![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So I'm already using this to encourage my writing, and I think it's working, but in addition I've decided to use my LJ to track what I read this year and what I think of it. Good plan! I've already got four or five books under my belt for 2009 so will have to do several in a row to catch up. I want them as separate entries because I want to be able to look down the list of posts and immediately see all the book entries, so will use BOOK: in the subject line for those entries. I've done this for two years on paper, tracking only the titles and whether it was a book new to me or a re-read; doing it here will let me jot down notes about the books. Not sure whether it will prove a chore or enlightening; will just have to see!
8 February 2009
Giant saurian goes in search of the author of a mysteriously potent piece of writing and uncovers a strange subterranean city and helps to set right an old crime. Overall: disappointing. Mostly things happen TO Optimus Yarnspinner (best thing about the book were the names -- in the original German his name was Hildegunst von Mythenmetz !), but he isn't very active on his own behalf. He runs away from things, gets rescued, etc., all passive, and some scenes seemed to go on a bit long. And all the strange little creatures seemed unnecessary; why do we need ones that look like pigs and ones that look like vultures, etc. It seems partially a caste system; some creatures are always in a particular profession. But that's not consistent. And I was unimpressed with the very ending which I guess was intended as a twist but instead came across as arrogant. I did have great fun trying to figure out the authorial anagrams (Wamilli Swordthrow = William Shakespeare, Asdrel Chickens = Charles Dickens, etc).
The little creatures that memorize an author's entire oeuvre were kind of neat; that and the way they're referred to by the name of their author rather than by their own name reminded me of the memorizers at the end of Fahrenheit 451. Speaking of which, I just found out that that was originally a short story entitled "Bright Phoenix," which I now must find. Also, according to Bradbury, the novel wasn't about censorship but rather about the way in which television destroys interest in reading and leads to a perception of knowledge as composed of "factoids", partial information devoid of context. He must be SO depressed today. The fact that the Bookholm has no mass media is surely not an accident -- the closest thing are the "timber time" readings, where people listen to someone reading their latest work. The largest "mass media event," the symphony, turns out to be evil as it's used to hypnotize the listeners into doing things; perhaps a reference to the mass media of television "hypnotizing" people? Perhaps an implication that reading is something best done one-on-one with a book, not as a common shared experience? Hm.
The little creatures that memorize an author's entire oeuvre were kind of neat; that and the way they're referred to by the name of their author rather than by their own name reminded me of the memorizers at the end of Fahrenheit 451. Speaking of which, I just found out that that was originally a short story entitled "Bright Phoenix," which I now must find. Also, according to Bradbury, the novel wasn't about censorship but rather about the way in which television destroys interest in reading and leads to a perception of knowledge as composed of "factoids", partial information devoid of context. He must be SO depressed today. The fact that the Bookholm has no mass media is surely not an accident -- the closest thing are the "timber time" readings, where people listen to someone reading their latest work. The largest "mass media event," the symphony, turns out to be evil as it's used to hypnotize the listeners into doing things; perhaps a reference to the mass media of television "hypnotizing" people? Perhaps an implication that reading is something best done one-on-one with a book, not as a common shared experience? Hm.
::: Twilight (Meyers)
8 February 2009 09:15 pm(continuing to try to get caught up with books read this year) This, apparently, is THE must-read book if you're a thirteen-year-old girl, or so I heard. Which didn't inspire me to want to read it. But then my colleagues -- one in her 20s, one in her 30s -- started talking it up, so I caved. On the whole, glad I did. The writing is a bit uneven and it irks me that Meyers dumps any part of traditional vampire lore that's inconvenient for her plot, but the characters are excellent and the writing has moments of true excellence. Best bits: dialog, description, both of which are consistently good and sometimes really extraordinary. Biggest beef: the excessively angsty nature of the vampire boy/human girl relationship. OK, he's trying to restrain himself from biting her but why not go ahead and sleep with her? What's the holdup? Their arguments over her wanting him to change her into a vampire center around his not wanting her to lose her soul (yet Edward's not religious nor is Bella, and it doesn't seem to occur to him that if all the other vampire lore is wrong this one might be too) and her desire not to get old and ugly while he stays young because then he'll leave her (an understandable motive for a 17-year-old girl but a bit thin, really).
Also, it's hard to see why he needed to be a vampire other than to sex up the storyline. He can go around in daylight, he's not bothered by garlic or running water, he can choose not to bite her -- oh, but they have to be really careful because a) his teeth are coated in poisonous venom (and yet they kiss A LOT) and b) he's a lot stronger and might accidentally hurt her (yet they do all kinds of things together and he rescues her from imminent death at least once without hurting her). He gets turned on by the way she smells and has to control himself all the time -- he could be HIV positive and it would have had a lot of the same issues, but not been nearly as sexy. (I get annoyed by the current trend of inserting mythical creatures into all genres left, right, and center. I mean, who would have thought there was a market for wolf porn (romance novels in which one party is a werewolf) ??)
All things considered I really enjoyed the book, though; it's a great read and if you can ignore the manufactured nature of some of the issues between them and the occasional SOC (Stupid On Cue) action it's a lot of fun. I've read the second one but will save that for another entry...
Also, it's hard to see why he needed to be a vampire other than to sex up the storyline. He can go around in daylight, he's not bothered by garlic or running water, he can choose not to bite her -- oh, but they have to be really careful because a) his teeth are coated in poisonous venom (and yet they kiss A LOT) and b) he's a lot stronger and might accidentally hurt her (yet they do all kinds of things together and he rescues her from imminent death at least once without hurting her). He gets turned on by the way she smells and has to control himself all the time -- he could be HIV positive and it would have had a lot of the same issues, but not been nearly as sexy. (I get annoyed by the current trend of inserting mythical creatures into all genres left, right, and center. I mean, who would have thought there was a market for wolf porn (romance novels in which one party is a werewolf) ??)
All things considered I really enjoyed the book, though; it's a great read and if you can ignore the manufactured nature of some of the issues between them and the occasional SOC (Stupid On Cue) action it's a lot of fun. I've read the second one but will save that for another entry...
