Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.
Tamara: Valente is just such a skilled writer in a technical way, I think, that it kind of covers up the gaps in the actual contents.
One review of Deathless described the cumulative effect of Valente's prose as akin to "being beaten to death with an arrangement of dried flowers." I think there's some truth in that, at least in my own reaction to the text. I found this one more accessible than, say, Palimpsest, if only because I actually managed to finish it (which is more than I can say for most of the novels/short stories by her I've tried). But there are still moments when the stylistic flourishes make the text so opaque it's nearly impossible to tell what's going on.
Besides the prose, the more I ponder the, uh, folkloric substratum of the story, the less satisfied I am with it. Especially the superposition of Slavic fairy tale figures like Koschei or Baba Yaga onto a framework that I don't think gels very well with the source material. There's no organizing principle of a Czar of Life/Czar of Death behind any Russian fairy tales that I know of. Koschei is just a dude, y'know? Being familiar with the story of Marya Morevna somehow makes the ending of Deathless make even less sense...so while there are isolated moments I found quite beautiful, the whole doesn't quite cohere. That said, I'd love to read a review by someone more familiar with Russian folklore than I am--Poles and Russians have some fairy tales and figures in common, but there are also some pretty distinct differences.
Gosh, how many of us are on the site, at this point?
Ein Gespenst geht um auf FerretBrain... ;)
Also, I almost picked up Deathless just one day before it got mentioned here - maybe that's a sign? Now that I'm in the US I wanted to take the opportunity of shopping for reasonably-priced books in English without relying on Amazon (baaahh), but I don't know if I should give that one a try.
Tamara: Sleepy Hollow is silly, frantic fun, but also has just enough built political subtexts to not exhaust my interest after three episodes the way this sort of thing usually does, although I did lose attention by the end of the season.
I really enjoyed the first season of Sleepy Hollow; it's fun adventure with likable, well-written characters (many of whom are black), and there were some huge twists towards the end of the season that I completely failed to see coming.
I probably won't watch Reign, though, unless my sisters get into it and pull me along with them (which is how I get into most TV shows, including Sleepy Hollow).
Michal: Matthew Reilly is writing epic fantasy now.
Oh my, that is something, now. Should make for quite a spectacle.
Even so, I'll probably wait for the audiobook. Or the review/podcast discussion. Hopefully the latter, as it'll most likely give the best parts of Reilly, and a hilarious commentary to go along with it.
Kit: this has nothing to do with the previous discussion, parts of which have been delighting my little anarcho-marxist heart
Gosh, how many of us are on the site, at this point?
Tamara: There's just something intensely readable about her writing for me.
I feel like that's one of Rowling's strengths in general - eminently readable to large numbers of people, even when the content leaves something to be desired.
I liked The Casual Vacancy too. Oddly (or not) neither of them are, like, totally brilliant, and neither are my usual thing, but I finished both books in one sitting, which isn't something i've done in a long, long time. There's just something intensely readable about her writing for me.
I gave The Casual Vacancy a miss because I just found it deeply uninteresting as a premise, but as I've said previously I'm a partisan for Galbraith and thought the first one was the best and most readable Rowling since Prisoner of Azkaban. Between that and TROLL MOUNTAIN the publishing world is making me very happy currently.
Rowling - Oh, good, the new Galbraith book is coming out. I liked the first one. That's all i've got on that.(I liked The Casual Vacancy too. Oddly (or not) neither of them are, like, totally brilliant, and neither are my usual thing, but I finished both books in one sitting, which isn't something i've done in a long, long time. There's just something intensely readable about her writing for me.)
I'm not getting into the debate about "oooh, you're so entitled" because that often descends into Randroid belittling of people on the grounds that they aren't billionaires and are pointing out the golden opportunities given to others but denied to them. But the question Shepherd's points prompt in me is: has Shepherd been in a brick-and-mortar bookshop lately? Because whilst Rowling does get a prominent push, she's far from a dominant presence in my local Waterstones, and you could forget her adult fiction even exists most of the time. (It's slightly different now because her next Robert Galbraith book is coming out soon, but even then the push consists of a number of prominent posters and a single display of the previous Galbraith book, which is about what you'd get if any other top dog author were bringing something out.)
It isn't as though Rowling is churning out volume after volume after volume of stuff; her pace of publication is, if anything, fairly modest. Unless half the authors on the shelves are other Rowling pseudonyms I'm not seeing that she's crowding anyone out from any publishing niche other than "current top-selling author", and by definition that's a niche only one author at a time can occupy and 99.99999% of all authors can never seriously expect to occupy.
With the Mechanique novel, at least (can't speak to the short stories) it is a collapsey sort of setting, but it's all so vague and kaleidescopic it didn't really feel like a post-apocalyptic novel to me. I'm not a huge fan of them, mostly because they always seem either terribly contrived (ala Hunger Games) or, to get back to Stephenson once more, a bad excuse for dumb, first-person-shooter aesthetics and תו לא.
No, what I have serious issues with is post-apocalyptic settings of a particular sort, and as far as I can tell the Circus Tresaulti lives in one.
Maybe I should try Reign...
If you are even slightly invested in historical accuracy or in period costumes, prepare for a staggering, brain-melting amount of utter WTF (think of it as Gossip Girl set in a sort of alternate history Valois court). But it's actually good fun to watch in a completely silly way, especially if you've got a Genevieve Valentine-esque mental voiceover running parallel to it, like I do :) And their Catherine de'Medici is excellent.
Excellent, just have to shove him in the direction of Black Library and soon he will arrive at his natural home...
I would love to read Mechanique, but unfortunately as far as I can tell (from reading a couple of Valentine's short stories set in the same milieu) it would traumatize me a LOT. I do point my friends who like steampunk at it, though. Agreed that she needs more love as a fiction writer.
But gawd, do I love her criticism, both the silly and the serious. (She does these fabulous bad movie reviews over at her blog that are pee-your-pants funny.)
In The Silence of the Lambs, just from the very first instant you see Hopkins standing there in his cell, he has this incredible intensity that makes for a compelling character but a very poor disguise. I guess you could argue that he hid his true nature before and now that he's caught, he no longer needs to maintain the charade, but that just feels flimsy to me.
Also, this has nothing to do with the previous discussion, parts of which have been delighting my little anarcho-marxist heart, and have led to a few additions to my to-read list (thanks for that!); but, emboldened by the fact that I strangely enjoyed The Woman in White back when the TeXt Factor practically forced me to read it, I have decided to pick up No Name. Now that I'm halfway through, I'm steadily developing the same kind of weird fondness for it I had for its predecessor, and I'm starting to wonder what the ferretcrew would have had to say about it. The characters are weaker - it hasn't got its Marian, or Count Fosco, for that matter - but there's still plenty to latch on. So far it has delivered
I think Manhunter is the better movie, but mostly because I'm a partisan for Brian Cox's interpretation of Lecter and Michael Mann's direction, both of which veer back from the horror movie melodrama that Hopkins/John Demme used for Lambs. Graham is an interesting character in that mainly because Michael Mann does a masterful job of playing with the idea of how psychological profiling and police procedure is just as much a form of manhunting as serial killing is, albeit from a position of insight and empathy and understanding and rationality as opposed to coming from an irrational place which doesn't understand why it's doing what it's doing and struggles to relate to the world outside of itself (see, for instance, Graham's ability to empathise with Dolarhyde and get inside his head whilst retaining his outrage at what he's done, compared with Dolarhyde's utter misinterpretation of a moment he witnesses with his girlfriend when he decides she's Like All The Others and needs to die and the way he doesn't actually give two shits about his victims because they're just a means to an end for him).
But Clarice has a better story arc and can basically do more or less anything Will does and I'm a little sad that Mann and Cox didn't come back for the sequel. If nothing else, it's slightly too easy for Clarice to retain her "don't trust Lecter 100% instincts" when he's Anthony Hopkins chewing the scenery to an extent where he may as well be dressed as Dracula with a DON'T TRUST ME sign about his neck, whereas if he were Brian Cox turning on the charm he uses to effortlessly steer Will Graham's family into mortal peril in Manhunter, well, that'd be something to see.