Author: Nicky

Stacking the Shelves

Posted October 8, 2016 by Nicky in General / 12 Comments

How is it Saturday again already? It’s been a busy week for me, with work and travelling and my classes starting. How is everyone?

Books acquired:

Cover of Everything Belongs to the Future by Laurie Penny Cover of A Taste of Honey by Kai Ashante Wilson Cover of The Lost Child of Lychford by Paul Cornell Cover of Winter Tide by Ruthanna Emrys

cover91235-medium Cover of Crooked Kingdom by Leigh Bardugo

Wow. Thanks, Tor.com, for all the review copies! The only thing I bought this week is Crooked Kingdom. I haven’t read Six of Crows yet, but I did enjoy the Grisha series…

Books finished this week:

Cover of Ultimate X-Men vol 3 Cover of Ultimate X-Men vol 4 Cover of The Fellowship of the Ring by Tolkien

 cover91235-medium Cover of The Lost Child of Lychford by Paul Cornell Cover of Everything Belongs to the Future by Laurie Penny

Reviews posted this week:
Heresy, by S.J. Parris. The setting works well, though I didn’t really enjoy the portrayal of Giordano Bruno — it was hard to sympathise with him, considering he was pretty much betraying people who showed him trust. I’m not continuing with the series. 3/5 stars
Captain Marvel and the Carol Corps, by Kelly Sue DeConnick. Oh, dear. I love DeConnick’s Captain Marvel, but this volume is just so pointless that it takes away from that. 1/5 stars
Predator’s Gold, by Philip Reeve. This continues the theme of the first book of being surprisingly complex in terms of character motivations. I enjoyed it as well, but I wish the female characters had been a bit less reprehensible in their behaviour. 3/5 stars
Strong Poison, by Dorothy L. Sayers. BBC Radioplay Version. I love it, of course. Ian Carmichael is just the perfect Peter. 5/5 stars
We Were Liars, by E. Lockhart. I’m not quite down with the hype, but I did enjoy reading it — “and if anyone asks you how it ends, lie.” 3/5 stars
Fadeout, by Joseph Hansen. Embarking upon a reread of these books, I fell in love with the characters and the prose all over again. If you’re lacking a gay detective in your hardboiled detective fiction, Dave Brandstetter might fix you up. 4/5 stars
Flashback Friday: The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights, by John Steinbeck. One of the few Arthurian stories that have ever made me feel Lancelot and Guinevere’s love in my gut. The retelling gets off to a shaky start but there’s so much beauty in it. 5/5 stars

Other posts:
Author opinions. Aka, do they get to have them? Answer: obviously yes, now stop telling them to stfu about politics, especially if you’re following them on Twitter.
Top Ten Tuesday: Villains. I went for a list about the things I need in a good villain. Uh. If that’s not an oxymoron.
What are you reading Wednesday? An update on what I’m reading this week!

Tags: , ,

Divider

Review – The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights

Posted October 7, 2016 by Nicky in Reviews / 2 Comments

Cover of The Acts of King Arthur by John SteinbeckThe Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights, John Steinbeck

Flashback Friday review from 11th October, 2010

Steinbeck’s Arthur novel was never completed, and never even properly edited by him. I enjoyed it very much as it is — I do wish it’d been finished, and edited, and made more consistent. If I rated without considering that, I’d rate it at least one star less. The introduction, claiming that it isn’t changed substantially from Malory, isn’t true: there’s a lot of humanising going on, and some additional humour. If I held Steinbeck to that, too, he’d probably lose a star.

As it is, though, bearing these things in mind, he gets all the stars. I really enjoyed reading his version, particularly after the first few tales — it felt like, after a while, he felt his way into it, and some of the letters of his included at the end suggest that that’s just how it felt to him, which is nice to know. There’s a sort of tenderness in the way he treats the tales, a love for them that still allowed him to see the humour a modern audience might find in them.

I liked his treatment of Kay — a little more understanding than other writers, I think. An attempt to understand him. And the touch of someone catching Arthur crying, which I don’t recall being in Malory. And some of the descriptions of Lancelot, particularly through Lyonel’s eyes. And here was a Lancelot I could like, too, although of course Steinbeck never got to the parts where Lancelot was a traitor. Still, I felt for Lancelot, in the last few pages.

(For those who know of my affection for Gawain: no, I don’t like his portrayal of Gawain. But I’ll pass that over.)

One thing I love specially is something that people tend to find lacking in Malory — knowing what people are feeling, and I’m particularly talking about Lancelot. Malory tells us what he does; Steinbeck tries to tell us why.

And the thing I love best, oh, most of all, is this:

The queen observed, “I gather you rescued damsels by the dozen.” She put her fingers on his arm and a searing shock ran through his body, and his mouth opened in amazement at a hollow ache that pressed upwards against his ribs and shortened his breath.

My breath, too.

It’s rare because it’s a moment that really makes me feel for Lancelot and Guinevere, and for their plight. I think Steinbeck could have caught me up in their story, and hushed my dislike for all they do. I wish he’d written it: I’d like, just once, to be swept up in Lancelot and Guinevere’s story, and to buy into it as somehow justified by passion, just as they do. Other writers tell that without showing me it. (Guy Gavriel Kay perhaps excepted, but Lancelot and Guinevere aren’t the centre of the story he’s telling there.)

I enjoyed it a lot, what there is of it, and this edition also contains a lot of Steinbeck’s letters concerning it while he was writing it. Very interesting to read those and get an idea of what was on his mind.

I think part of what I love here is what the stories could have been, more than what they are.

Rating: 5/5

Tags: , , ,

Divider

Review – Fadeout

Posted October 6, 2016 by Nicky in Reviews / 0 Comments

Cover of Fadeout by Joseph HansenFadeout, Joseph Hansen

It’s been a while since I read these, and when I noticed they’re now available for Kindle, I kind of fell upon them. Hansen’s writing is really readable: something like the economy of Chandler, and the turn of phrase, but somehow more streamlined and quick to read. And somewhat less problematic in terms of the representation, since we have a gay detective and generally more up to date models of how people interact and what women are capable of, etc. I can’t recall any exact examples where I wasn’t comfortable, though I think the handling of the Japanese pool boy incident felt a bit off, and maybe some other references to racial issues.

The main character — Dave — is completely unstereotyped. He misses his partner, whom he loved, and he’s not ashamed of that fact — and okay, his partner was a bit of a cliché and rather camp, but the point is that there are a lot of gay people in these books, and they’re all different. They have different interests and different ideas about how to live their lives. Dave is comfortable with himself, and not compensating either — he doesn’t mind people knowing he’s gay, he doesn’t overcompensate, etc. He’s just himself and lets people take him as they find him — and finding a character like that in a mystery novel that otherwise feels pretty hardboiled is a lovely thing.

The plot itself is convoluted, of course, and it’s amazing how Dave’s cases always manage to be about gay people. If you’re straight, apparently you don’t get life insurance from Dave’s dad’s company? Or if you do, your death isn’t investigated by Dave? Of course, all the cases where Dave signs off on it without lengthy investigation aren’t mentioned either, so… Perhaps it’s just that Hansen was interested in how a gay detective made his way in that societal climate, and how being gay affected how people treated you, and how gay people interacted.

I love the series, personally; it’s really easy to read, but there’s depth here (like Dave’s grief for Rod, and in later books, his relationships with other men) and I have no doubt I’ll come back to Dave again in the future. (As I type this, I’ve already gone on to reread the second and third books, as well.) If there is a flaw, it’s perhaps that (at least at this point), I’m more focused on Dave and the whole fact of gay representation in hardboiled crime fiction, and much less on the actual mystery. On the other hand, I focus more on Chandler’s prose than his plot, too, so there’s that.

Rating: 4/5

Tags: , , , ,

Divider

What are you reading Wednesday

Posted October 5, 2016 by Nicky in General / 0 Comments

Wait, it’s Wednesday again already? Ack!

What have you recently finished reading?
I finished my reread of The Fellowship of the Ring! I’ve already written a long and rambling review, but suffice it to say, trekking across Middle-earth in Lord of the Rings Online has really enhanced my appreciation of the books and the work Tolkien put in. This time, I could see everything so much more clearly. It’s not Tolkien’s fault I couldn’t before; that’s all down to my lack of visual imagination. But with LOTRO to base it on, wow, suddenly there’s a whole new layer of complexity.

I’ve also been reading Ultimate X-Men, the first four volumes, and I’m… not greatly impressed. I guess the Avengers are more my team?

What are you currently reading?
I’m technically still reading Blood Pact, which I was reading last week. I haven’t really got any further with it, to be perfectly honest. I generally enjoy Tanya Huff’s work, but this series just doesn’t seem to work for me. It’s a shame, because Vicky Nelson in herself is an awesome character, but something about the rivalry between Celluci and Henry just makes my eyes roll.

I’m also reading Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, by Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee. I have the same problem with it I always do with books about life in the universe: we have a sample size of one. They have compelling arguments, and yet even when you expand it to what we know about the potential for life just in our solar system, that’s still only a sample size of one. We only have intimate detail on one way a solar system is formed. Even then, there’s plenty we don’t know. So I’m enjoying the science, but still unconvinced by the premise.

I’m still reading Emma, via Serial Reader. That’s okay, but I’m glad I’m reading it in small chunks. I keep getting terribly embarrassed for Emma when she misinterprets things and thinks herself so… superior. I know how it ends, but I can’t quite see what the gentleman in question sees in her given his general practicality.

What are you planning to read next?
The Two Towers, definitely. I’m not going to let this reread be derailed! But tomorrow I’m travelling all day, and I think I might beguile the time with some of Tor.com’s upcoming novellas: I’ve been approved for Winter Tide (Ruthanna Emrys), A Taste of Honey (Kai Ashante Wilson), Everything Belongs to the Future (Laurie Penny), The Lost Child of Lychford (Paul Cornell) and Hammers on Bone (Cassandra Khaw). 

Tags: ,

Divider

Review – We Were Liars

Posted October 5, 2016 by Nicky in Reviews / 0 Comments

Cover of We Were Liars by E. LockhartWe Were Liars, E. Lockhart

It’s been a while since I picked this up, encouraged by the rave reviews of some of my YA reading friends. It’s not in one of my primary genres, being arguably totally non-fantastical (depending on how you interpret one particular aspect of the story), and so I found myself putting it off. I’m also not usually a fan of stylistic choices like running sentences over several lines, as often used in this book, so once I realised that was a feature… well, I was put off.

In the end, I found it a compelling enough read; not, as I expected, my favourite sort of book, but well put together and giving tantalising hints all the way through, asking you to slowly assemble the pieces of the puzzle and figure out the plot. The exhortation to, “If anyone asks you how it ends, lie” is justified, though I like spoilers (and am conscious of that), so I checked reviews and went into it knowing what was up. That way, I got to see how the structure slowly unfolded the story.

The draw of the book is mostly the unreliable narrator and that mystery, though I can see people enjoying the style too — there are sometimes some very dramatic, vivid images from the narrator, violent metaphors which show the truth of what she’s feeling even though she outwardly smiles, lies and carries on. Sometimes that was a little too dramatic for my tastes.

Being out of my usual genre, I suspect that’s probably partly why I have a more lukewarm response to the book, but if it sounds interesting to you, it’s probably worth picking up and giving it a go. But I did find the stylistic stuff very annoying, just a warning… enjambment is for poetry, in my view. But I’m cranky that way.

Rating: 3/5

Tags: , ,

Divider

Review – Strong Poison

Posted October 4, 2016 by Nicky in Reviews / 0 Comments

Cover of Strong Poison by BBC audioStrong Poison, Dorothy L. Sayers

Featuring Ian Carmichael as Lord Peter Wimsey, Peter Jones as Bunter and Gabriel Woolf as Inspector Parker

For some reason, I can’t find the name of the person who voiced Harriet, and my Audible file doesn’t seem to include that intro. Blast. Still, Strong Poison is mostly not about Harriet, and she appears comparatively little — really, it’s about Lord Peter getting to be a knight in shining armour, and he really starts escalating toward sainthood in his actions here, how he comes to save her and doesn’t push and so on. If you look at it with a cynical eye, it’s all rather obvious lionising of the character.

Still, if you’re a fan of Lord Peter, you can lay that aside and just enjoy him sleuthing away on the trail of the real murderer, plus his sudden feelings for Harriet. The voice acting is excellent, as usual: Ian Carmichael is the perfect Peter, and there’s an awesome little scene with Inspector Parker about Mary which I just had to listen to twice for the fun of it. The adaptation is pretty good, with most details preserved — even down to whole sections of piffle from Wimsey and his mother, and the exact content of various scenes — and though the mystery is a little trimmed down here and there, I think you could almost switch off between the book and the radioplay scenes without losing anything in understanding.

Rating: 5/5

Tags: , , , , ,

Divider

Top Ten Tuesday

Posted October 4, 2016 by Nicky in General / 4 Comments

This week’s theme is villains! Instead of picking out favourite specific villains, I’m going for lists of things that make good villains (you know what I mean)! Or, if not good villains, then villains that I find interesting.

  1. They don’t just hate everyone. There are people and causes they care about; there are reasons for why they do what they do. Especially good is if they have people that care about them, who might not deserve the pain of losing them. Tasty conflict for all!
  2. They’re not just mentally ill. Half of the time it’s just a lazy way out anyway, and it’s also an excuse to stereotype mental illness, etc.
  3. They have a sense of humour. I’m sorry, I’m a sucker for a snarky bad guy.
  4. They have a cause, and it may even be a good one. Bring on the moral complexity! Someone going about something that’s worth doing, but doing it in the wrong way? Yeaaah, works for me.
  5. You can understand them. If they have a stupid grudge from a minor accident they had as a child, you can’t sympathise with that. The most powerful villains — to my mind, anyway — are the ones you can understand.
  6. You can’t understand them at all. On the flipside, a completely enigmatic villain can be amazing too. Especially in something with horror elements. It makes things more unpredictable.
  7. They have a sense of honour. They won’t strike a man while he’s down, etc. This goes hand in hand with a lot of the other stuff; they’re on the wrong side of the conflict, but you can’t help but wish they weren’t.
  8. They are redeemable. If they’re not, then you don’t have to worry if they’ll do the awful thing — you know they can and will. But if there’s hope of redemption, you can hope they won’t do the awful thing.
  9. They don’t reveal their own plans. I mean, really. If it needs saying…
  10. They do not have an evil laugh. That’d be a dead giveaway, right?

Okay, so tongue in cheek for some of those. I’m looking forward to seeing if anyone’s reccing some good villains!

Tags: ,

Divider

Author opinions

Posted October 3, 2016 by Nicky in General / 6 Comments

This discussion post was somewhat inspired by Chuck Wendig’s rant about the idea that writers and creative types should keep their political opinions to themselves. It’s Chuck Wendig, so, uh, expect profanity. I know that from the reader side of things, people often don’t want to know what the opinions of authors they like are — who wants to think about the fact that the man who wrote Ender’s Game is a homophobic, racist asshat?

But the thing is, we can’t have it both ways. We can’t interact with authors on twitter, get excited about them interacting with us and RTing silly pictures of cats, and then get annoyed because they’ve expressed an opinion on Brexit or the US elections. If we want them to be humans we can interact with, then we’ve gotta accept that they have opinions too — and also, of course, that they will make mistakes, say the wrong thing, and otherwise be flawed humans like the rest of us. We’ve got to accept that they live in the same world as us, and that by giving them an audience we’re also giving them a voice. It’s not a voice we have to listen to, but it is a voice they can use, if they so choose.

As for where I stand on whether I’ll read books by people I disagree with, it’s complex. I don’t want Orson Scott Card to profit by me, for example. But I do accept that authors are going to make mistakes and say things I find less than palatable — I’m thinking, for example, of Elizabeth Bear’s involvement in the fandom discussions called Racefail ’09, or Robin Hobb’s rant about the medicating of mental illnesses. In the end, for me, it’s a matter of degree, and also heavily ruled by gut feeling, and tempered by whether the person seems to have learned from or changed since a given meltdown or argument or horribly expressed opinion. I’ve bought Bear’s books, and I will probably buy more of Hobb’s in future (though goodness knows I’m behind on reading her series). I can’t foresee myself buying Card’s books, though. And I’m on the fence about Benjanun Sriduangkaew.

This is getting away from the point, and I’ve covered it before in my post about Liking Problematic Things. The thing is, I would never contest that people have the right to decide that someone’s politics preclude supporting them financially (by buying their books or tie-in merchandise, or whatever). Likewise, I wouldn’t contest that you have the right to say you like something anyway, and you’re not going to make your escapism a political act by buying or not buying particular books based on the authors’ views. Or any part of the spectrum between those two.

The thing now is that people are saying authors shouldn’t express their opinions. They’re interested only in their art and they don’t want to know what they think of feminism or gay marriage. Well, okay, that’s totally fine — so just read their work, and don’t follow them on social media. If someone turns out to be unpleasant as a person on social media, unfollow them and keep reading their books, or never pick up another again, it’s up to you. (Me? I don’t follow Nnedi Okorafor or Ekaterina Sedia anymore, for various reasons; I still read their books.)

But it’s surely not revolutionary to point out that authors are people, who have to live in the same world as us. If they have any influence, any platform, it’s what we give them by being interested in their lives outside the pages of their books. Of course they’re going to use that to get across their opinions — and it’s our responsibility to opt out if we’re not interested.

Tags: ,

Divider

Review – Predator’s Gold

Posted October 3, 2016 by Nicky in Reviews / 0 Comments

Cover of Predator's Gold by Philip ReevePredator’s Gold, Philip Reeve

The second Hungry Cities book is the same sort of fun as the first, albeit with those dark moments of violence and horror (like horrible deaths, or people being unpleasant). It still follows Hester and Tom, but they’ve grown up a bit, and they have a place in the world as aviators. That is, until Pennyroyal comes aboard and spoils everything.

Realistic, and sad, is the portrayal of Hester being so afraid to lose Tom. She doesn’t believe anyone else will see past her scarred face to who she really is, and indeed, she’s not even that sure that who she really is is a person worthy of love. It does lead to some fairly horrible behaviour on her part, which though it makes sense with her characterisation, makes her difficult to sympathise with. After all, the appeal of Tom is that he believes that life should be fair, and Hester… really doesn’t hold with that.

Freya as a character is… I can understand her, but I don’t like her. The way she behaves for most of the book is just awful, and you can completely understand why Hester doesn’t like her — and you can’t really understand why anyone else does.

Overall, it’s a fun book and it expands the world, opening up obvious lines for future plots and filling in things round the edges. It’s just… slightly less fun because instead of moving toward a lighter characterisation for Hester, as Mortal Engines does, it kind of goes the other way and makes her less likeable again.

Rating: 3/5

Tags: , , ,

Divider

ShelfLove October Update

Posted October 2, 2016 by Nicky in General / 8 Comments

ShelfLove Challenge 2016

ShelfLove Update!

The goals where I’m ahead are in blue; bang on are in green; behind by up to five books are in orange; anything else is in red. I now have a running total to show where I should be for the month too (e.g. by June I needed to read 182 books overall).

  • Targets: 
    • 250 or fewer books bought;
    • 366 books read overall;
    • 200 books read which I owned prior to 2016;
    • no more than 10% of income on books per month.
  • Books bought this year so far: 171/180.
  • September books bought: 16/20.
  • September budget: £26/£30.
  • Owned books read this month: 18/16.
  • Books read this month: 34/30.
  • Owned books read overall: 145/150 (5 books behind).
  • Books read overall: 269/274 (5 books behind).

So as you can see, it’s been a really productive month: for September, I was ahead on all my goals, and I caught up with the deficit from previous months. Let’s hope I can keep that up as I plunge into the second year of my BSc, taking double the amount of credits I was before…

This month’s theme for the challenge is to talk about books and bookish gifts I’m hoping for in my Christmas pile. Well, Genevieve Cogman’s The Burning Page is due on the 15th December, so I’ll probably ask for that, and Dennis Hopeless’ Spider-Women has a pretty big price tag so that’s probably going to be saved for then.

Other than that, I don’t know yet. Probably some comics-related stuff — there’s a Winter Soldier hoodie I want, and a Spider-Gwen one. But my partner is making me a Captain Marvel hoodie, so there’s that. We’ll see, I guess! Normally I wait a little longer to make my wishlists.

As for a TBR for the month, here’s a bunch of books that I either need to review or are part of series I’m trying to finish!

  • Ilona Andrews, Magic Binds.
  • Marie Brennan, In Ashes Lie.
  • Mira Grant, Deadline.
  • Mira Grant, Blackout.
  • Joseph Hansen, The Man Everybody Was Afraid Of.
  • Joseph Hansen, Skinflick.
  • Sylvia Moreno-Garcia, Certain Dark Things.
  • Emma Newman, After Atlas.
  • Cherie Priest, The Family Plot.
  • John Scalzi, The Ghost Brigades.

I’m gonna keep it to those ten, this month, and see if having a short list encourages me to get round to all of them.

 

Tags: , , ,

Divider