The Children of Men by P. D. James

Title: The Children of Men

Author: P. D. James

Publisher: Knopf (1992)

le0pard13 and I had such a good time with our last joint posts that we decided to take on another book that was adapted for the big screen. I'll be giving you the skinny on the book again and you can click on over here for Michael's Children of Men Film/Disc Review.

In The Children of Men no babies have been born since 1995. The year is 2021 and our narrator is Theo, Oxford professor and cousin of the Warden of England, who has decided to keep a journal. James alternates between Theo's first person accounts in his journal and third person perspectives of the story as a whole. In the midst of a deteriorating society, Theo is moderately successful at maintaining a sense of well-being. He lives a deliberately solitary life but an "intriguing" young woman seeks him out for help (I put intriguing in quotes because Theo is very intrigued by her but, even after finishing the book, I'm still not real clear as to why). She hopes he will carry a message from her group, the Five Fishes, to his cousin. The Warden of England is basically a dictator with a committee of advisers. Theo was at one time an adviser to the Warden but he felt his role was ineffectual and left the post 2 years before this story begins.

I think one of the most appealing aspects of this story is that it's set during the crisis. There are lots of stories that end when great changes have been initiated or that pick up after traumatic events - and so we watch the recovery - but in this story we are there as it's happening. The crazy behaviors, hopelessness, despair, etc is all on-going. Do you give up? Do you try to carry on? Is there any point in maintaining moral and ethical codes? How would you behave if the youngest person alive was 26? btw, this aspect is almost all the book and movie have in common. For the most part, the basic story is the same but the action and narrative are very different.

I first read this book back in 2007 after seeing the movie adaptation in the theatre. I loved the movie (and continue to watch it on a regular basis and actually have it playing right now) and was pretty excited to read the book. Well that didn't work out so well as I don't think I even bothered to finish it. So here I find myself giving it another try. I did finish it this time but I still don't think I like it much. The second half is far better than the first so if you should decide to pick this one up it does get better as it goes along.

Alright, let me start with a few reasons why I didn't like it and then go over the good bits. First off, Theo is not very sympathetic. I don't simply mean that he's a bad person (though I think he is) but that he never engaged my interest in any real way. Also, the story is extremely heavy-handed. This, I think, is in direct contrast to the film. As with the last joint post I'm going to save most of my movie comments for lp13's post but this point I will bring up: The movie creates a wonderfully authentic environment that is completely submersivying (new word?) while the book essentially details the environment. There's only the barest attempt for it to reveal itself naturally as the story progresses. It's just paragraph after paragraph listing for me what this world is like. Ugh! Next, in his diary entries, Theo is constantly "wondering now" if this (insert new interpretation) is what was really going on when he's detailing some past event or situation. Was he on stupid pills for the first ~50 years of his life? It becomes clear as the story progresses that he no longer wishes to be quite so solitary so I would buy that he's going through a period of reanalyzing his life but for fuck's sake can he do anything other than "wonder now?" And then, while this didn't necessarily bother me, it was really odd that all sexual overtones (or lack thereof) were detailed for all relationships. I noticed it not only for its frequency but for its lack of relevance. Strange. I was, however, quite bothered by a scene where Theo learns from his cousin (with whom he spent many summers growing up) that his uncle was gay when his response was, "Your father never made any approach to me." What the shit is that? I told you the guy wasn't all that nice. Why would anyone say this? Did he think it was odd that his aunt didn't approach him? She was heterosexual. Theo was a minor and a relative. Why on earth would he be approached? (Cousin Xan sort of misses the point I would have made but says very pointedly, "What an egotist you are.") Ok, last thing and, fair warning, it's the scientist in me that was annoyed at this. There've been no babies born because all males have become sterile. And, somehow, all the sperm in the sperm banks has gone kaput. Like they all have the same expiration date? Come on! Bad call to make this a mysterious happening. I prefer random events used to set up a story to occur off-screen without poorly presented excuses.

Ok, cool stuff: This really is a very cool scenario. Very thought-provoking. The fact that I'd rather have sat around with pals chatting about it for an evening is really neither here nor there so let's stick with the book. Right near the beginning (p. 9 of the hardback I read) the most interesting part of the scenario (to me) is laid out: how do you respond? Can you continue on blithely going about your hobbies and such or do you sink into lassitude at the pointlessness of life? Do you maintain codes of behavior or simply indulge any whim until the end? I think the question is interesting no matter what but I think it may be that I am part of a select group that can really see the irony (or perhaps horror?) in a countdown to the end of time. I am childless by choice and have never really thought there's much purpose to life. Of course this has never depressed me, life is interesting enough without any point. BUT! Oh but! If its pointlessness was billboard huge around every corner then how would I feel? I certainly don't want children but what if there were no children at all? So what that I don't see any greater point to life? I sure do like it, what if there were to be no new life? Whoa! How do you respond? At one point Theo thinks:

If there had been no Omega [youngest generation], these were aims which a man might be prepared to fight for, even to suffer for. But if there had been no Omega, the evils would not exist. It was reasonable to struggle, to suffer, perhaps even to die, for a more just, a more compassionate society, but not in a world with no future where, all to soon, the very words "justice," compassion," "society," "struggle," "evil," would be unheard echoes on an empty air.

We should be just because it is the right thing to do but do we lose that desire to fight for the right things when a better future, any future, is impossible?

There's a very interesting theme that recurs throughout a greater part of the book. The world is falling apart due to lack of fertility yet Theo is constantly remembering how cold his relationship was with his parents. They had no real interest in him nor he in they. It's like this small reminder that we have the liberty to reject fertility due to its very existence but once it's gone liberties are thin on the ground. Personal liberty and the rights that should be preserved in a dying culture are a constant theme in the book. Also, Theo hangs out in museums a lot which amuses me as it reflects what the world in general has become. I think it matches Theo's attitude of ironic objectivity that makes his observations fairly interesting most of the time.

The Warden of England ends up being a pretty interesting character. You see him almost exclusively through Theo's eyes so I assume the view is slightly skewed but the Warden is yet another angle of response. He's mostly a tyrant and has convinced himself that he's doing it all for the greater good. But many of the programs he's instituted are total shit. It's weird, if everything truly is hopeless then why not do the right thing? At this point, what is really to be gained via cruelty and exploitation? But, of course, in the highs and the lows we are still only human and if I could only say one thing regarding what I took away from this book it would be:

Even with no hope of survival, continuity of life, or bettering your situation we still think of ourselves first.

Is it a reflection of personal naivety that I would think when there's nothing left to lose you may as well be nice?

Like I mentioned above it's the latter half of the book that is the most interesting but I want to prevent spoilers so I'll just mention two things, highlight if interested. It was the sperm that was the problem so why were they so protective of the baby-to-be but not the carrier of the good sperm? Seriously! Nobody seemed to care that he died. And, totally awesome to end with Theo taking Xan's ring! Holy shit! He's such a baddie that I can totally see him doing the wrong thing rather than the right and starting Xan's crap cycle all over. Julian (of dubiously intriguing fame) didn't strike me as a particularly strong personality so I don't see her keeping Theo in line. Interesting stuff.



All in all I'd say you get the best of it by watching the movie. You still get the really interesting scenario, an excellent couple hours spent, and plenty of time after to chat with your friends about the fallout from worldwide sterility.


Don't forget to head over to Lazy Thoughts From a Boomer for the movie review.


rating: 2 of 5 stars


Click here for an index of the joint post series

The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett

Title: The Maltese Falcon

Author: Dashiell Hammett

Publisher: Knopf (1929)

It very well could be that I had a "This Is Spinal Tap" experience with Hammett's The Maltese Falcon. After a couple Behind the Music marathons the brilliance of This is Spinal Tap is slightly overshadowed by the real thing. Of course I laughed and enjoyed it (seriously, how can you not laugh at the tiny bread? don't remember the tiny bread? click here) but I obviously didn't see it at the right time. We've all experienced this, right? You were so excited but then it turns out you saw/read something after the hype/right age has completely passed you by? Well, anyway, this might be the case with me and this book. But how about a synopsis first...

San Francisco PI, Sam Spade, is hired by Brigid O'Shaughnessy to help reunite her with her sister. Brigid is pretty sure her sister is kickin' it with a bad man and she'd like help getting her sister away from him. This is all lies, of course, and after the death of his partner Spade becomes embroiled in recovering a stolen statue (see title). Just who stole the statue and who is its rightful owner depends entirely on who is telling the story.

I have to say right up front that my favorite thing about this book was that it was in the 3rd person. My little heart just pitter pattered with love and appreciation when I saw that. It's not that I mind 1st person so much but that my recent readings (esp of the mystery/crime thriller variety) have mostly been 1st person and I was getting sick of that perspective. So huzzah and hooray for a different perspective whilst solving a mystery. Also of note is that I felt the book had no rhythm. This might seem an odd statement but as a speed reader I'm extremely sensitive to rhythm in books. No rhythm = very difficult to speed read. What I can't say for sure is whether I need the rhythm to fit my brain or if books simply have natural rhythms that I pick up on. It may be a little of both, though, because often enough I come by books (most recently Mrs. Dalloway (Woolf) and The Mystic Arts of Erasing All Signs of Death (Huston)) that take me 3-4 chapters to find their rhythm. Only after I've found it am I able to speed read (note: I don't always speed read but I'm irrationally put out if the option is taken away:). Anyway, noticing this rhythm thing got me to thinking about what exactly might remove rhythm from a book and my best guess for this book is that it was due to the odd way in which Hammett described action.

Hammett doesn't exactly take short cuts when describing action. In fact, I'm hard pressed to recall if the word "punch" was ever used though certainly several punches were thrown. He has a very distinct style in that he takes you practically step-by-step through the action. A condensed example:

Spade pushed Cairo gently aside and drove his left fist against the boy's chin. The boy's head snapped back as far as it could while his arms were held, and then came forward...Spade drove his right fist against the boy's chin. Cairo dropped the boy's arm, letting him collapse against Gutman's great round belly. Cairo sprang at Spade, clawing at his face with the curved stiff fingers of both hands. Spade blew his breath out and pushed the Levantine away...Spade stopped him with both palms held out on long rigid arms against his face.

There's nothing at all wrong with the style but much of the info listed I can perfectly imagine on my own and, frankly, would assume... heads snapping when punched, stiff fingers when scratching, it would obviously take rigid arms to stop someone in that way, etc. Again, nothing wrong with it it's just that, for me, it resulted in a lack of rhythm. And also, it gave the action a stop-motion quality. Since each step was detailed my brain imagined everything happening much slower than it would in reality.

I liked the twists and turns of the plot but felt it was a tad bogged down in the info-dumping dialogue used to explain it. Also [spoilerish: highlight if interested], why the fuck did Effie and Sam trust Brigid even a little bit. I spent the whole book just waiting for her crumbumness to become known. My favorite character was probably Gutman because he made me laugh and was surprisingly pragmatic. Speaking of characters/characterization I especially liked how it was established that Spade has no idea how to relate to women in a non-sexual manner. I preferred that to many of my experiences with leading men who inevitably end up in the sack with the leading lady (or ladies, or supporting ladies, too) because it was more to do with his social adjustment (or lack thereof depending on perspective) than Leading Man Sees Leading Lady, Must Humpty Hump Right Damn Now. I will refrain from any other gender relation explorations as poss is unfair to judge a book that is ~80 years old in this manner.

From these comments are you totally getting my whole "This Is Spinal Tap" experience thing?

I liked the book well enough though not so much that I will run right out and get more Hammett or even recommend him to anyone. I am interested in The Thin Man though so will probably look out for it sometime in the future. But again, no rushing from me.

There are a lot of great lines in the book and I'm going to leave you with my two faves:

Gutman: "...but we were talking then. This is actual money, genuine coin of the realm, sir. With a dollar of this you can buy more than with ten dollars of talk."

Spade: "That's the trick, from my side," he said, "to make my play strong enough that it ties you up, but yet not make you mad enough to bump me off against your better judgment."

rating: 3 of 5 stars

The Ones We Love

The words of William Sloane Coffin, whose son Alex died at age 24 in a car crash.

Tired of hearing well-meaning friends say, “It is the will of God,” he responded with this: “My own consolation lies in knowing that it was not the will of God that Alex die. That when the waves closed over the sinking car, God’s heart was the first to break."


I posted this quote about a year ago. It didn't occur to me then to wonder: how do people go on when even god's heart is breaking.


Peace be with you, and with my family.

The Business of Genres, or Thoughts on Indicating OTHER.

Apprentice Writer brought up an interesting point in one of her May posts - see numbers 1-4 under "Overall." (You remember AW, right? Reviewer of humorous fiction, blogger extraordinaire, forgiver of this American's disinterest in hockey?) It was one of those subjects that pushes my buttons big time and so I thought I'd say a few words about it (ok, probably more than a few). And I'd certainly be interested in other readers' thoughts because maybe I'm blowing things out of proportion.

When you've got to decide where a book belongs in the stacks you usually start with genre. My third edition of The American Heritage College Dictionary (and yes, I do still pull it out even when online) defines genre as: A type or class. I, for one, like genre as it gives me some idea of what to expect in a book.

Let's start with big picture genre:

Classic literature
Modern literature
Popular fiction
Non-fiction

Now let's get a little more specific:

Science Fiction
Fantasy
Mystery
Romance
Instructional
Memoir
Biography
Current Events
History
Art
Young Adult
Childrens
Business
Cooking
Historical Fiction


You'll notice that everything listed so far reflects in some way on the tone and/or content of the book. This is very useful information for a reader looking for something that falls within their interests.

Now let's explore those buttons I mentioned. Here are some other commonly used labels:

[Race/Ethnicity] American
Women's fiction
Chicklit
LGBTQ


Those four tell me fuck-all about the book I am going to read. But rather than go into that I'm going explain what really burns me up: these are an indication of OTHER which presumes a DEFAULT. In this case the default becomes WHITE HETEROSEXUAL MALE. Have you seen a Whitey McWhiterson section? A straight section? How about men's fiction? Where can I find that? The not-so-subtle message that I receive from this is that we can all relate to the white heterosexual male books but these OTHERS are for, and will almost exclusively appeal, only to the OTHERS. Bull, and might I add, shit!

I'm an avid reader. I read practically everything. I'm looking for a good story that's well-written with authentic characters. PERIOD. I also happen to be a white, heterosexual, female reader and I feel that a mere accident of birth should not be looked upon by an entire industry as an excuse to pigeonhole me. Far worse than this though, are the authors that end up pigeonholed because of assumptions regarding their potential audience.


And since I'm calling the publishing industry to task I feel it's only fair to point the finger back at me. I volunteer with my county's adult literacy program and one of my colleagues was very helpful in reminding me that I have my own prejudices to overcome. Age-wise he is almost old enough to be my grandfather, also he was born and raised in Mexico which has, I think, a male default mentality like the US (and many other countries though I would be happy to be corrected), and so when we started chatting about movies and he was trying to remember the title of a recent movie he liked I was surprised (unfairly, I see now) to realize that he was describing The Proposal. He then proceeded to list about three or four other recent rom-coms. I asked him why he enjoyed them so much and he said he really likes stories about interpersonal relationships. He likes to see how families, friends, and significant others work out their differences. So the kicker here (besides the fact that I obviously need to work on my assumptions as much as the publishing industry does) is that while I don't read much of what is found under the so-called women's fiction/chicklit labels, my male colleague would very much enjoy these stories.

So you tell me, is it wise to purposely alienate potential audiences? And also, what do you think about this? Does it get your hackles up, too, or do you like these labels because they tell you right where to go in the stacks?

Ride Along

I submitted a request to do a Ride Along with my local PD. Please let me share my favorite bits from the waiver I had to sign (emphasis mine).

"...in any way related to or connected with my participation in this activity, including specifically, but not limited to, the negligent acts or omissions of the [City] Police Department, its agents or employees..."

So no matter how badly they fuck up I happily release them of any responsibility.

"If a dangerous situation arises, i.e., gunfire, fights, fire, etc., do not attempt to assist the officer. Instead, get away quickly, and call the Police Department and explain what happened."

Well, poo! There go my visions of grandeur!

If my request is accepted I'll be sure to report back on all the fun that is riding around in a patrol car.

Friday's Child by Georgette Heyer

Title: Friday's Child
Author: Georgette Heyer
Publisher: G.P. Putnam's Sons (1946)

Huzzah! Found another Heyer romance at the library this week; what luck. So while I watch Mil at Fla (Cubs are in rain delay) I'm gonna share a bit. I think Friday's Child was even funnier than The Grand Sophy BUT I also think you need to have some familiarity with Regency England to really enjoy the book. Anywho, Lord Sheringham, or Sherry, is ready for his inheritance and he won't get it until he's 25 or married. Married can be accomplished more quickly than 25 so he decides to propose to his lifelong friend and acknowledged darling of the season. Unfortunately for him, she's got other plans so he leaves her house in a huff determined to propose to the next woman he sees. This turns out to be Hero (shit you not, Hero!) Wantage, another old friend. I'd like to say he whisked her away to a romantic wedding in London but it's more accurate to say he decided she'd always gone along with his schemes in the past and so he convinced her to snuggle down in his gig and go with him.

I'll admit, I didn't immediately get into this story. At first, I was like, what the hell kind of weirdass romance is this? Then I got it, got into it and, while I still think it's a bit of a weirdass romance, it's great. In addition to the slow start, I think it's too long. (I realize I say this a lot and maybe I'm more in to brevity than most but I think so many books could be improved with the removal of a few pages.) But those are small quibbles and the story is so dang funny I don't even care. It's really a comedy of manners because Hero has no idea how to get on in "good society" when she's in London. But there's a new twist on this in that Sherry, her only mentor in this, is having his own problems sorting out proper behavior and watching these two young people stumble along until they get to the right decisions makes for some hilarious situations.

I think my absolute favorite bit is how Sherry and his friends turn Hero into another one of their bachelor pals. Sherry has two very good friends who immediately befriend Hero as well. Actually, I also quite like the true friendship displayed between everyone. They're not perfect friends, and one of them is extremely presumptuous at times, but they are true friends who care for each other and want the best for each other. Absolutely wonderful examples of friendship. But anyway, where was I? Ah yes, the friends adopt Hero easily and she pretty much spends all of her time hanging out with three single guys. I say three because Sherry, though extremely protective of Hero, has pretty much taken her in as a roommate and for most of the book doesn't seem to understand she's a woman much less his wife.

So here we have four friends with sizable incomes and nothing but time on their hands. I think you can see the innumerable roads to mischief available to them. Couple this with the ridiculous social mores of the time and there is so much funny waiting to happen.

As an example of one of the many funny scenes here are our two hapless protags having a fight after Hero very innocently pointed out Sherry's "fancy-piece" at the opera. (quote condensed)

Sherry: ..."No doubt you asked him if he had an opera-dancer too!"
"Yes, and he said--"
"What?" thundered the Viscount.
"He said he had not," ended Hero simply.
The Viscount appeared to have some difficulty in getting his breath. "Hero!" he uttered at last. "Have you no sense of propriety?"

But in the midst of all the crazy feaux pas and funny moments there's a very sweet love story unfolding that kept me turning pages as much as anything else. And it was so worth it because one of the funniest scenes of all is on the very last page.

rating: 4 of 5 stars

Scientists in the News

The highly unfortunate circumstances in the Gulf of Mexico have resulted in lots of scientists being interviewed in the news.

side note - the above statement is quite an understatement and as someone who was not only born in south Louisiana but who also loves the beautiful environment and lovely people my heart goes out to everyone affected by the spill. Sometimes the price of modern technology and convenience is very high indeed.


And I just love listening to scientists being interviewed. You see, scientists are people very focused on the accurate representation of facts using appropriate words to convey a meaning. How this often plays out in the news is that you have an interviewer asking what is usually a loaded or slightly inflammatory question, then the scientist has to re-word the question before she's even willing to answer it. It totally cracks me up. A scientist just can't deal with questions that already imply an answer or misspeak the current situation. Good interviewers realize this right away and adjust but the bad ones just go on looking bad.

It's sort of sad that this happens at all as I would think journalists would also be "very focused on the accurate representation of facts using appropriate words to convey a meaning" but that just doesn't seem to be the case nowadays. *sigh*

More Fun With Duets

The other day I saw the trailer for a movie that is adapted from an author that makes the bile rise in my throat just thinking of the inevitable trite. Ugh! I was quickly filing it into the back of my brain for immediate disposal but then I heard one of my absolute favorite duets EVER playing! Ack! This wonderful song is so under the radar and that's how it's getting some play time? *sigh*

Anyway, as consolation here's another duet I like:

Stalking the Angel by Robert Crais

Title: Stalking the Angel

Author: Robert Crais

Publisher: Bantam (1989)

Well, it's official. I've hit the end of Crais's Cole/Pike backlist. On the one hand, it's always depressing when you get caught up on a new author and then have to wait around for the next installment (though it does help you feel closer to the author's long-time fans:), but then sometimes you get lucky and the last one you read ends up being one of your favorites so you feel like you went out on a high note. And that's the case for me with Stalking the Angel. I really liked it - despite the fact that I suspect Starkey was its previous owner. There's a distinctive odor wafting from the binding... Anyway...

Elvis Cole, World's Greatest Detective (payment optional), is hired by a real jizzwad named Bradley Warren. Warren was in possession of a rare Japanese book that was stolen from his property. He'd like Cole to find it. Well, actually, he'd probably like to tell Cole to go to hell but his assistant, Jillian Becker, convinces him to hire Cole. Cole begins his search by looking for the type of people that might be potential buyers for this type of loot. The situation becomes complicated when the Warrens, who it turns out are a pack of loonies, receive some threatening phone calls. Joe Pike, I'd as Soon Kill Ya as Look at Ya, is called in to assist on the protection front. Cue action!

My main beef with the book is a flaw I feel most of the early books in the series exhibit: Cole is tough and not to be bullied and the reader Shall Know and Understand This RIGHT FUCKING NOW! Cole is a great character and he's easy to figure out. The action makes the above description nearly impossible to miss so why must I be absolutely bombarded with this info in the first few pages? I'd prefer for these traits to make themselves known over the course of the investigation rather than be beaten over the head with them. My other tidbit of annoyance is the uncreative parents. Daddy Warren is an ambitious asshole who ignores his family, Mommy Warren feels neglected and useless and so acts like a non-neutered puppy anytime new man meat comes into her life. They work within the story but aren't exactly original in their construct.

What I really love about this book is the misperceptions and wrong impressions. I'm not suspicious by nature and I'm downright gullible in fiction. I'm happy to buy right into whatever the protagonist is thinking or doing (provided it's not stupid, I might be happily naive in fiction but I'm usually annoyed by idiocy) and I'll view the the story and characters through that lens. Due to this, if the protag(s) misunderstands something I usually do as well. In Stalking the Angel Cole's understanding of the players involved changes constantly. The best part is that there isn't complete resolution either. When the book is over the truth about everyone's motives isn't laid out. It's left to the reader to decide what was really going on. I like that a lot. My favorite books are the ones I want to re-read immediately so as to determine just what the characters might have been thinking through the book and how that led to the conclusion. Basically, I like an author that gives me some work to do. A story is more fun if my interpretation is required.

I thought the book was pretty dark in tone. You get your Cole jokes and whatnot but, for the most part, a lot of dark themes are explored and that's probably why the resolution is so ambiguous. Unlike the later books in the series the reflection on said themes is external. As in, Cole's not thinking about his own dark tendencies but observing the psychoses of those around him. Cole is deeply empathetic so he's a good character to use for exploring general human actions and motives.

As an aside to the main action Becker's character brings up a really interesting issue. As a boss, Mr. Warren appears to be pretty admirable. Arrogant and demanding, yes, but ostensibly fair. Becker has a high regard for his even-handedness in business matters. The events of the book bring her into the more personal side of Mr. Warren's life and she struggles to reconcile the two personas. This I like. It's an issue I think many people can relate to. I've often met someone in a certain capacity and because of that experience developed an impression and respect for them. Then, for whatever reason, there's a shift and I begin to know this same person in a different capacity and I'm horrified at who they now seem to be. Very interesting stuff and I thought it appropriate that the theme came up in a book rife with confusing first impressions.

So now here I am saying bye, bye to a thoroughly enjoyable backlist and already waiting anxiously for the next installment. If you haven't read this Cole novel yet I think it's a great one to put on the TBR pile! I'm just off to put my copy back by the open window and hope the ciggy smell eventually departs...


rating: 4 of 5 stars

Gates of Fire by Stephen Pressfield

Gates of Fire recounts the famous Battle of Thermopylae. Thermopylae was the only access point to Greece for the invading Persian army in 480BC. Its geographic location was key: it was a bottleneck for the invading army with a sheer mountain on one side and a cliff on the other. The vastly outnumbered Greek army was led by 300 Spartans and it was their skillful fighting that held the Persians at bay while the Greek army fell back, regrouped and eventually defended their homeland.

The book is told from the perspective of the one Greek survivor of the Battle, a Spartan helot. He is captured after the battle and saved by Xerxes I, leader of the Persian Empire. The survivor recounts the details of Spartan life, battle techniques, and what happened leading up to and during the Battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans, as you may recall, invented the term ‘hard core.’ You definitely see it in this book. One aspect I found fascinating was the description of wounds and the treatment thereof. At one point someone’s scalp is sliding off! No worries though, he was definitely hard core so he slid it back into place and got on with business.

Another memorable part of the book for me was learning about the helots and how they were used in battle. Sometimes the importance of supply lines and well-kept equipment completely escapes my brain when I'm reading this type of thing and the helots really brought that home for me. And on another note, it reminded me of those poor bastards in the third Matrix movie that had to wheel a buggy of ammo out to the super cool manned-gun-shooting-machines (machines to fight machines, ah, irony! btw, do those things have an official name?). However, unlike in the The Matrix Revolutions there actually was a point to having a supply guy on the front lines.*

Gates of Fire is very well-crafted and the story well-told. I was engaged throughout and I also felt like the author did his best to represent a true account of the battle. Yes, it's written in the style of a novel but the author gained my trust in his representation. In fact, it's been a few years since I first read the book but my first thought way back when was, I need to read some more Pressfield immediately. I have no idea why but I still haven't read any of his other books. Any Pressfield fans want to suggest another title for me?


And while we're here, 300 is the name of a graphic novel by Frank Miller (not to be confused with Frank Miller) depicting these events. A movie was also made from the graphic novel. I haven’t read the graphic novel or seen the movie. Should I?

rating: 4 of 5 stars






*Every time I see those ammo toting guys in The Matrix Revolutions I get so irritable. Besides the fact that those stupid buggies would never get anywhere due to spent shells and all the unexplained paraphernalia lying about (they are be-wheeled after all and you would have to lift them over all that shit), this is clearly a time of technical innovation. No one could come up with the very simple idea of conveyor belts underneath the platform where the super cool manned-gun-shooting-machines are located? That platform was thick, plenty of room for automated ammo delivery. Did we love that skinny kid so much that he needed a crazy macho moment of getting in the super cool manned-gun-shooting-machines after having dying words with the captain? Maybe, but it still could have been better. That plot hole just drives me nuts. When I am freed from the matrix (though in truth why the crap would I want to be? it’s awesome in here and I get to watch movies like The Matrix) and defending Zion from squid machines that function without water, I will use super cool AUTOMATED-gun-shooting-machines

The Minority Report by Philip K. Dick

Title: The Minority Report and Other Classic Stories

Author: Philip K. Dick

Publisher: Kensington Publishing Corp. (1987)

Note: This short story was originally published in Fantastic Universe, Jan 1956

I think it's been about ten years since I first read The Minority Report and I was happy to re-visit it this week. Why the re-visit you ask? Well, I was hanging out over at Lazy Thoughts From a Boomer and saw that the fantabulously generous Michael, sometimes known as leOpard13, was going to watch the movie. I very politely asked begged, with little regard to my personal dignity, that he be so kind as to post his thoughts because I love his review style, and so that we could discuss the awesomeness of the movie. He took my request to the next level suggesting a joint review with me doing the story. I was happy to comply as I'm a big fan of the movie and the short even if they are vastly different. I'll start with a review of the short story and then a few thoughts as compared to the movie. However, I'll probably save most of my movie thoughts for lp13's movie review post.

Click here for Minority Report Film/Disc Review at Lazy Thoughts From a Boomer.

Feel free to comment there or here or both regarding movie and short story thoughts.

Please note that both posts contain spoilers.


John Anderton is the Commissioner of Police and the creator of Precrime, a 30 year old division of the police force that can predict crimes using precogs and detain the predicted perpetrators before they commit crimes. Anderton is showing the facility to his new assistant and eventual successor, Witwer - to whom he has taken an immediate dislike - when the mutant precogs predict that Anderton will kill a man he doesn't know in less than a week. It's a system he's created and used for 30 years to put predicted criminals away but he's convinced there's a mistake; he suspects a conspiracy within the police force. Witwer and Anderton's wife, a high ranking Precrime executive and police officer, are his immediate suspects. He's got about 24hrs before the Army will notice the prediction (they get all the precog data in a checks and balances type of deal) and he plans to run, as far as an off-world colony if that's what it takes.

So, where to begin? How 'bout with the precogs? They are referred to as "mutant precogs," or babbling idiots, but it's not clear whether the mutation is the result of experimentation or nature. Regardless, the mutants are cultivated for their predictive abilities. They are extremely deformed (large heads, under-developed bodies) and not at all aware of the present. They work in a team of three, each one constantly "gibbering" predictions which are fed into machines that then analyze and integrate the predictions. The predictions, referring to about 1-2 weeks into the future, are then printed on cards and analyzed by Precrime.

Anderton's a hard nut to crack. It's pretty obvious why he would be immediately suspicious of Witwer, Witwer is ambitious and wants Anderton's job, but, holy fuck! This guy turned on his wife so fast I had to read the section over again to make sure I didn't misunderstand. As near as I can tell this is because Witwer admires the wife (in classic scifi style she's attractive and Anderton is obviously much less attractive than his movie counterpart even if you don't think Tom Cruise is all that attractive) and the wife congenially speaks with Witwer and invites her husband's new assistant to have dinner with them. My gosh, woman! The nerve! You are clearly a traitor! What actually is interesting about Anderton and his wife is that they have a serious philosophical disagreement and yet they still remain together at the end. After the way they treated each other at the crisis moment I would never have guessed they would remain together but their disagreement is so divisive that I would think it alone would prevent their staying together. However, their disagreement is what I find most intriguing about the story.

When Anderton still believes there is a conspiracy he wants to check the individual reports of the precogs. Almost every predicted crime has a minority report. Two of the three reports need to match in order to create a card with crime details. The minority report usually differs in time or location so this is ignored in lieu of the synched reports. If Anderton can get to the individual reports he can prove a conspiratorial plant. In checking these it becomes clear that he is not going to commit the crime. He wants to publicize this information as it must mean that innocent people have been detained and thus the system is flawed. His wife believes a few mistakes are worth the greater good of Precrime. Let's just say that the insults and violence traded here are enough to strain the best of relationships but they clearly didn't have that good of a relationship and they disagree on a vital philosophy - how can these two remain together? I'd love to hear some theories on this but for now that's not what I want to focus on. Instead... 

Are a few mistakes worth the value of Precrime? 

Let's keep in mind that, in this case, "mistake" means the life detainment of innocents. Also, there's not only the lives of innocents to consider in this set-up but the precogs themselves. They are human, after all, but their deformities have rendered them so inhuman to those in the story that they are completely disregarded as having any rights as humans. Let's also keep in mind that there hasn't been a murder in 5 years (and that was due to human error) because of Precrime. Not to mention all the other types of crimes that have been prevented. For me, this is the most interesting thing about the story: is it acceptable to sacrifice a few for the many? If you're thinking that the story might give some sort of answer then I should warn you that it does not. The truth about the reports neatly sidesteps the issue. 

Craft-wise the story isn't exactly superior. I've always been more attracted to PKD's ideas than his style. The dialogue is challenging to wade through and there are moments I'm actually offended by some of the stuff he writes. Also, he isn't exactly one of those scifi writers that tries to adhere to believability in his science. I won't even attempt to analyze it because I don't think he ever did. Sometimes logic goes completely out the window, as well. There's a section in The Minority Report that makes a really interesting point as to why precogs can work at all but that really interesting point completely negates the resolution of the story. I wonder if Anderton ever noticed the contradiction in his own system?

So how well did this translate to a movie? Excellently, if I do say so myself (and I do!). Other than using a few of the same names I would say the only way in which the movie is similar is that it also presents the question: Are a few mistakes worth the value of Precrime? And unlike the short, the movie definitely has an answer for this. The religious tones cleverly identified by Michael are a product of the movie makers and have no equivalent in the short story. The short story is really more about one man trying to survive one of the biggest challenges he's ever experienced at his job.

What both do equally well is world building. I believe that each of the worlds exists and that I might live there (well, except for the computer punch cards in the short story:). That is one of my absolute requirements in scifi. I have to believe the human element can exist within the world before I can get on board with the rest of it.

Let me leave you with my favorite quotes:
Short story -

The existence of a majority logically implies a corresponding minority.

Movie -

Everybody runs.

Actually, I think you'll have to run but that's the idea.

Your thoughts?

And be sure to check out the film review - here's the relevant link again.


(Michael, many thanks for suggesting this. Children of Men next? I hope, I hope:)


Click here for an index of the joint post series

Great Interview with N.K. Jemisin!

I recently read and loved (and said a few words about) The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by N.K. Jemisin. If you haven't had a chance to read the book yet you might be interested in this awesome interview with Ms. Jemisin. I thought the questions were particularly good leading to some very thoughtful answers. I especially liked the details regarding literature/genre expectations and how they can change reader response. The interview is chock full of good stuff but I was particularly struck by this passage:

For example, typical epic fantasy features almost exclusively male protagonists, and female characters who are objectified and lack agency (among many other problems).  In these fantasies it’s common for the kind of sex that’s part of normal, everyday life—healthy, consensual sex between grownups who know what they want and ask for it, in other words—to take place offscreen or by implication only ("fade to black").  Readers just don’t get to see that much, probably because of that girl cooties phenomenon I mentioned earlier.  But sex that’s used as a cheap way to define or create conflict for the male protagonists—e.g., rapes that show just how eeeeeevil a villain is, or motivate the hero to act; women who tempt the hero with their “wiles” as a distraction—gets shown much more often.  The result of this pattern is that a lot of epic fantasy readers have gotten used to seeing sex only under totally pathological circumstances.  =) So when they see *normal* sex, it seems gratuitous. Often they’ll declare that it “has no purpose”—i.e., it doesn’t fit the pattern of male-fantasy melodrama that they’re used to.  At that point it doesn’t matter how well the scene is written, or whether it fits the character, or whatever; they’ll dismiss it as crap regardless.

 

Lord of Scoundrels by Loretta Chase

Title: Lord of Scoundrels

Author: Loretta Chase

Publisher: Avon (1995)

Lord of Scoundrels by Loretta Chase is set in early 19th Century England (with sojourns to Paris) and follows the indefatigable Jessica Trent as she tries to figure out the incorrigible Lord Dain. Jessica Trent, a genteel, unmarried young lady, goes to Paris to fetch her dim-witted brother before he entirely squanders the small family fortune. While in Paris she encounters Lord Dain, notorious (and rich!) shunner of society and first-class debaucher. Through a series of delightful and sexually charged events, she and Dain marry before they even know if they like each other. We can rest easy in this as it's a romance so we already know their fate but, also, while Chase doesn’t knock the reader over the head, it’s still pretty clear that these two can only be meant for each other because probably no one else could stand to live with them for long. They have very strong personalities.

This book is a lot of fun to read. The dialogue is great and the unexpected responses will make you laugh out loud. Even halfway through the book when I thought I had Jessica figured out she would pop out with something that left me surprised and laughing. Dain is wonderfully delicious but I’m not overly fond of the Bad Boy Because of Bad Past hero so that aspect of his character did nothing for me. I can’t fault Chase for that, though, it’s merely disinclination on my part but she wrote it well so it was easy to get over. What I would have liked more of was Dain’s oft-described but little seen Character of Bad Repute. It may be that the reader of romance knows that the hero is never truly evil so I couldn't accept his bad character or it may have been that Jessica was so flippant about it that that was what impressed me most or perhaps my modern sensibilities aren't fine-tuned enough to historical social scandals... In any case, I like to see a bit more of the bad in the Bad Boy rather than just be told about him. Then again, maybe this is something I'll never see in romance. If the hero was truly, deep-down-inside bad then he probably wouldn't be the hero, would he?

Characterization was almost universally well-done. My point of contention was with lack of motive outside of the main characters. I felt that only two of the supporting characters were actually assigned motive. However, others of the supporting cast were a bit empty for me, entertaining but empty. I actually became really aggravated with the dim-witted brother character. That poor sop took so much crap. I realize he was a dim-wit but after a while I was like, let up, Chase, and give this guy a chance or quit putting him in scenes. It was becoming painful to watch him in action. Luckily he does completely drop out of the story right around the time you really don’t want to see any more of him.

My teensy complaints aside, I give this book a hearty recommendation. It's funny with snappy dialogue and a thoughtful plot. Jessica and Dain are loads of fun to watch interact! The pacing is excellent making it a definite page-turner. I actually think this is Chase's best book but maybe someone out there thinks she's got one that's even better. If so, please, do share!

rating: 4 of 5 stars

What sgwordy has learned from Robert Crais

(in the matter of Cole/Pike)

Conflict resolution is more fun in a shoot out (justice will probably be meted out therein)

Pinocchio clocks will attract attention but are not necessarily conversation pieces

Cops are violent, territorial, and often employ juvenile humor

Cops are smart, loyal, dedicated, and don't make much money

Crimes are rarely controlled by the plebes. They will commit them but almost always for someone in power. All the better if that someone in power is tied to a gov't agency or institution that us regular folk would like to have trust in.

Mr. Pike sure does love that jeep.

We should all be so lucky to have a friendship in our lives like that of Cole and Pike

Mr. Cole is a cutey patutey smarty pants but he can still get caught out in a cul-de-sac by amateurish tactics
That Cole.

Even though Pike participates in Conspicuous Dress (the likes of which could compete with Assassin's Creed) he can still melt into the scenery at will and never be seen (spooky)

Cole keeps a clean house and cooks some scrumptious meals (Seriously. I'd room with him in second!)

The human body can tolerate an amazing amount of gunshot wounds (though it's best for these to be spread out over time rather than experienced all at once)

The Elvis Cole Detective Agency (we can do anything (probably for free)) is as likely to receive payment as not

Cole sees B&E as a way of life but is seriously creeped out if someone B&Es his house

Pike's eyes make women shift in their seats. I have much curiosity about these eyes.


Crais fans, what have I missed? What would you add?


Regarding Starkey: I think she'd actually be a good partner for Cole because he needs someone that understands a high stress, high violence life. As a cop, she can handle that. She certainly likes him and I think he likes her, too (poss need more Lucy resolution? I might have missed a book where that gets resolved). BUT the constant descriptions of her smoking make it very hard for me to imagine her around anyone too long. My aversion to ciggy smoke is high (like higher than Pike's high) so it might be that, but I swear Crais has depicted her as a chimney with the constant stench of cigs around her. Just reading some of her scenes makes the back of my mouth taste funny. Clearly I can't handle this -- can Cole?


Favorite lines:
Can you spell 'worry?'
We're squaring off against five LAPD officers, and all we're getting paid is forty bucks?

The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by N.K. Jemisin

Title: The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms

Author: N.K. Jemisin

Publisher: Orbit (2010)

Note: I just read this book over the weekend and have already loaned it out because I loved it so much I couldn't keep it to myself. As such, this is all from memory so if my spellings, etc are not correct please forgive me.

In The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms Yeine, leader of the Darre in the North,  has been called to the city of Sky where the ruling family (of the hundred thousand kingdoms) lives. Her grandfather is king but her mother was disowned for marrying Yeine's father. For reasons that escape Yeine, the king has called her back and named her as a third heir. Now she must learn the ins and outs of palace politics if she wants to survive long enough to assume the throne over her cousins. To complicate her already difficult situation, the gods that are enslaved by the ruling family have their own political agenda for Yeine.

Holy shitballs there was so much about this book that I loved! So let me start with all that I loved and then tell you about the few quibbles I had. Firstly, I have always loved themes that involve mixed family backgrounds and seeing your family through other people's eyes. Yeine's mother was the sole, beloved heir of the Arameri family in Sky. Her father was a leader of the Darre, considered a barbaric people for several interesting reasons that I won't spoil here. The story is that they met and fell instantly in love. Yeine's mother left Sky and joined Yeine's father in Darre. Now that Yeine has been called back to the palace she must try to reconcile her Arameri background (which she is none too impressed with) with the Darre she considers herself. On top of this, she has a very specific idea of who her mother was and now she must deal with hearing things about her mother that do not track with her memories. This entire set-up works so well because the novel often explores identity, truth, self-determination, and courage. Trying to reconcile disparate family backgrounds and others' views of her mom in the midst of palace intrigue make for a nice backdrop to exploring what I listed above.

I also loved the writing style. It's in first person (it's starting to feel like that's all I've been reading lately) but it's very clearly being told as a story and there are times when our narrator is having conversations with an unknown person (poss persons?). This perspective and these conversations lend a nice mystery to what is going on. The narrator knows everything that's coming (remember, it's a story) but the style used by Jemisin keeps the suspense palpable (oooh, fancy word!) for almost the entire book. The style really worked for me but, what's more, Jemisin is a fantastic writer. Even if the style doesn't speak to everyone like it did me her talent as a writer will be enjoyable anyway. Also, her characterization is lovely. With only one exception her characters are interesting and subtle. Jemisin doesn't insist that we know everything about her characters the minute we meet them but lets us get to know them over the course of the book.

The overall story is solid but nothing that's going to blow you away. The ending is pretty predictable because, in the end, it's a very familiar narrative. But Jemisin's talent lies in her excellent use of characters within that narrative and her ability to keep a reader entirely engaged in how things are going to unfold. It's interesting to me that I come away feeling that she plots really well even if I predicted the end. Does that make sense? Journey's the thing, ya know? Also, the gods were fucking awesome! Again, Jemisin used some very classical themes with her gods (they are emotional, fond of or disgusted by humans, seductive) but their being controlled by the Arameri family makes for some sweet conflict. I don't want to spoil anything so that's all I'll say. Trust me, it's good stuff!

Ok, I could go on and on about everything I loved but I'd have to start giving things away in the story and I don't want to do that. So a couple things I didn't like: the baddest of the baddies was the least interesting character. While definitely a badass, she was boring. She was just evil. There was nothing more to her. It's mentioned a couple times that she's crazy. She certainly seemed crazy but that's kind of boring. I like my main baddies to do something more than just be evil for the plot's sake. Also, as with many stories of this length, there's a bit of drag about 3/4 of the way through. Well before this point the ending is pretty obvious (again, let me say that didn't bother me because getting there was totally rad) so if the book had been about ~50 pages shorter it would have been even tighter with that suspense being pretty much non-stop.

This book is the first of a trilogy and I think the second comes out this Fall. I can't wait! I'll be going out and getting it on release day. I love discovering a new author but it's always hard when it's a debut author, I just don't want to wait for the next book! 

rating: 4 of 5 stars

Fearless Jones by Walter Mosley

Title: Fearless Jones

Author: Walter Mosley

Publisher: Little, Brown and Company (2001)

I have to say right off that this book made me cry so my objectivity might be emotionally compromised. You might not think of a 'whodunit' book as a tear jerker but I'll explain. (This actually might be more of a 'whatthehelzgoingon' than a 'whodunit.' It's a fine line, anyway.) Right, some details. As Fearless Jones opens, Paris Minton is minding his own business - literally, he's reading in the bookshop he owns - when an attractive woman he doesn't know comes in asking about a neighborhood reverend. Shortly after she arrives a man enters the bookstore looking for her. He doesn't appreciate Paris' unhelpful answers and beats him pretty badly. This ignites a shitstorm of unpleasantness for Paris and he decides he needs the help of his friend Fearless Jones to figure out what's going on. As these two black men in 1950s Los Angeles try to figure out what's going on, and avoid further suspicion from the cops, the reader is taken along on a nicely paced ride.

I really liked the writing style and especially the dialogue. There's a real natural quality to it that makes it feel a lot like you're experiencing an actual conversation. Obviously dialogue is never a pure portrayal of live conversation (and let's, like, thank our, yeah, you know, lucky stars for, um, that) but it can often have a representative feel to it. Not so in this case and it's a definite strong point.

Characterization is well done, too. Both the mains and the supporting get more than just casual depictions giving the story a lot of depth. I'm only gonna focus on Paris and Fearless though because I really liked their dynamic. They also made me laugh a lot, too. Chuckles aside, Paris is a bit of an anti-hero. He feels inadequate most of the time and not up to the hero antics of his friend Fearless. On the other hand, you learn that Fearless is the kind of guy that trouble finds and Paris is often there to get him out of a jam. Paris indulges a bit in an inferiority complex and is relentless in his hero worship of Fearless. At first I thought the theme a bit overdone but as the story unfolds the characters weigh in on the idea and, though it's not explicit, I think Paris might change his mind from when we first meet him in the story. The theme is not a new one but I enjoyed going through it with Paris. Here's a little example of Paris' point of view (quote condensed from p. 110 of hardback):

"Somebody going to investigate the death?" I asked.
"Everybody around here got a real job, Mr. Minton. Real jobs and apartments and mouths to feed. [Victim] was just a year outta prison, an ex-con with a bullet in his chest, found after an anonymous call."
Fearless didn't have a job or an apartment or kids to feed. She wasn't talking about him though.

And that's the thing, no one ever is. Paris takes almost everything that can be construed as a criticism on himself. He doesn't resent Fearless and he's pretty funny so these usually had me laughing. The main difference between the friends is that Paris looks at every situation and thinks about survival and Fearless looks at every situation and thinks about the outcome he prefers. He's pretty badass. Well, hella badass and my favorite example of his very obvious badassness was this:

Fearless stood up.
"You don't wanna know what I can do." The 'motherfucker' wasn't said, but everyone in that room heard it.

The two friends have several funny exchanges and Fearless is one of those characters that uses the obvious answer to great effect:

"So he didn't say nuthin'?" I asked.
"How he gonna say somethin' if he's dead, Paris?"

Mosley is one of those talented writers that can describe emotion really well. I kept thinking of Stephen King, actually, who I do not really read as I'm not a big fan (I hear a few other people like him though;), because I've always been really impressed with how accessible King makes emotion. Mosley's got that, too, and he uses it both ways. He conveys extreme emotions just as well as the more superficial emotions that are with us as we make our way through our days (you know, those of us that lead mundane lives reading books).

So here we are at the end of what I have to say and I still haven't brought up that crying bit. It's a bit spoilerish of Paris' back story so I'm going to include it below. However, this reminds me of one last thing that I'll say. Paris' character development and back story are really well done. First person narratives don't always lend themselves easily to this but the type of character Paris is works really well with how his back story is told.

rating: 4 of 5 stars


Spoilers and crying below:
Paris is a book lover and has worked very hard to be able to spend each and every day doing what he loves: reading books. When his bookstore burns down at the beginning of the story I was pretty shaken up but when he describes his first trip to a library I was in tears. He was thirteen and with some guesstimating that puts him in early 1930s Louisiana. The white librarian sees him reading outside and then brings him into the library for the sole purpose of telling him it's not for him because he is black. It's hard to comprehend the kind of vile person that deliberately breaks a heart.

The Challenges of Crisis Aid

sgwordy's resident humanitarian is back from the field and brought this article to my attention. It highlights a book by Linda Polman regarding the ineffectiveness of aid organizations and posits that they contribute to prolonging war conflicts. The article correctly identifies the book as a polemic but doesn't do much to point out the one-sided nature of the book's arguments (to review: polemic:).

Like many books of its kind it points out some very real problems but then acts like these problems are the norm (rather than the exception) and that the parties involved are unaware and uninterested in solving these problems. That is patently false in many cases and certainly in this one regarding aid organizations. The problem of effective delivery of aid, and prevention of that aid being abused, is a very real problem that aid agencies work hard to resolve in each and every crisis. But remember, it's a crisis! Each situation is different and there are no hard and fast rules. The point is to reach victims and agencies do everything they can to appropriately react to a crisis and coordinate their efforts with local organizations to reach victims.

The book makes no distinction between development aid (which receives the bulk of donor funds if I remember correctly) and humanitarian/crisis aid. It also states outright that ngo's crisis hop for personal gains completely disregarding the years that many organizations spend in locales. These years often precede a media-hyped crisis and continue after the media have moved on. It's been pointed out that much of Polman's field experience has been with media-hyped crises so she may have limited experience in the more on-going projects.

It's one of those books that focuses only on extreme cases that do not reflect the the day-to-day activities of aid organizations. Worse, it's pointing fingers but giving no real solutions. The only solution given is that if you think aid is being abused by those with the power to do it then you [aid agency] should leave. Oh that's productive! Aid agencies want to reach victims. It is their first, last, and only goal. They will seek out every alternative to leaving in their goal of helping victims of all crises (not just political crises). If an agency finds that they can not effectively reach victims then they do leave but to use that as a first response is not an option. Or if it is, then maybe aid agencies are a thing of the past. Why show up at all if you're not willing to face the hard realities of a crisis situation? These are not easy problems.

I think what I found most offensive was her lumping of all aid workers into a category of selfish individuals enjoying the high-life whilst surrounded by low-wage/poverty conditions. What bullshit! My blood is boiling just thinking about this so I better stop while I'm still coherent. 

It's a shame the book is so fatalistic and unproductive because it does make several good points. One in particular is that agencies ought to practice more critical oversight of themselves and each other. Even better if this can be done in the public eye. The good news is that agencies are doing this. The process has begun and, hopefully, will continue and help to improve effectiveness.


Two parting thoughts:

1) While I remain convinced of the good that aid agencies are capable of doing it's vital that you know and trust agencies to whom you choose to donate. Do your homework! Don't forget that dollar votes are the most important so make sure your dollar is going to someone you trust and support.

2) I'm interested in the topic of humanitarian relief and try to remained informed but I am ultimately an outsider. I welcome any views, especially insider views, that can shed more light on any issues I bring up as my goal is accurate information always!

Megan Whalen Turner: Fantastic Writer, Awesome Human

I had the very great pleasure of attending two of Turner's author events in the bay area this week. It was so much fun to listen to her speak and to say hello. I also had a fabulous time meeting with other Sounisians! We had some great discussions! I really could go on and on with this topic but that's what I have Sounis* for. Huzzah!

If you haven't read Megan Whalen Turner yet then you really must go straight out and buy her books. The latest is A Conspiracy of Kings but I recommend starting at the beginning. It's one of those series where the unexpected happens a lot so if you can avoid reading the back covers I would; it'll keep the beginning a surprise. Here's a link listing the order and talking a bit about how the order might change your experience with the books.


*Sounis is a Live Journal community for fans of the series. It's a great place to go for discussion but many spoilers for the early books are included in posts so I would suggest visiting only after reading the books. Here's the link if interested.

Looking for Rachel Wallace by Robert B. Parker

Title: Looking for Rachel Wallace

Author: Robert B. Parker

Publisher: Dell (1980)

I mentioned the inevitability before so now it's time to share my post-reading thoughts. The cover tells me this is a Spenser novel but it's the first one I've read, first Parker I've read, actually. A little visit to the author's website gave me the impression that he had (and probably still has even after his death) quite the fan base. Any Parker fans out there want to tell me which title I should go for next? Start with Spenser from the beginning? Anyway, on to this title...

Rachel Wallace is many things I am not. This is completely irrelevant but it amuses me to say it. Rachel Wallace (and yes, she is referred to by her full name quite often) is an outspoken feminist and lesbian with a new book about to be published. The book makes certain accusations and names names. She's not very popular with certain crowds to begin with and the content of her upcoming release has resulted in death threats. Her publisher hires Spenser to protect her. Her code of behavior is distinctly different from his resulting in several very interesting conversations and a falling out that sets the scene in Looking for Rachel Wallace.

The book is not long with very nice pacing so I got through it really quickly. The writing is good, the dialogue a lot of fun, and the story satisfying. I liked it well enough that I'll seek out some other Spenser novels but it didn't necessarily blow me away or anything. Just a nice, solid read. Two things really stuck with me: the dynamic between Spenser and Rachel Wallace and that I wish I was more familiar with this genre of books. I'll start with the first.

I can't know this for sure since it's the only Spenser novel I've read but Rachel Wallace felt very much like a foil for Spenser. Maybe Spenser gets one of these in every book but she was practically everything he was not so the reader is presented with the perfect set-up for getting to know a lot about Spenser (and his lovely girlfriend actually). Do we get this in every book or was it time for some character advancement? Normally I wouldn't think about this very much but since Looking for Rachel Wallace is about the 7th book in the series and the differences were almost comically large the deliberate foil idea stuck with me. Of course, Spenser's got a pretty good sense of humor and Rachel Wallace absolutely none so a lot of the time I think Spenser's just fucking with her. What makes their differences most interesting is what they do have in common. They are both intelligent, caring, fair-minded, and very sure of how they have chosen to live their lives. It's the intersection of their life choices that makes for the cool conversations between them.

On to the second. This is the third private eye/mystery author I've read lately (and I think the last time I attempted the genre was in the 90s) and they all feel a lot alike. That's not to say I'm not enjoying them I just didn't expect that they would all be so alike. I checked the copyrights and most of what I have read was published in the 80s so it might be that there was a particular style that was super successful in the 80s and it happens to be what I've picked up. The next author in my getting-know-the-genre project is Walter Mosley. The book I'm starting with was published in 2001 but it's set in the 50s. Like the others I've read it's in the first person POV. I rather like to think the ones I've read are in the "first person glib" (this Rachel Wallace has a sense of humor:) because the narrators have all had the same attitude even. They all seem slightly more progressive than those around them, tough but prone to sadness, cynical because of what they see but still pretty keen on humanity, never lacking for chances to score but very sensitive with their partners (this goes for both male and female protags so don't go thinking this is one of those male-only tropes), pretty set in their code of ethics but philosophical enough to entertain other ideas... So help me out here, mystery readers, is this the way it goes? Are they all in first person POV? Have I described the archetype or simply a style-type? Will I be running into some other types or shall I learn to love and embrace this one because any other type is rare? Also, I think I like a good shoot-out as much as the next American but is justice only ever meted out with death in these books? There are some antagonists who I think would have been much more miserable in jail and yet they all die. No hassle or expense with court in these books; much easier to just kill the baddies and complain a bit about the paperwork.

Getting back to Spenser, he very much aligned with the archetype I described above. Course, not being familiar with his series or the genre in general maybe he was the beginning of this. Maybe he was a step forward in the evolution of the archetype. I really don't know. I liked him just fine and won't mind reading some more books with him but I wonder how deeply I'll be able to get into the genre if I always run into the same protags.

rating: 3 of 5 stars



I still have a list of suggestions I'm working through for the genre but if any mystery readers want to add to that list I would really appreciate it. I'd especially love some books that turn all my first impressions/stereotypes right on their heads!

The Levels of Death for Fictional Characters, Part II

So sgwordy entered the lair of Achievement Whoring and asked the good Dr to share his Levels of Death theory. Enjoy!

(NOTE: It's probably obvious for a topic like this but beware spoilers.)

Dr Musacha says...

If you missed Part I click here.

Level 2 – They killed X???  YOU BASTARDS!

Now it’s on.  A level 2 death involves a character who has been with us throughout most of the story.  They’re a major part of the narrative, with well-established backstory, personality, and motivations.  Essentially, we’re talking about anyone that you might refer to as “one of the main characters” WITHOUT being the main hero/heroine/villain.

The impact of a level 2 death cannot be overstated.  This is a character that we’ve grown to care about, identify with, and root for (wow, that was a lot of dangling prepositions).  Assuming that the writer has done his/her job properly, we are NOT going to like seeing this person die.  But see it we will, because level 2 deaths (unlike 3 and 4) pretty much never happen offscreen.  After all, the author is sacrificing an important character and obviously wants to reap the full emotional impact of that decision.

The following may seem counterintuitive, but bear with me: Level 2 deaths are the most critical ones to do correctly.  Period.  Now, you might be wondering how that’s possible since we have another level to go.  I’ll get there in a second, but understand that level 1 deaths are actually pretty easy.  But level 2?  They can make all the difference between pushing your narrative to a whole new level and completely derailing it, losing your audience forever.

The key point to understand is that your level 2 death may well mean killing the audience’s favorite character.  Think about it: if you ask someone who their favorite Star Wars character is, how many say Luke?  Sure, you need a compelling hero and villain, but people tend to gravitate to the side characters (at least the ones that are decently developed).  So when you off that person, it better be in a way that respects the bond that’s formed between said character and the audience.  NOTE: This is doubly true for characters in a series, because we’ve had all the more time to get attached.

An example from my own experience: I enjoyed most of Dancing with Wolves.  It was an interesting story (if a bit slow) and shot with a nice eye for the surrounding environment.  Then some jackass army officers take turns firing at Two-Socks, the wolf that keeps Dunbar company, killing the poor animal because it doesn’t know to run away.  Now, I get what the writer was going for here…he wants us to understand that the army officers are the bad guys so we’ll be happy when the Sioux kill them later.  Well you know what guy?  I already figured that out.  There was no damn reason to show Two Socks being unceremoniously murdered.  If you were looking for an emotional reaction, then you got one.  I loathe your crappy movie with every fiber of my being.  Was that what you wanted?

Level 2 deaths are pretty common with villains.  It’s usually the right hand man, who ironically is often tougher/more evil than the main bad guy.  Also note that level 2 deaths often happen late in the story, because they serve as the inspiration that the hero/heroine needs to vanquish his or her foes and achieve victory in their fallen comrade’s memory.

Other examples:
Mick/Apollo – Rocky III/IV
Dumbledore – Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Obi-wan Kenobi – Star Wars
Count Rugen (the man with six fingers) – Princess Bride


Level 1 – And then there were two

Okay, it doesn’t HAVE to be two.  There are instances where there’s more than one main protagonist (though rarely is there more than one main villain).  Still, we’re definitely looking at the cream of the crop here.

Level 1 deaths happen almost exclusively at the climax of the story, largely because anyone suffering a level 1 death was so key to the plot that it can hardly go on without them.  Imagine if Darth Vader died in Return of the Jedi, but then there was another 45 minutes of faffing about on Endor fighting generic stormtroopers.  Anticlimactic, no?

Compared to level 2, level 1 deaths are actually pretty easy to write.  Most people expect the main villain to buy the farm at the end, so it will hardly come as a shock.  And as for the hero, the idea of the tragic protagonist who sacrifices himself at the end of the story is so old that a guy named William Shakespeare had mastered it back when humans were still trying to invent fire (NOTE: this article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of sgwordy, her parent company, or historical accuracy in any way).

There are too many examples to count, but here are a few:
Butch and Sundance – Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Maximus – Gladiator
Hillary – Beaches
Captain John Miller – Saving Private Ryan
William Wallace – Braveheart (this is historical I suppose, but still)
The Predator – Predator
Thelma and Louise – I’m hoping you can guess


So there you have it.  sgwordy…do YOU have a favorite example of one of the Levels of Death?

Why yes, I do! I'm actually going to include something for each level:

Level 4 - All to whom Terry Pratchett made this most hilarious dedication and this poor bastard who did not want it.

Level 3 - I'm gonna cheat a little on this one because I'm choosing a character in my own work in progress. Two reasons: the first - it was this character's death (and your reading of it) that first brought the Levels of Death theory to my attention and the second - because he truly died as he lived, serving the plot.

Level 2 - Since this is the trickiest of all I'm going to give an example of it done badly and an example of it done well. The done badly example was the offing of The Syndicate in The X-Files. I'm a believer (Mulder would be so proud:) that there was no way to do this well and that it being done at all was a mistake. The done well example is Amylin (played by Paul Reubens) in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

side note: What I find interesting about level 2 is that the character's relationship with the audience is more important than the character's relationship to the heroine/hero when it comes to a death that will not alienate the audience.

Level 1 - Elphaba in Wicked by Gregory Maguire. Holy damn that was some kind of memorable.


Anyone else have some particularly good or bad examples of the levels?