TWIB-III: 39 (7/13-7/19)
Jul. 31st, 2009 12:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
akujunkanSurpringly, I managed to read two books during the final week leading up to the Hell Thesis deadline, both of them extremely good. They are:
Fatal Light - Richard Currey
Two comments about Fatal Light: 1) This may be the best war novel I have ever read; 2) People who criticize this novel for its paucity of main character description (to say nothing of development) are missing the point. A corollary: The second point is directly responsible for the first.
1) Fatal Light's plot is the plot of every war novel you've ever read: a young man, innocent and full of dreams is changed by the brutality he experiences fighting a war in a far off land. The difference here is that Currey's narrator is barely there; as do all war novel protagonists, he speaks of his childhood, his first love, his fellow soldiers, his experiences on the battlefield, on leave, in the hospital, but with little attempt to provide back story or narrative continuity. Currey's protagonist is essentially narrating this story to himself, which means there's no need for him to fill in the particulars because he already knows them fully well.
But we readers, of course, cannot know this information, with the end result that it is simply not provided. In most novels, this would be the kiss of death. Here, it is what makes Fatal Light extraordinary. Why? Because any war novel with a defined protagonist is as much about the protagonist as it is the war it's set in--what happened to the protagonist, how the protagonist's friend Johnny XYZ did or didn't pull through, if the protagonist survived this or that battle, how his family reacted when he came home. It is precisely because Fatal Light's protagonist is barely there that the novel truly becomes about the Vietnam War and not just a few of the people to whom it happened.
The same can be said for the plot. Because there's so little emphasis on the main character, the plot is not about how one man was strong enough to overcome the odds or too sensitive to withstand the horror, it's about the horror of the war itself, the damage it causes to everyone and everything in its path, which is perhaps the truest depiction of war possible. Finally, Currey's prose is so beautiful and atmospheric it defies description. This is one of the most powerful books I have read in quite some time. Read this book.
2) The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins
Believe the hype. Believe all of the hype you have read about this book. It really is That Good. Collins is one of the few young readers/young adult authors who can actually write about violence and psychological horror in such a way that it's appropriate reading for ten-year-olds but doesn't insult their intelligence either. Her prose appears simple and straightforward at first glance, but there is a lot going on under the surface; indeed, one of the reasons it appears so simple is because Collins trusts readers to make connections and extrapolate motivations and emotions on their own, instead of holding their hands to make sure they're understanding everything correctly.
Not only does The Hunger Games rise above its potentially ho-hum premise (namely: what if reality shows like Survivor were actually played for life-and-death stakes), but it does so while rarely resorting to the deus-ex-machina and happy coincidences on which so many other authors depend to move their stories forward. This is one of the most tightly plotted novels I have read in quite some time, and its narrative development rarely strains credibility. And then there is Katniss, the protagonist and narrator of the novel. I cannot put my love for this protagonist into words. Far from being some ineffective disney princess, Katniss is tough, resourceful, doesn't put a premium on being fashionable or "nice" (or secretly wish in her heart of hearts that she was either of those things), and who spends a fair portion of the novel helping the knight in distress. Better yet, it's entirely believable; Katniss is neither superhumanly gifted nor written to some misguided idea of a "feminist protagonist" checklist. She is a supremely natural and sympathetic character.
The world needs more fiction like this. Go read this book.
That will be all.
Fatal Light - Richard Currey
Two comments about Fatal Light: 1) This may be the best war novel I have ever read; 2) People who criticize this novel for its paucity of main character description (to say nothing of development) are missing the point. A corollary: The second point is directly responsible for the first.
1) Fatal Light's plot is the plot of every war novel you've ever read: a young man, innocent and full of dreams is changed by the brutality he experiences fighting a war in a far off land. The difference here is that Currey's narrator is barely there; as do all war novel protagonists, he speaks of his childhood, his first love, his fellow soldiers, his experiences on the battlefield, on leave, in the hospital, but with little attempt to provide back story or narrative continuity. Currey's protagonist is essentially narrating this story to himself, which means there's no need for him to fill in the particulars because he already knows them fully well.
But we readers, of course, cannot know this information, with the end result that it is simply not provided. In most novels, this would be the kiss of death. Here, it is what makes Fatal Light extraordinary. Why? Because any war novel with a defined protagonist is as much about the protagonist as it is the war it's set in--what happened to the protagonist, how the protagonist's friend Johnny XYZ did or didn't pull through, if the protagonist survived this or that battle, how his family reacted when he came home. It is precisely because Fatal Light's protagonist is barely there that the novel truly becomes about the Vietnam War and not just a few of the people to whom it happened.
The same can be said for the plot. Because there's so little emphasis on the main character, the plot is not about how one man was strong enough to overcome the odds or too sensitive to withstand the horror, it's about the horror of the war itself, the damage it causes to everyone and everything in its path, which is perhaps the truest depiction of war possible. Finally, Currey's prose is so beautiful and atmospheric it defies description. This is one of the most powerful books I have read in quite some time. Read this book.
2) The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins
Believe the hype. Believe all of the hype you have read about this book. It really is That Good. Collins is one of the few young readers/young adult authors who can actually write about violence and psychological horror in such a way that it's appropriate reading for ten-year-olds but doesn't insult their intelligence either. Her prose appears simple and straightforward at first glance, but there is a lot going on under the surface; indeed, one of the reasons it appears so simple is because Collins trusts readers to make connections and extrapolate motivations and emotions on their own, instead of holding their hands to make sure they're understanding everything correctly.
Not only does The Hunger Games rise above its potentially ho-hum premise (namely: what if reality shows like Survivor were actually played for life-and-death stakes), but it does so while rarely resorting to the deus-ex-machina and happy coincidences on which so many other authors depend to move their stories forward. This is one of the most tightly plotted novels I have read in quite some time, and its narrative development rarely strains credibility. And then there is Katniss, the protagonist and narrator of the novel. I cannot put my love for this protagonist into words. Far from being some ineffective disney princess, Katniss is tough, resourceful, doesn't put a premium on being fashionable or "nice" (or secretly wish in her heart of hearts that she was either of those things), and who spends a fair portion of the novel helping the knight in distress. Better yet, it's entirely believable; Katniss is neither superhumanly gifted nor written to some misguided idea of a "feminist protagonist" checklist. She is a supremely natural and sympathetic character.
The world needs more fiction like this. Go read this book.
That will be all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
GLEE
on 2009-08-02 12:00 am (UTC)btw, if you didn't know, that is the first in a trilogy, and the second comes out in September.
Now I must go and smile a lot and not ruin your post for the wifey.
Re: GLEE
on 2009-08-02 01:48 pm (UTC)And I pretty much knew I would like it because it came so highly praised by the two of you. In fact, the reason I decided to read it (instead of waiting till I could get my hands on the copy you got me...cause I really wanted to hold *that specific book* in my hands when I read it the first time) was because I knew it would be damn good, and I needed something to cheer me up after Hell Thesis. And it did the trick like a motherfucker.
I knew there'd be a second one coming soon; the only reason I'm glad I waited so long to read HG was because I don't have to experience the months of waiting that you guys have been experiencing.
Re: GLEE
on 2009-08-06 08:45 pm (UTC)But now you can read the Gregor series as i'm sure bran has said. I'll warn you up front though, the first book has a few weak points, but the rest of the series kicks.
Re: GLEE
on 2009-08-09 02:32 pm (UTC)Gregor is on the list for when I'm next in the States, you can be sure of that.
Re: GLEE
on 2009-08-11 12:22 am (UTC)Another question I have for you: on my review on lt, I mentioned a review by a certain author that I decided not to name on that sight but it was Steven King. He felt that the tributes were authorial laziness. I disagree, but am willing to argue or rail on King until he cries in the night for an unknown reason.
Re: GLEE
on 2009-08-13 12:16 pm (UTC)YES. THIS.
Second books are traditionally the hardest to do as stand alones, but after HG, I have great faith in Collins as an author. Thank god there's not much time left until we can find out one way or the other!
Can you explain to my why King felt the Tributes were lazy? I reread your review and I don't really understand what King's getting at. How can you have a battle to the death without other people to battle?
Re: GLEE
on 2009-08-13 11:54 pm (UTC)(the review is here...I can't remember how to do a link, so sorry...http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20223443,00.html)
As I said, I hideously disagree with that, because it's a fact that's established from the beginning. He thinks it's a contrivance, and is convenient since it was something she needed to help the dude. and for that I want to punch him.
Re: GLEE
on 2009-08-22 01:19 pm (UTC)Incidentally, I think Stephen King's writing has about as much craft to it as the dumps I take daily; that review just made me despise him even more, because I think he is an even worse offender in every area where he criticises Collins. (Honestly, his review reads to me as if he is jealous of her success.)
That said, I don't think the tributes are contrivances because they make sense in the context of the world Collins has created. Letting a popular contestant die prematurely would be death for a reality show, number one. Number two, not all of the tributes are particularly useful: the bread from Rue's district being a case in point. And Collins didn't give Katniss a free pass on Peeta either: the sleeping medicine helped Katniss to heal him, but she had to take risks like a mofo to finish the job. And finally, the tributes don't come every time Katniss needs them. And as we all know, deus ex machina are one of my big pet peeves, so I think it says something that I don't feel the tributes count as such.
Re: GLEE
on 2009-08-25 06:24 pm (UTC)I haven't read one of King's books in years. But his reveiws do almost always piss me off. He did an article on "dude fiction"(you know, the opposite of chick lit?) and what sticks is while he recommended Robert B. Parker as an action author, his advice to him was that the main character should "dump Susan and kill the dog." To me, some of the best books of the series stem from the things that King's ass find's boring.
But anyway, back to HG. I totally wasn't expecting everyone to come back as genetically reengineered zombies at the end. I actually had a little reservation up to that point because she hadn't been required to kill, and I thought that was kinda weak, but then throw in some monsters and I was happy.
Re: GLEE
on 2009-08-29 01:01 pm (UTC)Also, I tried searching for that King interview for a full ten minutes and my google-fu turned up nothing. Care to test those link-making skills again?
Right, and I don't think that's the last we're going to see of them, either. I wasn't expecting Kat to kill, not because I thought Collins was too much of a pantywaist to write such a thing, but because I was expecting her publishers to be too much of a pantywaist to allow her to do it. That said, I do think it would raise interesting moral question if Kat actually had to take someone out in hand-to-hand combat and not just drop a nest of deadly wasps on them. Only two more days till September!
Re: GLEE
on 2009-09-03 09:22 pm (UTC)do think it would raise interesting moral question if Kat actually had to take someone out in hand-to-hand combat and not just drop a nest of deadly wasps on them. Or if she would have sniped someone from afar, holding thier head in her crosshairs.
In the Gregor books, without spoiling anything, there are points in the later books where Gregor is forced to kill, or needs to kill, and he spends a lot of time thinking about it. It's not like it's something he just does, even though given the story arc, he probably could have just glossed over it. That's one of the things I liked about his character and the stories Collins was telling.
The WCPL gives away a monthly magazine called bookpage, and this magically delicious interview was in it.. Awesome.
Re: GLEE
on 2009-09-03 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-08-02 12:49 am (UTC)I TOLD YOU SO!!!!
Now you shall read the Gregor the Overlander series.
no subject
on 2009-08-02 01:51 pm (UTC)Anyway, let's have a big long conversation about Hunger Games now. You go first.
no subject
on 2009-08-06 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-08-09 02:29 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-08-10 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-08-13 12:20 pm (UTC)And the thing is, Collins subverts the usual hero stereotypes, because the usual hero, for instance, would have found out a way to save or civilize Cato.
no subject
on 2009-08-14 12:38 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-08-14 01:52 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-08-15 12:09 am (UTC)I was also impressed with her ability to develop secondary characters without doing the crappy descriptions (her blond hair was accentuated by the unforgiving sun, but it couldn't hide the twinkle in her expressive green eyes, blah, blah, blah...) She manages to give them a depth and a humanity that most authors can't in such a modest role.
no subject
on 2009-08-15 12:34 am (UTC)And yes, yes, yes on the secondary characters. I really hate it when authors have characters "catch a glimpse of their reflections" while just passing by a mirror or window or something, and then we're subjected to waaaay too much description for a glance. And honestly? People tend to know what they look like, which makes the whole thing reek of fakery. I'd rather have a few bits slipped in here and there and have to readjust my impressions then get an annoying info dump right off the bat.
no subject
on 2009-08-16 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-08-17 03:07 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-08-18 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-08-25 06:32 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-08-27 04:05 am (UTC)Incidentally, what Sherwood Smith had to say on the topic (http://www.sherwoodsmith.net/writingriffs/pointofview.html) (just do a find for the word "mirror" and you'll jump right to it) really had me reevaluating if not her skill as an author, the intelligence of taking her advice on writing.
no subject
on 2009-08-27 08:55 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-08-28 08:45 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-09-01 06:26 pm (UTC)I disliked her locked down version of POV actually. There's a bit more fluidity to it than what she was attributing to it.
no subject
on 2009-09-02 03:19 am (UTC)Exactly! I notice new zits or wrinkles, but I'll be damned if I've ever been pressed for time in front of a mirror but decided it's worth it to potentially make myself late while I try to figure out whether my eyebrows resemble my father's or my maternal aunt's.
What wouldn't be shown obviously wouldn't be important.
FAR, FAR TOO MANY AUTHORS FORGET THIS. You don't have to describe the living room down to the wallpaper and thread count in the carpet. Now, if there's a BDSM jungle gym in the corner, you might want to mention that, but otherwise, say "living room" and pretty much anyone gets the idea.
Her POV bit didn't bother me in and of itself, as it generally works well for the genre in which she writes. But the prescriptiveness of the piece kind of bugged me.
no subject
on 2009-09-03 10:37 pm (UTC)LOL!
I think my own objections to the mirror trick for describing the main character are funniest, because I can't pass on without checking myself out. it's not that I'm vain, I just have a facination for seeing things that I can't normally see myself.
no subject
on 2009-09-10 01:34 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-09-10 10:41 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-09-11 10:57 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-09-15 10:11 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-09-26 01:56 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-09-29 06:40 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-09-30 03:43 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-10-01 06:17 pm (UTC)comcast pay per view mavie reviews
on 2011-02-26 05:54 pm (UTC)