Mind + Body, by Aaron Dunlap is a fast-paced scroller.
I'm currently reading a novel, some webfiction, and lots of nonfiction, but I tore through this novel. It's 400+ pages in PDF, but it sure didn't feel that long. It's a simple mystery/action plot - a high school senior tracking down all the weird shit that happens to him after his Marine Corps father dies.
At first it felt similar to Doctorow's Little Brother - the teenager thrust into a conspiracy too large for him to see its end, a fairly straight-forward love interest, etc. The more I read, however, the less alike they felt. Mind + Body is definitely has less to say, making it simultaneously shallower and less preachy. Mind + Body is not afraid of its simplicity - the work is less punctuated by action and fights than it is driven by them. And it works.
Unfortunately the final product reads like a draft. There are a solid handful of sentences that just aren't finished. They require 1-5 words to finish the thought, but they're just MIA. Our first person narrator definitely feels his age (though articulate), which is a plus (he says things like "the internet told me"). In the first third of the book phrases are often jarring. I'm not certain if I got used to the character or if Dunlap got used to him.
Regardless, I thoroughly enjoyed this gripping, surprisingly real novel. It should be picked up by a publisher and marketed as a YA novel - it's good enough.
Showing posts with label Novel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Novel. Show all posts
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Books: A Game of Thrones
Cross posted at Air Theremin.
A friend of mine has been trying to get me to read A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin for years.
I just went ahead and borrowed it from him, and I have to say -- this is some of the best high fantasy I've read. An unjustly long book at over 800 pages, it is also surprisingly gripping.
Each chapter is written from a 3rd person limited point of view, but each also follows a different character. The story isn't told so much as it just coalesces. There are characters to love, characters to hate, and many characters to be mildly confused by.
At first, I was mildly put off by the feeling of omniscience you gain from seeing so much that other characters have no clue about, but that feeling gave way to a certain level of awe at the grandeur of the whole thing.
If "grand" and "sweeping" and "epic" are what you are looking for, this book has them -- and promises more for later in the series. Ah, yes, like all fantasy books, it seems, this is but one novel in a series. I've just picked up the second, A Clash of Kings, and it is longer than the first. Regardless, I started today, and am about 160 pages in - around classes and work.
All-in-all, a great fantasy book. If you like the genre, you need to read this book - it avoids many of the clichés that riddle fantasy fiction. If you don't like the genre, well, unless your dislike is founded on the clichés... you might want to pass.
A friend of mine has been trying to get me to read A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin for years.
I just went ahead and borrowed it from him, and I have to say -- this is some of the best high fantasy I've read. An unjustly long book at over 800 pages, it is also surprisingly gripping.
Each chapter is written from a 3rd person limited point of view, but each also follows a different character. The story isn't told so much as it just coalesces. There are characters to love, characters to hate, and many characters to be mildly confused by.
At first, I was mildly put off by the feeling of omniscience you gain from seeing so much that other characters have no clue about, but that feeling gave way to a certain level of awe at the grandeur of the whole thing.
If "grand" and "sweeping" and "epic" are what you are looking for, this book has them -- and promises more for later in the series. Ah, yes, like all fantasy books, it seems, this is but one novel in a series. I've just picked up the second, A Clash of Kings, and it is longer than the first. Regardless, I started today, and am about 160 pages in - around classes and work.
All-in-all, a great fantasy book. If you like the genre, you need to read this book - it avoids many of the clichés that riddle fantasy fiction. If you don't like the genre, well, unless your dislike is founded on the clichés... you might want to pass.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Tales of Ascension
I've been reading Forever Peace, by Joe Haldeman, and I've been continually assaulted by the feeling that I've read something much like this before. No, I'm not thinking of The Forever War, by the same author, though that was an excellent novel, and one I heartily recommend.
I've realized that it reminds me of Technogenesis, by Syne Mitchell
As always, it's entirely possible that I am being far less original that I imagine, and far more derivative, or at least repetitive. However, an idea, new to me, at least, has been developing slowly in the stew of my consciousness. As usual, the idea relates to an unexpected commonality between disparate things. I suppose, as science fiction novels, the subjects of my stewing aren't really terribly disparate... but enough of this. Let me actually get to the point.
The Forever War, Technogenesis, and others (perhaps Childhood's End by Clarke, or Blood Music by Bear, and certainly The Changeling Plague, also by Mitchell) are what I would like to call "tales of ascension". Generally these novels could be considered singularity fiction, but I contend that these examples are something else as well, and something worth keeping in our collective mental libraries.
I call them tales of ascension because they are hopeful but deeply frightening stories of the future of the human race. The mechanisms are different, from disease to gengineering, to AI, to alien races, but the result is the same: a fundamentally changed human race. A changed humanity, and one that is greater than that which we currently experience. Often there is an ascension to a higher or group consciousness. Sometimes humanity becomes one undifferentiated unit. Sometimes we are provided the opportunity to move beyond the current boundaries of our bodies and brains. Regardless, the hopeful tone of this huge accomplishment is always tempered by the sheer scariness of the new. One real problem with ascension is that in order to move up, you must abandon your current position. Most of us experience that fear of change (regardless of its apparent positive impact) in our own lives, and I think it is this personal anxiety about change that informs our visceral emotional reaction to a species-wide change on such a high level.
When expanded to the species, however, the issue takes on philosophical overtones. What, for instance, can we call this post-ascension species? Are they still human? In many cases, the ascension is not presented as a sudden event, but rather as something gradual, affecting some before others, or phasing in through our natural generations. In these cases, how do the unchanged react to the ascended?
...
Well, I'm not a writer. YOU go write it. Let me know how it goes.
-S
I've realized that it reminds me of Technogenesis, by Syne Mitchell
As always, it's entirely possible that I am being far less original that I imagine, and far more derivative, or at least repetitive. However, an idea, new to me, at least, has been developing slowly in the stew of my consciousness. As usual, the idea relates to an unexpected commonality between disparate things. I suppose, as science fiction novels, the subjects of my stewing aren't really terribly disparate... but enough of this. Let me actually get to the point.
The Forever War, Technogenesis, and others (perhaps Childhood's End by Clarke, or Blood Music by Bear, and certainly The Changeling Plague, also by Mitchell) are what I would like to call "tales of ascension". Generally these novels could be considered singularity fiction, but I contend that these examples are something else as well, and something worth keeping in our collective mental libraries.
I call them tales of ascension because they are hopeful but deeply frightening stories of the future of the human race. The mechanisms are different, from disease to gengineering, to AI, to alien races, but the result is the same: a fundamentally changed human race. A changed humanity, and one that is greater than that which we currently experience. Often there is an ascension to a higher or group consciousness. Sometimes humanity becomes one undifferentiated unit. Sometimes we are provided the opportunity to move beyond the current boundaries of our bodies and brains. Regardless, the hopeful tone of this huge accomplishment is always tempered by the sheer scariness of the new. One real problem with ascension is that in order to move up, you must abandon your current position. Most of us experience that fear of change (regardless of its apparent positive impact) in our own lives, and I think it is this personal anxiety about change that informs our visceral emotional reaction to a species-wide change on such a high level.
When expanded to the species, however, the issue takes on philosophical overtones. What, for instance, can we call this post-ascension species? Are they still human? In many cases, the ascension is not presented as a sudden event, but rather as something gradual, affecting some before others, or phasing in through our natural generations. In these cases, how do the unchanged react to the ascended?
...
Well, I'm not a writer. YOU go write it. Let me know how it goes.
-S
Saturday, May 10, 2008
State of Hypocrisy
I have long condemned Crichton's novel State of Fear as a long, drawn out anti-environmentalist rant poorly disguised as a novel. "Paugh!" I said, (that's to be pronounced phonetically, with the 'augh' involving a stereotypically German level of phlegm.) "Doesn't he have the creativity to write a real work of fiction, instead of a redundant neocon editorial disguised as a thriller?"
Recently, a friend of mine has been actively pursuing my recommendations on novels, particularly the serious reading, as opposed to the fluff. For this reason, I've been confronted with my taste for Dystopian novels, cautionary tales, and social commentary. (Feed, The Handmaid's Tale, and, of course, Fahrenheit 451 number amongst my favorites, in case you were interested).
Pause.
Yes. While more sophisticated than Crichton's lambast of the environmental movement, each of these novels is, essentially, a rant (or social commentary, if you prefer) delivered via fiction. That is, the novel is a platform for these authors to express their political views. Now, this is somewhat less obvious in my favorite novels, since the politics espoused tend to be somewhat more transcendent than Crichton's 600 page jab. However, literary merit and staying power aside, Crichton and Bradbury appear to be utilizing their fiction in a similar manner - as a platform for their soapbox preachings about social ills.
Can then, the difference between my feelings toward Atwood and Crichton be reduced to mere political differences? My goodness, that makes my earlier criticisms somewhat hypocritical, does it not?
Well, yes and no.
My earlier criticisms are certainly less valid in light of my own literary preferences, but, the more I consider it, the less I think that hypocrisy was my problem (sheesh, rationalize much?). Instead, I appear to have misunderstood exactly what it was about the novel that raised my ire. Obviously it wasn't the politicization of fiction, since that's exactly what some of my favorite novels do. Instead, I'm becoming more convinced that I'm offended by the co-opting of science.
Part of why State of Fear is such a long novel is Crichton's extensive use of footnotes, charts, graphs, etc. They make the novel feel less like a novel, and more like a patronizing speech - thus my original complaint. However, I think my real problem is Crichton's pretension of scientific expertise. I don't think I need to really delve into why such a delusion is foolish as well as pretentious, but there's one part of his novel that really sums it up.
He finishes State of Fear with an afterward. In the afterward Crichton explains to us why the book's heavy-handed message is, in fact, true. So here Crichton is frankly and openly admitting that he believes the thematic basis of his book, a theme that he supports with what is essentially fake evidence.
In fact, Scientist Peter Doran wrote "... our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear."
Hopefully this prolonged rationalization session has been successful. Perhaps I've convinced you, along with myself, that not only am I not hypocritical, but I'm also justified in my righteous indignation.
Take that, Crichton!
Recently, a friend of mine has been actively pursuing my recommendations on novels, particularly the serious reading, as opposed to the fluff. For this reason, I've been confronted with my taste for Dystopian novels, cautionary tales, and social commentary. (Feed, The Handmaid's Tale, and, of course, Fahrenheit 451 number amongst my favorites, in case you were interested).
Pause.
Yes. While more sophisticated than Crichton's lambast of the environmental movement, each of these novels is, essentially, a rant (or social commentary, if you prefer) delivered via fiction. That is, the novel is a platform for these authors to express their political views. Now, this is somewhat less obvious in my favorite novels, since the politics espoused tend to be somewhat more transcendent than Crichton's 600 page jab. However, literary merit and staying power aside, Crichton and Bradbury appear to be utilizing their fiction in a similar manner - as a platform for their soapbox preachings about social ills.
Can then, the difference between my feelings toward Atwood and Crichton be reduced to mere political differences? My goodness, that makes my earlier criticisms somewhat hypocritical, does it not?
Well, yes and no.
My earlier criticisms are certainly less valid in light of my own literary preferences, but, the more I consider it, the less I think that hypocrisy was my problem (sheesh, rationalize much?). Instead, I appear to have misunderstood exactly what it was about the novel that raised my ire. Obviously it wasn't the politicization of fiction, since that's exactly what some of my favorite novels do. Instead, I'm becoming more convinced that I'm offended by the co-opting of science.
Part of why State of Fear is such a long novel is Crichton's extensive use of footnotes, charts, graphs, etc. They make the novel feel less like a novel, and more like a patronizing speech - thus my original complaint. However, I think my real problem is Crichton's pretension of scientific expertise. I don't think I need to really delve into why such a delusion is foolish as well as pretentious, but there's one part of his novel that really sums it up.
He finishes State of Fear with an afterward. In the afterward Crichton explains to us why the book's heavy-handed message is, in fact, true. So here Crichton is frankly and openly admitting that he believes the thematic basis of his book, a theme that he supports with what is essentially fake evidence.
In fact, Scientist Peter Doran wrote "... our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear."
Hopefully this prolonged rationalization session has been successful. Perhaps I've convinced you, along with myself, that not only am I not hypocritical, but I'm also justified in my righteous indignation.
Take that, Crichton!
Thursday, February 14, 2008
13 Bullets
...which, incidentally, is the number of bullets held in the magazine of the glock 23, which is issued to FBI agents on graduation from academy (unless they want a 22).
13 Bullets is also the book that David Wellington feels is his best work. It's a vampire action/horror novel. Mr. Wellington claims to be reacting to the Anne Rice vampire archetype wherein the vampires are smooth characters in lace collars, and intensely sexual beings. This is the current norm in the genre, but certainly not in Wellington's novel.
Wellington's vampires are hunters - more like sharks than gentlemen. Like many vampires they look as though they were carved from marble, but unlike most, they have rows upon rows of sharp teeth. They don't puncture veins to get at blood, they rip off arms.
Like most good books, however, the vampires and the morbid atmosphere are secondary to the character relationships. I find the reason hard to pinpoint, but Wellington's novel reminds me of Laurel K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series. (which, by the way, have the most consistently hokey, over-manipulated photo covers. *sigh*).
I think it is largely the protagonists of the series - both are sort of cops, but not. Both are fixated on getting the monsters, but simultaneously afraid of their own inner monster. They aren't the same person - not by a long shot - but they fill a very similar role. They're the same archetype, if you will.
Wellington might cringe at the comparison, since Anita Blake is the kind of vampire hunter who he is reacting to - one who, as the series goes on, is seduced by the monsters she was (and often still is) fighting. But it is actually this fact that provided the clincher for me in terms of character similarity. Anita Blake is horribly frightened that she might be as much of a monster as those she is constantly fighting, largely (though not entirely) because of her continually increasing involvement in the "monster world." Although the cause of the feeling is different for Wellington's Laura Caxton, she too becomes frightened of her own perceived lack of humanity.
Ironically, this precise worry helps humanize these leading ladies.
Well, OK, neither of them are very lady-like, but you get the idea.
13 Bullets is also the book that David Wellington feels is his best work. It's a vampire action/horror novel. Mr. Wellington claims to be reacting to the Anne Rice vampire archetype wherein the vampires are smooth characters in lace collars, and intensely sexual beings. This is the current norm in the genre, but certainly not in Wellington's novel.
Wellington's vampires are hunters - more like sharks than gentlemen. Like many vampires they look as though they were carved from marble, but unlike most, they have rows upon rows of sharp teeth. They don't puncture veins to get at blood, they rip off arms.
Like most good books, however, the vampires and the morbid atmosphere are secondary to the character relationships. I find the reason hard to pinpoint, but Wellington's novel reminds me of Laurel K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series. (which, by the way, have the most consistently hokey, over-manipulated photo covers. *sigh*).
I think it is largely the protagonists of the series - both are sort of cops, but not. Both are fixated on getting the monsters, but simultaneously afraid of their own inner monster. They aren't the same person - not by a long shot - but they fill a very similar role. They're the same archetype, if you will.
Wellington might cringe at the comparison, since Anita Blake is the kind of vampire hunter who he is reacting to - one who, as the series goes on, is seduced by the monsters she was (and often still is) fighting. But it is actually this fact that provided the clincher for me in terms of character similarity. Anita Blake is horribly frightened that she might be as much of a monster as those she is constantly fighting, largely (though not entirely) because of her continually increasing involvement in the "monster world." Although the cause of the feeling is different for Wellington's Laura Caxton, she too becomes frightened of her own perceived lack of humanity.
Ironically, this precise worry helps humanize these leading ladies.
Well, OK, neither of them are very lady-like, but you get the idea.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Books That Make You Dumb
OK, I don't like the title of Books That Make You Dumb so much, but that's because I feel that the study also goes to show which books make you smart.
OK, pretensions and condescensions aside, Virgil has compiled a very nice chart, backed by very nice statistical analysis (OK, it wasn't that complicated, but it must have taken a lot of work).... as I was saying, a very nice chart correlating favorite books with people's intelligence, or at least their scholastic aptitude.
He took the top 10 favorite books (as listed on facebook) of 1300 or so universities. He then used the average SAT scores of undergraduates at said universities to give each of the most popular books it's own average SAT score. Actually, he gives us a range, but you get the idea.
He uses this data to present us with three excellent charts - all with the same information; only the grouping is changed.
Two of the charts group books by genre, and here is the only place I quibble with Mr. Virgil (OK, Virgil is his first name, but I like to say it this way). A Tree Grows In Brooklyn is Children's Lit? What particularly makes Brave New World Sci-Fi, but A Clockwork Orange Dystopian? And Wuthering Heights is a classic, but Pride and Prejudice is Chick Lit? Really?
Anyhow, you know of my inability to praise without poking, but really, I love the study, and you should all definitely check it out.
OK, pretensions and condescensions aside, Virgil has compiled a very nice chart, backed by very nice statistical analysis (OK, it wasn't that complicated, but it must have taken a lot of work).... as I was saying, a very nice chart correlating favorite books with people's intelligence, or at least their scholastic aptitude.
He took the top 10 favorite books (as listed on facebook) of 1300 or so universities. He then used the average SAT scores of undergraduates at said universities to give each of the most popular books it's own average SAT score. Actually, he gives us a range, but you get the idea.
He uses this data to present us with three excellent charts - all with the same information; only the grouping is changed.
Two of the charts group books by genre, and here is the only place I quibble with Mr. Virgil (OK, Virgil is his first name, but I like to say it this way). A Tree Grows In Brooklyn is Children's Lit? What particularly makes Brave New World Sci-Fi, but A Clockwork Orange Dystopian? And Wuthering Heights is a classic, but Pride and Prejudice is Chick Lit? Really?
Anyhow, you know of my inability to praise without poking, but really, I love the study, and you should all definitely check it out.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Blooks
I can't help but feel silly when I write the word, but "blook" is a term that appears to be gaining legitimacy: there's even a blooker prize.
A blook, apparently, is a book whose contents were based on a blog. At least, that's how the Lulu blooker prize defines them. It seems to me that a serial novel published in a blog would be a great definition. The above-linked blook, Plague Zone, is by David Wellington, who seems to be after print publication, so he fits the Lulu blook definition pretty well.
There are, however, plenty of examples of web serials that might be called blooks - and often so call themselves.
On the other hand, maybe we need a better word (or words) for all of these things. Any suggestions?
A blook, apparently, is a book whose contents were based on a blog. At least, that's how the Lulu blooker prize defines them. It seems to me that a serial novel published in a blog would be a great definition. The above-linked blook, Plague Zone, is by David Wellington, who seems to be after print publication, so he fits the Lulu blook definition pretty well.
There are, however, plenty of examples of web serials that might be called blooks - and often so call themselves.
On the other hand, maybe we need a better word (or words) for all of these things. Any suggestions?
Friday, November 2, 2007
NaNoWriMo
Wow, that's a mouthful. It stands for the National Novel Writing Month, which, with an appropriately assessed amount of alliteration, is November.
Now, I realize that I'm a little late here, since it's already November 2nd, but, I figure, if you're going to write 50,000 words in a month, missing a day shouldn't throw you off too badly.
A friend of mine is taking the challenge, and I'm going to see if I can get her to post her progress in a blog. If I'm successful, links will be forthcoming.
Now, I realize that I'm a little late here, since it's already November 2nd, but, I figure, if you're going to write 50,000 words in a month, missing a day shouldn't throw you off too badly.
A friend of mine is taking the challenge, and I'm going to see if I can get her to post her progress in a blog. If I'm successful, links will be forthcoming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
