerer who has Doc Holliday under his power. But the rest of it.
Bull is a very good writer, and it's a shame how few books she has written. There was a ten year gap between Territory and the previous, Freedom & Necessity, which was co-written with Steve Brust. I hope that we don't have a to wait another ten years for her next book, because she's really, really good.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
2008: The Year in Reading
I started keeping a log of the books I read in 2000. Re-reads to not count, nor do books that I don't finish. I like to be able to see trends in my reading, and like to be able to look back to refresh my memory on what I've been reading. In 2008 I completed 65 books that were new to me. . This is a little low, but still a good recovery from last year's total of 37. I still have no idea how that happened last year.
My reading can be broken down like this:
science fiction 26
fantasy 13
mystery 15
other fiction 6
nonfiction 5
As usual, I read more SF than anything else, and mystery and fantasy are neck and neck. I read less nonfiction this year, because the nonfiction book group I used to belong to has fallen apart again.
My favorite reads of the year were, in the order I read them:
Emissaries from the Dead by Adam-Troy Castro
Bone Song by John Meaney
Anathem by Neal Stephenson
Jhegaala by Steve Brust
Honorable mentions go to:
Blood Brothers by Michael Weisskopf
Cruel Zinc Melodies by Glen Cook
Implied Spaces by Walter Jon Williams
An Evil Guest by Gene Wolfe
Shadow of the Scorpion by Neal Asher
Hunter's Run by Martin, Dozois, & Abraham
The Bell at Sealey Head by Patricia McKillip
I don't really have any reading resolutions for next year, except to find more books that I love, and try to read more. That is my goal pretty much every year. Partway through 2008 I had a little revelation: I was often picking up books I wasn't enjoying that much, simply to have something to read. I filled my time with bland mysteries and short nonfiction, just because I was looking for something to read and nothing grabbed me. I wasn't really enjoying them that much, and when I'm not that into a book I read slowly. Reading books I'm not enjoying just to fill the time is just as much a waste of time as playing computer games or watching TV to fill the time. So I decided to try not to waste my time with books I was indifferent to, and focus my reading more on things that were really absorbing. This may have resulted in a lower number of books consumed, but I think this year I had a higher rate of books I liked than in the past several years.
This has made selecting the next book to read a little more stressful than before; it's silly that I'm getting stressed out over picking the *right* book to read next, but why should I waste my time on something I'm not that interested in? This has also led to a reduction in the pile of unread books I have sitting around, as I realized that many of them (usually acquired very cheaply at a rummage sale or library book sale) didn't interest me that much, and I decided to clean out some of them. They have gone on to new homes.
But for all that I talk about not wanting to waste my time on books that aren't interesting enough, I'm actually pretty optimistic about finding books that I'll like. I think there were some very good books produced in 2008, and more coming out in 2009. The library doesn't have many of the things I want to read, but I am planning an Amazon order and look forward to the books I expect to be reading in the next month or two.
My reading can be broken down like this:
science fiction 26
fantasy 13
mystery 15
other fiction 6
nonfiction 5
As usual, I read more SF than anything else, and mystery and fantasy are neck and neck. I read less nonfiction this year, because the nonfiction book group I used to belong to has fallen apart again.
My favorite reads of the year were, in the order I read them:
Emissaries from the Dead by Adam-Troy Castro
Bone Song by John Meaney
Anathem by Neal Stephenson
Jhegaala by Steve Brust
Honorable mentions go to:
Blood Brothers by Michael Weisskopf
Cruel Zinc Melodies by Glen Cook
Implied Spaces by Walter Jon Williams
An Evil Guest by Gene Wolfe
Shadow of the Scorpion by Neal Asher
Hunter's Run by Martin, Dozois, & Abraham
The Bell at Sealey Head by Patricia McKillip
I don't really have any reading resolutions for next year, except to find more books that I love, and try to read more. That is my goal pretty much every year. Partway through 2008 I had a little revelation: I was often picking up books I wasn't enjoying that much, simply to have something to read. I filled my time with bland mysteries and short nonfiction, just because I was looking for something to read and nothing grabbed me. I wasn't really enjoying them that much, and when I'm not that into a book I read slowly. Reading books I'm not enjoying just to fill the time is just as much a waste of time as playing computer games or watching TV to fill the time. So I decided to try not to waste my time with books I was indifferent to, and focus my reading more on things that were really absorbing. This may have resulted in a lower number of books consumed, but I think this year I had a higher rate of books I liked than in the past several years.
This has made selecting the next book to read a little more stressful than before; it's silly that I'm getting stressed out over picking the *right* book to read next, but why should I waste my time on something I'm not that interested in? This has also led to a reduction in the pile of unread books I have sitting around, as I realized that many of them (usually acquired very cheaply at a rummage sale or library book sale) didn't interest me that much, and I decided to clean out some of them. They have gone on to new homes.
But for all that I talk about not wanting to waste my time on books that aren't interesting enough, I'm actually pretty optimistic about finding books that I'll like. I think there were some very good books produced in 2008, and more coming out in 2009. The library doesn't have many of the things I want to read, but I am planning an Amazon order and look forward to the books I expect to be reading in the next month or two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)