|
Cingulate posted:This isn't at all what you're asking for, but once you've actually read up on the original legends, you might consider The Mists of Avalon. It's not especially subtle in its point, but it's a very interesting second-wave feminist deconstruction of the Arthurian legends. Basically - you know how these are stories about Christian Dudes, told by Christian Dudes? Well, what if a pagan women told you about the same events? I started it and couldn't finish; I found the tone really offputting. I was about 14 then, though; I might feel very differently about it now.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
You probably wouldn't, they're awful books by any measure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:You probably wouldn't, they're awful books by any measure. Really? Mists of Avalon seems to get pretty good buzz.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
They do, but that doesn't keep them from being awful, at least in my opinion. Maybe it's just me. I never liked Bradley's writing, something about it just doesn't click with me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
I won't defend the writing. If the idea of a second-wave feminist deconstruction of the Matière de Bretagne does appeal to you, however ...
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
On the Arthurian note, I'll throw in a recommendation Bernard Cornwell. He's best known for writing the increasingly formulaic Sharpe novels about a Napoleonic soldier, and some equally formulaic medieval novels, plenty of bloody battle scenes and mild teen-friendly raunchiness, but he's written four books that are of actual literary value, I think. One of them, Gallows Thief, is a pure historical novel and outwith the purview of this thread; the other three are his take on the Arthurian legend. They are The Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excalibur, and I think they're actually great. Cornwell adapts the Arthurian legends into a form more grounded in real history, but with a really nice approach where magic is present but possibly all just in the characters' minds. They're set during the Saxon invasions of the Welsh-speaking Brythonic kingdoms around 500 AD, and they're written as if being chronicled by one of Arthur's companions, Derfel - a Saxon bastard raised as a druidic pagan by Merlin, but who converted to Christianity at some point in his life and is writing the story of Arthur in a monastery as Saxon invaders approach. The books tell a very engaging version of the Arthur legends (as well as peripheral legends like Tristan and Isolde) and there are nice explorations of cultural/religious tensions as well. I devoured Cornwell's books when I was in my teens but these ones are properly good books. I recommend them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
BigSkillet posted:Have you read Steph Swainston's Year of Our War series? I wrote it off originally because all the summaries I'd read of it made it sound like bog-standard fantasy fare (The protagonist has a super unique ability AND he doesn't play by the rules? Yawn.) but it's actually pretty clever about fantasy tropes and super surreal, in the Max Ernst/Salvidor Dali sense, at points. The first book doesn't feature any leftist issues as part of the plot, but the portrayal of its ruling class seems in line with leftist arguments -- it's no secret that the aforementioned protagonist only gets to be one of the elite because of the coincidental circumstance of his birth, and outside of that he's a stupendous gently caress-up. I'm sure someone with a better grasp of theory could find more to it than that. http://www.amazon.com/The-Year-Our-Steph-Swainston/dp/0060753870 No wonder he's plummeting like a stone. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Really? Mists of Avalon seems to get pretty good buzz. Mists of Avalon is a brilliant book but it does exactly what it says on the cover -- it's fantasy for women, and it cranks the estrogen dial up way past 11. It's still really well executed but not everyone is going to like it. paradoxGentleman posted:I would like to learn more about the Arthurian legend, as what little I know of it comes form Horrible Histories, and while they are amusing I don't feel comfortable basing all my knowledge of such a cornerstone of fantasy on them. I would like to read something that encompasses as much of the original legends as possible; although I consider myself a robust reader but I'm not sure if I can tacke the source material. What would you suggest? Here's the thing: most versions of the Arthur stories are bad. Even the "originals" -- Monmouth, Mallory -- are difficult slogs by modern standards, in the victorian era the Arthur stories were a magnet for romantic hacks, and in the modern era every fantasy author who's out of ideas shoves Lancelot in as page filler. At best you get someone who completely re-imagines the original stories as something new -- like The Once and Future King or The Mists of Avalon -- but that's not a help to someone who wants to learn the basic story. There are two versions of the Arthurian stories that I'd recommend. The first is Howard Pyle's four-volume King Arthur series -- The Story of King Arthur and his Knights, The Story of the Champions of the Round Table, The Story of Sir Lancelot and his Champions, and The Story of the Grail and the Passing of Arthur. The reason I recommend those is that they're probably the most readable and accessible version of the "classic" Arthurian stories. Pyle was a children's book illustrator, basically an American counterpart to the Pre-Raphaelites, he's still taught in art schools today, but he had to have books to illustrate, so he put out four big books of illustrated Arthur stories and in the process covered pretty much all the core legends (with the possible exception of The Story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which has a lot of adultery in it and hence might've been left out of works aimed at children -- I cant' remember off the top of my head if it's in there or not). They're accessible without being dumbed down and pretty comprehensive. Make sure to get a copy with Pyle's original illustrations. The second version of the stories I'd recommend is Mary Stewart's Merlin trilogy : The Crystal Cave, The Hollow Hills, and The Last Enchantment. Stewart basically retells the Arthur story as a historical novel with fantasy elements, from Merlin's perspective. It's the only modern retelling of Arthur I know of that does a good job of synthesizing the various myths and legends with what we know of the possible "historical Arthur." Past that it gets complicated. There are a lot of neat books and theories out there on the search for the historical Arthur; Lancelot, for example, is almost certainly a complete invention of 12th century French poets. The Welsh Mabinogion has a lot of Arthur legends in it but they're so mixed up with Celtic myth that Monmouth's English king is almost unrecognizable. EDIT: I haven't read the Bernard Cornwell books, those sound interesting, as does the Roger Lancelyn Green book. Thanks! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Mists of Avalon is a brilliant book but it does exactly what it says on the cover -- it's fantasy for women, and it cranks the estrogen dial up way past 11. It's still really well executed but not everyone is going to like it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
I don't think it's boring or stilted though! I actually think it's a really well-executed book, it's just about and for women in a way I think a lot of readers (male and female) might find uninteresting. The most interesting thing about it is probably the way Bradley deals with the tension between the pagan Arthurian myths and the christian Arthurian legends, and it also does a really good job of re-imagining and making relevant all the 12-century-french "mushy stuff" (i.e., Lancelot, etc.) On the other hand, be prepared to read a lot about menstruation and babies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
For those interested in different takes on the Authurian legend I highly recommend Jack Whyte's Camulod Chronicles (which starts with The Skystone), and The Book of Joby by Mark Ferrari. Whyte's series tries to bend the mythical aspects of the Arthurian legend into plausible everyday occurrences. For example (if I'm remembering correctly), Excalibur is special because it is made from iron ore from a meteorite which has a higher melting point/strength than the typical swords of the day. As for The Book of Joby, it is a combination of the Arthurian legend and the trials of the biblical Job set in modern times and based on a bet between God and Satan. I worked for Tor Books for 14 years, and this is still one of my favorite books that we ever published in my time there. In fact, I can't think of a book I've enjoyed more, save for a reprint of Jonathan Carroll's Sleeping in Flame. I still remember being on vacation and sitting on the beach flying through the 900 page manuscript. Once I finished I handed it to my wife and she finished it off in two days. It really is remarkable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Even the "originals" -- Monmouth, Mallory -- are difficult slogs by modern standards Geoffrey of Monmouth is too short to really be called a slog, especially it you just read the Arthurian parts (starting with Vortigern). He's a pretty bad writer in some ways, though; most of his characters are pretty bland. Having said that, he came up with a lot of material that inspired better writers (including the story of King Lear) and some even some wonderfully weird stuff that should have inspired other writers but somehow hasn't, as far as I know (like Julius Caesar's magic sword, Crocea Mors). Edit: Actually, Google informs me that Crocea Mors has appeared in in the rather crappy web animation RWBY. I'm still unaware of any good writers doing anything with it. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I don't think it's boring or stilted though! I actually think it's a really well-executed book, it's just about and for women in a way I think a lot of readers (male and female) might find uninteresting. Hieronymous Alloy posted:The most interesting thing about it is probably the way Bradley deals with the tension between the pagan Arthurian myths and the christian Arthurian legends, and it also does a really good job of re-imagining and making relevant all the 12-century-french "mushy stuff" (i.e., Lancelot, etc.) On the other hand, be prepared to read a lot about menstruation and babies. You've correctly described the matter, in my opinion, but I don't see how the matter should be for (some) women only. I'm certainly not a woman and I loved the book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Saying a book is primarily "for women" isn't a slander and I don't meant it as crack on the quality, nor does it mean that men can't enjoy it. But some books are written for certain demographic groups and members of those groups are, on the whole, probably going to appreciate them more than other readers who aren't in those demographic groups. In some ways Avalon is just rebalancing that, really -- so much of the SF&F genre is aimed straight at the 13-year-old-boy (Heinlein, lookin' at you!) that books like Mists of Avalon provide an admirable counterpoint. But I think it's fair to say that Avalon is still written primarily for a female reader. That's not a criticism, and it's definitely worth reading even if you aren't a female reader! But if you aren't a female reader you might find its focus somewhat offputting. Maybe you'll have a harder time empathizing with the characters; maybe you'll be less inclined to care about the issues they find important. Hell, let's jump to the ultimate example: Jane Austen. I'd feel comfortable arguing that Austen is the single greatest writer in the English language; only Dickens can touch her for characterization and her prose is so far out ahead of just about everyone else's that it just makes them all look bad. But she doesn't have a single scene in any of her books that doesn't have a woman present, and her fiction is aimed quite squarely at Regency Era upper-class white English "ladies," to the point where you need an extensive dictionary and reference materials to even figure out what's going on (what on earth is a "barouche-landau"? Better find out if you want to appreciate whole chapters in Northanger Abbey). If you aren't a member of the British regency-era upper crust, you're going to have to do extensive background research to really appreciate her books, and if you don't do that research, odds are you'll think her books are pretty boring. You might like them anyway reading them blind, because she really is that good, but odds are against you if you aren't a member of the target demographic (and you aren't, unless you're several hundred years old). I see Mists of Avalon in a similar vein. It's a brilliant book but it's written presuming a female reader and it's going to take more work to appreciate from a non-female-reader perspective. That's fine, but some people might find that off-putting and just choose to not put in the work, which is also fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
It's strange, I agree to all of your premises, but reject, vehemently, the conclusions. For example, you say Hieronymous Alloy posted:But I think it's fair to say that Avalon is still written primarily for a female reader Alas, considering I agree with your description, there probably isn't much to say about here. I just find the idea that only/mostly/whatever women would find stuff for or about women interesting. Why shouldn't a man find a book where every scene contains women quite interesting? And I know you're not outright saying boys like boys stuff and girls like girls stuff and that's the way of the world, but it's going a bit too far in that direction. Either way, I'm becoming really redundant here. I think your description of what the book IS is quite accurate, and probably helps everybody trying to form an opinion regarding their interest in the book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:But she doesn't have a single scene in any of her books that doesn't have a woman present This is the gooniest thing I've seen all month.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
fritz posted:This is the gooniest thing I've seen all month. Oh climb down off your high horse. I can't find my exact source for that statement right now but I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in the critical notes in my Norton Anthology. Calling that "goony" is just demonstrating ignorance. More importantly, saying Austen wrote primarily about and for women (specifically women of her own social class and time period) isn't a pejorative statement. It's just an analytical one. Just like pointing out that Star Wars fails the Bechdel Test doesn't mean it's a bad movie, pointing out that Sense and Sensibility has no scenes with just two men talking about something other than a woman doesn't mean Sense and Sensibility is a bad book, either. But those two facts do tell us, respectively, something about George Lucas and Jane Austen's creative priorities and intended audience. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
The way you're presenting your analytical statement, it conveys a connotation, something like "it is unrelatable to men (and some women) because there's no scene without women". Look at the statement's context; you're listing a bunch of reasons why it might be a hard read, like vocabulary/language change, historical knowledge .. and then, a female-dominated story. The implication being that women are as strange to men as people from a few hundred years ago are. That women and men are totally different. And I'm not trying to accuse you of sexism, but that is an implication that just feels off to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Yeah, I think I agree. I don't think there anything about that that should inherently make for a difficult read for men.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Not totally unrelatable or totally different, but I think as a general statement it's valid to say that for most books, the more the reader differs from the intended audience or authorial/narrative voice of the author, the harder it's going to be for that reader to approach that book, whether that difference is one of time period, demographic group, whatever. It's not some sort of binary division, though, just a sliding scale. Obviously contemporary men and women have more in common than either do with (for example) inhabitants of Regency England -- Austen was a deliberately extreme example. Of course some authors subtly and deliberately play on that expectation -- Heinlein in Starship Troopers deliberately hiding that his protagonist is non-Caucasian till the last page, for example, or LeGuin similarly occluding race initially in the Earthsea books or mixing up gender roles in The Left Hand of Darkness. But to get back to the point, in Mists of Avalon at least, Bradley's pretty deliberately trying to shock the reader with difference, to say, essentially, that this story is being proudly told from a female perspective and the men can all just deal with it. It ain't subtle; it was written to be a shock to the conventions of contemporary fantasy when it was written -- a shock the genre badly needed at the time, but still a shock. That's going to be offputting to some readers and it's going to take more work from some readers (if only because shifting your perspective is work!).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The way you're presenting your analytical statement, it conveys a connotation, something like "it is unrelatable to men (and some women) because there's no scene without women". Look at the statement's context; you're listing a bunch of reasons why it might be a hard read, like vocabulary/language change, historical knowledge .. and then, a female-dominated story. The implication being that women are as strange to men as people from a few hundred years ago are. That women and men are totally different. That's... not what he said?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:But to get back to the point, in Mists of Avalon at least, Bradley's pretty deliberately trying to shock the reader with difference, to say, essentially, that this story is being proudly told from a female perspective and the men can all just deal with it. It ain't subtle; it was written to be a shock to the conventions of contemporary fantasy when it was written -- a shock the genre badly needed at the time, but still a shock. That's going to be offputting to some readers and it's going to take more work from some readers (if only because shifting your perspective is work!). This sounds like a great reason to read the book, and exactly what a lot of SF/F readers need. Maybe I should check it out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:This sounds like a great reason to read the book, and exactly what a lot of SF/F readers need. Maybe I should check it out. Megazver posted:That's... not what he said?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:This sounds like a great reason to read the book, and exactly what a lot of SF/F readers need. Maybe I should check it out. It is! But it's also a great reason not to read the book depending on what you want at the moment as a reader. I mean, this is a book recommendation thread; I'm basically suggesting books for enjoyment, and there are lots of great books out there that I don't always have the mental stamina to read. Sometimes I want something completely conventional and easy, just like sometimes I want to challenge myself by trying to cook something from Julia Child and sometimes I want a McDonald's hamburger. Neither preference is "bad," they're just preferences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
I'm just not sure I'd feel comfortable including the qualification that the presence of women or the fact that it's about and aimed towards women might make it hard for men to read. I'm not convinced I think that's true. I'm not calling you a monster for believing it, mind, but.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
For what it's worth, the thing I remember disliking about it was the preachiness, not it being about female characters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Nothing about Mists of Avalon is a bad idea, it's definitely groundbreaking in its way, it's just so badly realized. It's worth reading, but it's a bad read.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
So i just read Abbadons gate from the caliban war series. I think i liked the first two better because of the focus on the solar system. Any thing to recommend if im looking for sometjing more in that vein.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Nothing about Mists of Avalon is a bad idea, it's definitely groundbreaking in its way, it's just so badly realized. It's worth reading, but it's a bad read. I've honestly never been able to get into any of MZB's stuff, and I always felt like it was something I was somehow supposed to appreciate as, you know, a girl. Maybe I ought to try to pick up Mists sometime and give it another go now that I'm older, but she just never did it for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:I'm just not sure I'd feel comfortable including the qualification that the presence of women or the fact that it's about and aimed towards women might make it hard for men to read. I'm not convinced I think that's true. I'm not calling you a monster for believing it, mind, but. A huge amount of sci-fi and fantasy books are written by men, contain largely male main characters or are written from a male perspective and rarely have two female characters doing something not about or in some way related to a man, yet women can read and enjoy these books just fine. So it's kind of odd really stressing that MZB's books (or apparently any books with lots of female characters and perspective) need some kind of special disclaimer for men. You might not like the book, but you don't feel the need to tell a woman 'this is man's book with lots of men in it, prepare yourself for discussion of men things.' I guess that's why part of this argument is a little off-putting in some ways, that woman-centric stories are difficult in a way that needs to be qualified for male readers, and this quality makes it hard for men to understand and enjoy the story. I pick up books by men and about men all the time without being told how stories with lots of men in them are 'still worth reading' if I'm willing to put the work in. Saying that a book with a lot of women in it likely has a focus that is off-putting, characters with whom you can't empathise, and issues you won't find very important and requires lots of work to really enjoy if you are a man is kinda insulting to both women authors and to men. If you don't really like a book, or if you do like a book, great. It's just a bit odd to qualify them so very, very strongly because ~women~
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Yeah, agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Enfys posted:So it's kind of odd really stressing that MZB's books (or apparently any books with lots of female characters and perspective) need some kind of special disclaimer for men. You might not like the book, but you don't feel the need to tell a woman 'this is man's book with lots of men in it, prepare yourself for discussion of men things.' I guess that's why part of this argument is a little off-putting in some ways, that woman-centric stories are difficult in a way that needs to be qualified for male readers, and this quality makes it hard for men to understand and enjoy the story. That's the thing though; most fantasy fiction (heck, even most fantasy fiction by female authors) uses very, very male-centric narratives most of the time, and that's what most readers are used to reading. Mists of Avalon isn't, it's very different, and like it or not, the reality is that that's going to throw some readers. That's not saying that just because the author has a vagina men can't read it, but it's going to take more work from most readers because it isn't what they're used to -- precisely because most SF&F is aimed at a male audience. It's not that it's challenging because ~women~, it's that SF&F explicitly and unapologetically written, not just from women's viewpoints, but about women's issues, is so different from most of what's out there that it's going to be challenging. It's not pulp fantasy, it's literary fantasy that some readers are going to find challenging, because it explores themes and topics they won't be used to dealing with if all they've read is standard Campbellian boy-hero, magic sword quest fantasy. In other words -- yes, you read books by and for male readers all the time and you don't find it particularly challenging -- because that's what you're used to reading, because that's 99% of what's out there. Mists of Avalon is in the other 1%, and that means some readers are going to get thrown by it, and some readers aren't going to be interested in it. Not everybody wants to read an explicitly feminist & pagan subversion of the relatively male-centric, explicitly Christian Arthurian legends. It's something to be aware of when you approach the book, just like I'd warn people not to read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress if you don't want a lot of libertarian preaching. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
I don't think that 'contains the viewpoints of half the human race' is really equivalent to libertarian preaching, though. If the book's well written (and it might well not be) I don't think the simple fact of the work containing a female or feminist viewpoint will be jarring or disruptive. I understand your argument that everyone's been acclimated to a particular viewpoint but I don't think the simple absence of that viewpoint is going to deter most readers. If it does, that's their problem and I don't think they need to be warned ahead of time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
In line with Battuta's comment, throwing such a huge fuss over it being female-centric and how this is a big deal is more likely to deter potential readers than a simple description. It's hard enough to get people to read female authors already without someone going "hurr feminists," why hype it up enough to make it sound like yet another barrier when it really shouldn't be? This is pretty much saying "Reading about women is haaaaard," even if it's not what you mean, and gently caress we don't need more of that. Granted, now I do want to check out the books - but the initial description, a pagan woman's take on Arthurian legend, accomplished that. The debate is just getting tiresome. Speaking of female authors, have a better-written reason than I could manage to read my favorite author of any gender or any genre: http://www.bookwormblues.net/2013/11/18/carol-berg-queen-of-grace/
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
If the goal was just to get people reading female authors there's a fair case to be made that directing them towards Mists of Avalon would be extremely counterproductive. It's been too long since I read the thing for me to chime in on whether it's really a good book or not, but it certainly didn't endear itself to me as a teenager and I am not a person who has ever cared about an author's gender. Related: Has anyone else here read Martha Wells' stuff? I really, really enjoyed The Death of the Necromancer, but that was like a decade ago and I've never seen anyone else mention her name. It doesn't really fit into the mystery genre, but it's a lot closer to that than it is typical fantasy. I'm almost tempted to call it a sort of proto-Locke Lamora although I worry about overselling it - still, I think more people should read it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
I've been reading fantasy for the last little while, but I really feel like getting immersed in some sci-fi again and am looking for recommendations. To be more specific, I'm looking for some recommendations where bio/organic/living ships (sentient or not) play a major role. The Leviathan race from Farscape, Wraith hive ships from Stargate and Tin Man from Star Trek are examples from Television, but I don't think I've ever read anything where they are a major theme. I'm sure they've been mentioned in stuff I've read before, but I'm looking for something where they really explore the concept and maybe go into the "mechanical" detail of it all. Does anything like this exist? Or I suppose more importantly, does anything like this exist that is worth reading?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
Xik posted:I've been reading fantasy for the last little while, but I really feel like getting immersed in some sci-fi again and am looking for recommendations. To be more specific, I'm looking for some recommendations where bio/organic/living ships (sentient or not) play a major role. Iain Banks is the go-to author for living ships and it is the whole basis for his Culture series. Neal Asher, does a more violent twist of Banks universe and adds horrible and fascinating ecosystems. The Reality Dysfunction series by Hamilton features Living space ships, space opera, action and really bad sex. Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's the thing though; most fantasy fiction (heck, even most fantasy fiction by female authors) uses very, very male-centric narratives most of the time, and that's what most readers are used to reading. Mists of Avalon isn't, it's very different, and like it or not, the reality is that that's going to throw some readers. I can't recall Mists of Avalon being that different from other fantasy and the whole thing about it being aimed at women totally passed me by. I would recommend anyone to read it, since it was enjoayble, where my main criticism is the length and the ending. Also, why don't we ever call out Mieville for being a communist/socialist that still believes in the revolution?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Mieville's politics being baked into his work is at least mentioned any time he comes up. Also the fact that he is a sexy, sexy man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Xik posted:I've been reading fantasy for the last little while, but I really feel like getting immersed in some sci-fi again and am looking for recommendations. To be more specific, I'm looking for some recommendations where bio/organic/living ships (sentient or not) play a major role. It's a short story, but Boojum might be up your alley. I certainly enjoyed it. It's got a pulpy plot (the main characters are space pirates), but it's well-written. It also meets your criteria of exploring the mechanics of biological ships, and it's got a bit to say about the relationship between ship and crew.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Speaking of MZB, I've just been rereading some of her Darkover books. Two To Conquer is pretty fun, the main character is practically the hero of most fantasy books. Strong dude, courageous, a clever guy. But also a rampant misogynist, who basically uses telepathy to rape chicks. Eventually, a lesson is learned! Still, a good read, if you like cheesy 80s era fantasy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 10:39
|
|
