xmas is for bookery

[jazzfish]

Good lord, it's been a minute. Happy xmas, all.

What are you reading now?

The Cloud Roads, first of Martha Wells's Books of the Raksura. Second reread. Found family and polyamorous bird/lizard people, in a landscape filled with magic, and people (of wildly varying kinds) getting by in the ruins of much older civilizations. I love Moon's prickly loner-ness, and how grumpy Stone is, and, oh, just all the characters. I don't think I picked these up first on thanate's recommendation exactly but I associate her with "I should read Martha Wells," and that of course led to Murderbot, etc. All good things.

What did you just finish reading?

Ann Leckie's The Raven Tower, first reread. Fantasy Hamlet, crossed with "point-of-view of a rock". It might be my favourite of Leckie's books.

I reread the first five Craft novels relatively recently, too. They hold up; Four Roads Cross remains my favourite, because Tara Abernathy is such a fun character. I'm looking forward to the concluding tetrology.

I gave up on A Tale Of Two Cities about sixty percent in. This might be the point where it starts to get Really Interesting but so far it has been two-dimensional (at best) characters setting up for some Plot to Happen, in ways that do not convince me that there is any Plot -to- Happen. The narrative voice occasionally amuses me but more often grates on me. Dickens, it seems, is Not My Thing and I am okay with that.

Also gave up on rereading Elric after about a page and a half of ridiculously florid prose. Those can be filed in the Good Teenage Memories mental box.

What do you think you'll read next?

Probably carrying on with the Raksura but I might switch gears, I guess. There's a new Susanna Clarke novella I shall acquire in a few weeks if I don't get it for xmas. I'm also vaguely looking for poetry by Gerry Cambridge; his Processional at the Winter Solstice feels lovely in my head.

Comments

[jessie_c]

Dickens was paid by the word to write for serial publication, so every single thing he wrote took far too long to reach the Plot to Happen stage. If it ever did.
Here's a nice quick fun read. Very queer-friendly so certain members of the reading public might not like it. Skippy, I'm looking at you and all your ilk.

[jazzfish]

Yeah, but Dumas was as well, and I find (well, found, it's been ages) him FAR more readable.

That looks adorable. Thank you. :)

[queenoftheskies]

I love the Raksura books. Aren't they wonderful?

[jazzfish]

They are an absolute delight. :)

[shadowkat]

I agree on Dickens. I didn't find his characters that interesting and often repetitive, and stock. Also he is flowery in his writing style - similar to Henry James, and others of that time period. I've been told Victor Hugo is somewhat better with Les Miserables, but I've yet to give him a try.

Hmm, may need to go back and try some more Martha Wells. I did love the Murderbot series, but couldn't get into the Witch King, it may be a mood thing.

[jazzfish]

I don't inherently object to 'flowery,' I adore Susanna Clarke (Strange & Norrell). I was curious whether that would translate to liking ACTUAL nineteenth-century books, and at least for Dickens it seems the answer is "Not even a little bit."

I love the Raksura books (start with The Cloud Roads) but as always your mileage may vary. They're not Murderbot, for sure. I see some similarities (especially in the prickly protagonist) but way more differences. De gustibus, et cetera.

[shadowkat]

19th Century lit? Susannah Clarke's style is kind of 19th Century light? Also she's more modern in that she utilizes footnotes similar to Terry Pratchett and to a degree Mark Twain (the 19th Century satirist). I wouldn't call Clark that flowery (although I don't like her style, the footnotes got on my nerves). Try James' Turn of the Screw (it's short), along with Stoker, the Brontes, and Hawthorn for a better sense of that style. Also, not sure Tale of Two Cities is the best choice on Dickens, it wasn't his best or most touted novel. That would be either David Copperfield or Bleak House. (Actually Bleak House is the one that most of the modern writers apparently love and try to copy the style from, I think. I've not read it - I don't like that writing style at all, and tried to steer clear of it as an English Lit major (and for the most part succeeded). It's impossible to steer clear completely of the 19th Century Lit or that style if you are an English Lit major - because apparently the qualifications for becoming an English Lit Professor is to consider the 19th Century the pinnacle or epitome of quality writing, and everything else pales in comparison. Worse? This sentiment was passed on to all the people who got jobs in the publishing industry and/or decided to write "literature".
Hopefully the advent of self-publishing and independent publishing, along with a gradual push-back against it in various realms of academia will change that.

Not that there is anything wrong with the style - it's perfectly fine, just not to my taste, and certainly not the pinnacle or epitome of good writing.

[shanaqui]

You make me want to reread The Raven Tower; I think it's the only Ann Leckie book I've never reread, despite the fact that I did actually deeply enjoy it. IIRC I mainlined it in a day when I got the review copy.

I found the Susanna Clarke novella sadly lacking in substance, very Christian, and just... lacking. It was very disappointing.

[jazzfish]

Strong recommend for rereading Raven Tower. It Holds Up, which is always nice.


That -is- disappointing about the Clarke novella. Sigh.