|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0998361119
| 9780998361116
| B01MXIDQDB
| 3.59
| 1,141
| Nov 08, 2016
| Nov 08, 2016
|
liked it
|
It’s almost too easy to write a vampire YA romance. Real authors tackle the hard romances, like mummies. How does a clumsy teenage girl fall for a tho
It’s almost too easy to write a vampire YA romance. Real authors tackle the hard romances, like mummies. How does a clumsy teenage girl fall for a thousands-year-old mummified but reanimated corpse? You’ll have to read Unwrap My Heart to find out. Disclaimer: I received a free copy of this book because I am a Meat Buddy, i.e., I have pledged a small amount of money every month to Read It and Weep , the podcast that Alex Falcone and Ezra Fox do along with Chris and Tanya Smith. And even if their podcast were not a highlight of my week, this book alone makes that pledge well worth my money. Fox and Falcone have put their years of reading bad books and watching bad movies and TV on behalf of their listeners to good use. This book is just delightful. It walks the line between parody and an actual, heartfelt story in a way I wasn’t expecting. As with the material from which they drew inspiration (particularly Twilight), the protagonist, Sofia, is a klutzy and rather uninteresting character—but the side characters more than make up for that. Sofia’s dad is a mustache-sporting and laid-back fellow, except when it comes to the dangers of boys and salmonella. Sofia’s best friend, Duncan, is an amateur archaeologist who has already made a name for himself in the field before even graduating high school—and let’s not even mention his huge collection of cast phalluses. Hearing these characters’ backstories and seeing how they interact with Sofia is invariably hilarious. There are so many good lines in here that if I quoted them all I’d probably be in violation of the copyright. I loved how Sofia’s dad explains why it’s always important for her to keep pepper-spray on her person: “Show me a problem that can’t be Maced, and I’ll show you a mugger with goggles”. Or, a bit earlier in the book, when he learns that a school project prevents her from going on a weekend camping trip, he says, “Ah, School Dad told you that? He’s worse than Strict Dad. Probably should listen to him”. The thing is, these lines are meant to be funny (and they are). But exchanges like this, pervasive as they are throughout the book, also feel so real. This is how I have conversations with my friends, with my dad even. We’re funny with each other in a way that dialogue in many other YA novels (including Twilight) doesn’t capture. Maybe it should come as no surprise that a comedian like Falcone is good at coming up with one-liners. Nevertheless, it’s hard to land those lines so often, especially amid Real Talk™. Take, for example, the exchange between Duncan and Sofia mid-way through the book. I love that Falcone gets to exorcise a long-running complaint of his on the podcast when it comes to the term “love triangle”: “It literally never occurred to me that Princess Beige would ever be in a love triangle.” I love this scene, because even as Duncan is calling Sofia special because he’s trying to admit he’s in love with her (oh, it’s not a spoiler, like you didn’t guess that was coming from page 1), he’s also reinforcing the trope that Sofia is Special in that way only teenaged YA protagonists in paranormal romances can be. And, for what it’s worth, I agree with Falcone that “love triangle” is rather inaccurate. Other things I enjoyed about Unwrap My Heart include the running gag that everyone mistakes Seth for a hipster instead of a mummy, as well as the suspiciously consistent denial that any other supernatural creatures exist. I liked that the villain was largely incompetent but that Sofia and friends had a hard time defeating him, at least at first, because they have about as much experience with fighting a supervillain bent on world domination as you might expect. Also, how everyone in Rock Ridge except Sofia seems to be part of a bird-appreciation club with weekly meetings. Finally, let’s talk about sex. As soon as Sofia discovers Seth’s “secret” (that he is a mummy, if you haven’t already caught on), the very first thing she considers is how this will affect having sex with him. Which seems like such an honest thing for a YA protagonist to think about. Stephenie Meyer goes from skirting the issue in Twilight to having to explain it in … err … gory detail in Breaking Dawn. I love how proactive Sofia is, what with her searching the Internet for anything remotely useful. Similarly, I love the dream epilogue at the end and how it gives Sofia agency. Reading this book is like listening to an episode of the podcast. It’s smart and funny and a relaxing escape from all the mellow-harshing reality we have going on in 2016. It takes a lot of work to write parody prose that is neither so over-the-top it implodes upon itself nor so clever it twists back on itself like an ouroboros of comedy and turns into legitimately good fiction. But you don’t have to be a Read It and Weep listener to enjoy this book or its jokes. I’m a little disappointed that Falcone and Fox did not include a helicopter named Charlie Tango, and I can only hope they rectify that in the sequel. Speaking of sequels, if they don’t want to do a direct sequel to Unwrap My Heart, I’d love to see their take on a time-travel story—maybe Chris would have some input on that, given the amount he and Alex have discussed time travel. Or perhaps the next Completely Legitimate Publishing novel could involve a pro wrestler turned actor turned action hero…. Or will we finally see the prose debut of Space Shark? Whatever it is, I would also love to see some LGBTQIA+ characters. Spoofing hetero YA romance is all well and good, but I know Falcone and Fox can find a way to make their parody romance more inclusive. Whatever the next adventure is, I will be there. [image] Merged review: It’s almost too easy to write a vampire YA romance. Real authors tackle the hard romances, like mummies. How does a clumsy teenage girl fall for a thousands-year-old mummified but reanimated corpse? You’ll have to read Unwrap My Heart to find out. Disclaimer: I received a free copy of this book because I am a Meat Buddy, i.e., I have pledged a small amount of money every month to Read It and Weep , the podcast that Alex Falcone and Ezra Fox do along with Chris and Tanya Smith. And even if their podcast were not a highlight of my week, this book alone makes that pledge well worth my money. Fox and Falcone have put their years of reading bad books and watching bad movies and TV on behalf of their listeners to good use. This book is just delightful. It walks the line between parody and an actual, heartfelt story in a way I wasn’t expecting. As with the material from which they drew inspiration (particularly Twilight), the protagonist, Sofia, is a klutzy and rather uninteresting character—but the side characters more than make up for that. Sofia’s dad is a mustache-sporting and laid-back fellow, except when it comes to the dangers of boys and salmonella. Sofia’s best friend, Duncan, is an amateur archaeologist who has already made a name for himself in the field before even graduating high school—and let’s not even mention his huge collection of cast phalluses. Hearing these characters’ backstories and seeing how they interact with Sofia is invariably hilarious. There are so many good lines in here that if I quoted them all I’d probably be in violation of the copyright. I loved how Sofia’s dad explains why it’s always important for her to keep pepper-spray on her person: “Show me a problem that can’t be Maced, and I’ll show you a mugger with goggles”. Or, a bit earlier in the book, when he learns that a school project prevents her from going on a weekend camping trip, he says, “Ah, School Dad told you that? He’s worse than Strict Dad. Probably should listen to him”. The thing is, these lines are meant to be funny (and they are). But exchanges like this, pervasive as they are throughout the book, also feel so real. This is how I have conversations with my friends, with my dad even. We’re funny with each other in a way that dialogue in many other YA novels (including Twilight) doesn’t capture. Maybe it should come as no surprise that a comedian like Falcone is good at coming up with one-liners. Nevertheless, it’s hard to land those lines so often, especially amid Real Talk™. Take, for example, the exchange between Duncan and Sofia mid-way through the book. I love that Falcone gets to exorcise a long-running complaint of his on the podcast when it comes to the term “love triangle”: “It literally never occurred to me that Princess Beige would ever be in a love triangle.” I love this scene, because even as Duncan is calling Sofia special because he’s trying to admit he’s in love with her (oh, it’s not a spoiler, like you didn’t guess that was coming from page 1), he’s also reinforcing the trope that Sofia is Special in that way only teenaged YA protagonists in paranormal romances can be. And, for what it’s worth, I agree with Falcone that “love triangle” is rather inaccurate. Other things I enjoyed about Unwrap My Heart include the running gag that everyone mistakes Seth for a hipster instead of a mummy, as well as the suspiciously consistent denial that any other supernatural creatures exist. I liked that the villain was largely incompetent but that Sofia and friends had a hard time defeating him, at least at first, because they have about as much experience with fighting a supervillain bent on world domination as you might expect. Also, how everyone in Rock Ridge except Sofia seems to be part of a bird-appreciation club with weekly meetings. Finally, let’s talk about sex. As soon as Sofia discovers Seth’s “secret” (that he is a mummy, if you haven’t already caught on), the very first thing she considers is how this will affect having sex with him. Which seems like such an honest thing for a YA protagonist to think about. Stephenie Meyer goes from skirting the issue in Twilight to having to explain it in … err … gory detail in Breaking Dawn. I love how proactive Sofia is, what with her searching the Internet for anything remotely useful. Similarly, I love the dream epilogue at the end and how it gives Sofia agency. Reading this book is like listening to an episode of the podcast. It’s smart and funny and a relaxing escape from all the mellow-harshing reality we have going on in 2016. It takes a lot of work to write parody prose that is neither so over-the-top it implodes upon itself nor so clever it twists back on itself like an ouroboros of comedy and turns into legitimately good fiction. But you don’t have to be a Read It and Weep listener to enjoy this book or its jokes. I’m a little disappointed that Falcone and Fox did not include a helicopter named Charlie Tango, and I can only hope they rectify that in the sequel. Speaking of sequels, if they don’t want to do a direct sequel to Unwrap My Heart, I’d love to see their take on a time-travel story—maybe Chris would have some input on that, given the amount he and Alex have discussed time travel. Or perhaps the next Completely Legitimate Publishing novel could involve a pro wrestler turned actor turned action hero…. Or will we finally see the prose debut of Space Shark? Whatever it is, I would also love to see some LGBTQIA+ characters. Spoofing hetero YA romance is all well and good, but I know Falcone and Fox can find a way to make their parody romance more inclusive. Whatever the next adventure is, I will be there. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
2
|
Dec 2016
not set
|
Dec 2016
not set
|
Sep 27, 2024
|
Kindle Edition
| |||||||||||||||
0439106761
| 9780439106764
| 0439106761
| 3.54
| 2,720
| Jan 01, 2000
| Jan 2000
|
did not like it
|
My friend Julie’s review pretty much nails why #37: The Weakness is, coincidentally, so weak. I’m just going to pile on with a few more observations. T My friend Julie’s review pretty much nails why #37: The Weakness is, coincidentally, so weak. I’m just going to pile on with a few more observations. This is Rachel’s chance to lead while Jake is away. She bungles it, but not as badly as the ghostwriter of this book (Elise Smith) bungles Rachel’s characterization. Her portrayal as an insecure megalomaniac gives me flashbacks, as it did Julie, to aggressive Rachel from #32: The Separation; Rachel’s whole narration just feels so off, such a caricature, that, plot holes aside, the entire book is just an uncomfortable reading experience. If this were a TV show, it would be as if Rachel’s normal actor were replaced by someone else, kind of how Dick York gets replaced by Dick Sargent in Bewitched and no one in the show acknowledges that Darrin is a completely different person (magic!). Julie’s review goes on to critique the plot holes of this book with an unabashed and entirely justified rant. Reading this story is like reading someone’s really bad Animorph fanfic: all the characters are here; the essential story elements are here; but there are dumb contrivances and terrible story decisions. Why do the Garatrons need to physically resemble the Andalites if that is never relevant to the story (or subsequent stories) in any way? Is it just to drop in a mention of convergent evolution? And I agree that there is so much craziness happening in this book without any of it ever becoming an issue for the Animorphs. They trash a TV station, literally steal an airplane from a military base, and nothing bad comes of it. The level of action in this book is close to Megamorphs, Michael-Bay-style effects level—and it makes just as much sense as a Michael Bay film, i.e., zero. It’s a shame, because The Weakness does have a few elements with potential. The whole “who would make a better leader” subplot does not interest me, mostly because it is something that this series has spent time on already. But this feels like a wasted opportunity to talk about strategy. Until now, the Animorphs have been very heavy on tactics: how they attack, when they attack, etc. Recent books have shifted this focus from tactics to strategy, with the Animorphs forced to temporarily work with Yeerks like Visser One in order to prevent a “worse” invasion of Earth. The question of whether or not the Animorphs are better off waging war against the Yeerks in secret or exposing them to prompt global resistance is a thorny one, and something that will come to the fore by the end of the series. The fraught, dangerous mission that the Animorphs undertake in this story, and the way they come up against the spectre of exposure, could have led to some interesting discussions among the team. Instead, we just get infighting. Because … conflict? Every time I encounter a book like this, I have to remind myself that in 54 issues, they can’t all be winners. And young me probably didn’t mind as much. Nevertheless, I’d be remiss if I didn’t call out The Weakness as anything other than what it is: not just a hot mess, but a hot mess left behind by the guy who made you pay for the meal because he “forgot his wallet”. My reviews of Animorphs: ← Visser | #38: The Arrival [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 19, 2017
|
Jan 19, 2017
|
Jan 19, 2017
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
0865478201
| 9780865478206
| 0865478201
| 3.80
| 3,266
| Jun 07, 2016
| Jun 07, 2016
|
liked it
|
It’s with no regret, but some shame, that I admit I’m not a fan of poetry, and that I actively avoid teaching it. I use poems in my classes, when we’r
It’s with no regret, but some shame, that I admit I’m not a fan of poetry, and that I actively avoid teaching it. I use poems in my classes, when we’re talking about other subjects. But I avoid teaching the mechanics and technique of poetry, analyzing the metre and rhythm, looking into the intricacies of imagery and similes and repetition. I do this largely because, as a reader, I am not comfortable with poetry, and that translates then into my teaching. I avoid poetry for the same reason I avoid graphic novels: there’s something about the way I read that precludes me from really absorbing the meaning, or enjoying the message, of a poem. Oh, I can sit down, read a poem, mull over it, study it, write an essay on it—if I have to. But give me the choice between a nice, juicy novel and a slim volume of poetry, and I will choose the novel every day of the week. There is no contest. There is just something about prose, about sentences linked together into paragraphs stacked on atop another and squished into pages of exquisite storytelling, that gets me going in a way that poetry and comics and even movies and TV and music just do not. Nothing gives me a high as good as a novel does. And I’m a hypocrite, because even though I might say it’s totally OK to prefer reading one form over another, I definitely judge people who say, “Oh, I don’t read novels.” Then again, I also have some fairly mixed feelings about the way we teach novels. But I digress. Ben Lerner tries to tackle some of these common mixed emotions regarding poetry in The Hatred of Poetry, and he does a fairly good job. He describes the weird relationship that we have with poetry, in the way it is foisted upon us in schools, the way writing (and writing, in particular, poetry) is seen as a less serious occupation, the way poetry occupies a weird space within art itself. I liked the part where he describes how people react to learning that he is a poet: If you are an adult foolish enough to tell another adult that you are (still!) a poet, they will often describe for you their falling away from poetry: I wrote it in high school; I dabbled in college. Almost never do they write it now…. There is embarrassment for the poet—couldn’t you get a real job and put your childish ways behind you?—but there is also embarrassment on the part of the non-poet, because having to acknowledge one’s total alienation from poetry chafes against the early association of poem and self. I like this, because if you replace “poet” with “mathematician” and “poetry” with “mathematics”, you get exactly my experience telling people I study/teach math. “Oh that,” they say, “I haven’t taken that since high school. Algebra was fine, but I didn’t much care for trigonometry. Never touch it now. I just don’t have that ‘math brain’, you know?” (So much facepalming.) Poetry, like math, is something that everyone can learn and do and that kids do with joy. As we age, we relegate it to an Else, and you are marked by your choice to participate or not participate in the activity. People who do math are fundamentally different from people who don’t; people who write poetry as a serious occupation are somehow different from those who do not. Full stop, end of story. Except it’s not, as Lerner goes on to explore. He touches on the “bafflingly persistent association of poetry and fame” that he finds baffling precisely because “no poets are famous among the general population.” According to Lerner, this is because poetry, if it does its job correctly, sinks into the brain until your mind makes it your own. For poetry to truly work its magic, it must subsume itself into the reader/listener, until it becomes a part of their being. So when poetry affects you, the identity of the author might not be something you remember—even the words might fade away—so much as the feelings associated with the poem itself. In case you can’t tell, The Hatred of Poetry is not so much about poetry itself so much as poetry’s place in our society. Lerner meanders through history in a search for differing attitudes towards poetry. He holds up Plato as history’s first poetry hater; Plato regards poets as dangerous liars. He takes us through the French Revolution and poetry’s decline in the nineteenth century as the novel becomes the rising star of the literary scene. He compares Keats and Dickinson in a way that I’m sure could cause total flame wars if he were to post it on a poetry subreddit. And he spends some time with Walt Whitman, looking at how poetry can be an exercise in timelessness and identity. Despite being only 84 pages, this is a very ambitious book. Lerner sets out to accomplish much, and for the most part, I think he achieves it. My friend and former coworker Emma gave this to me as the response to my gift to her of For White Folks Who Teach in the Hood… and the Rest of Y’all Too . At the end of the book, she has written: “Well. Twas a bit dense at times and I felt his argument a wee repetitive, but overall I’m glad I read it.” I concur. I don’t necessarily think that The Hatred of Poetry is going to make you jump up and go read the nearest poetry anthology to hand (and yes, I have several sitting on the shelves around me, including a complete collection of William Blake’s poetry I received as a gift from my dad…). Moreover, despite being white and male (like myself), Lerner displays a healthy awareness of issues of gender and race and how these play into the reception of poetry. He draws on the work of Claudia Rankine, explaining the context: …Rankine confronts—as an African-American woman—the impossibility (and impossible complexity) of attempting to reconcile herself with a racist society in which to be black is either to be invisible (excluded from the universal) or all too visible (as the victim of racist surveillance and aggression). before then quoting at length from Citizen and analyzing: My privilege excludes me—that is, protects me—from the “you” in a way that focuses my attention on the much graver (and mundane) exclusion of a person of color from the “you” that the scene recounts (how could you have an appointment. Citizen’s concern with how race determines when and how we have access to pronouns is, among many other things, a direct response to the Whitmanic (and nostalgist) notion of a perfectly exchangeable “I” and “you” that can suspend all difference. This is where I think The Hatred of Poetry gits gud, so to speak. Lerner avoids the pitfall of trying to present poetry, poets, or poetical activities as monolithic and functioning to serve a single greater artistic or cultural good. Indeed, he freely admits that poetry is a fractured exercise, that there are as many philosophies towards poetry as there are poets (and thus, people). I respect and appreciate his attempt to dive deeper than whether or not we should “like” poetry and attempt, rather, to look at why it is so persistent despite its failure to find purchase in mainstream popularity. Even though it’s a new year, I won’t be so silly as to spout off some resolution about reading more poetry. I am defiantly and unapologetically not going to do such a thing. Without question, I will read and consider some poems this year, for they will come across my desk in my research and lesson-planning, or simply because cool people I follow on Twitter might share them. Nevertheless, my abiding passion and obsession must remain novels. Lerner’s essay is erudite and interesting, but poetry … sorry, still not a fan. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 28, 2016
|
Dec 28, 2016
|
Dec 30, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
0140180788
| 9780140180787
| B001027VJU
| 3.90
| 189,008
| 1908
| 1990
|
it was ok
|
This is a tough one, because I’m feeling pretty conflicted about A Room with a View. On one hand, I’m pretty sure I didn’t like it—despite being only
This is a tough one, because I’m feeling pretty conflicted about A Room with a View. On one hand, I’m pretty sure I didn’t like it—despite being only 220ish pages, it took me a long time to read, because I kept putting it down and looking for other, more interesting things to distract me. On the other hand, this is not a bad or poorly-written book. I can see what E.M. Forster is trying to do; I have seen other writers tell similar stories and knock my socks off. So what do George Eliot or Thomas Hardy have over Forster for me? The plot is tedious and dull, and that’s likely my chief problem. Lucy Honeychurch is an eligible young lady on vacation in Italy with her chaperone, Charlotte Bartlett. She ends up associating with an ensemble cast of characters, one of whom makes a move on her and kisses her (scandalous!). When she returns to England, she accepts the third marriage proposal from a persistent suitor who is not suited to her at all. Then the cad from Italy intersects her life again, and of course, there is suspense as Lucy tries to figure out if he has feelings for her (or if she has feelings for him) and if anyone other than Charlotte knows of, and could reveal, that Italian indiscretion. It’s pretty standard fare as far as these types of stories go. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be many stakes here (beyond, perhaps, Lucy’s reputation were her out-of-school kissing to become common knowledge). The supporting characters, like Charlotte and Mrs Honeychurch and Freddy, Lucy’s brother, tend to be fairly flat, stock types who don’t offer much in the way of conflict. There is no one, central figure who dominates the page and stands out as a strong antagonist. Not even Cecil, who is indeed trying to project his idea of what a woman should be on to Lucy, really deserves such a label. I felt like I was trapped in the prequel to an Agatha Christie mystery. I kept waiting for someone to drop dead and Poirot to burst onto the scene with Hastings and Japp, so he could start using his little grey cells to figure out that, egads, Emerson is no murderer—it was Mr Beebe all along! A good murder would really have lightened the mood, I think, and made A Room with a View more bearable. That or maybe some kind of natural disaster plunging the family into penury. But no, Forster instead offers up a very bland look at English country life circa 1900, the British Empire riding high into the twentieth century with the rumblings of the Great War still far off on the European horizon. Lucy can go for a jaunt around Italy all she wants in the first half of the book, then noodle about her neighbourhood, playing tennis and mulling over marriage … and it’s just. so. boring. Maybe it’s my misanthropic distaste for socializing, but I just can’t bring myself to care or be interested in the quotidian happenings of these various characters. The book picks up a little towards the end, and it certainly has some moments. Lucy has a pretty badass moment in Chapter 17, “Lying to Cecil”, when she explains why she has gone off marrying him: “… When we were only acquaintances, you let me be myself, but now you’re always protecting me.” Her voice swelled. “I won’t be protected. I will choose for myself what is ladylike and right. To shield me is an insult. Can’t I be trusted to face the truth but I must get it second-hand through you? A woman’s place! You despise my mother—I know you do—because she’s conventional and bothers over puddings; but, oh goodness!”—she rose to her feet—“conventional, Cecil, you’re that, for you may understand beautiful things, but you don’t know how to use them; and you wrap yourself up in art and books and music, and would try to wrap up me. I won’t be stifled, not by the most glorious music, for people are more glorious, and you hide them from me. That’s why I break off my engagement. You were all rigth as long as you kept to things, but when you came to people—” She stopped. You go, girl! There, now you’ve read the best part; I’ve saved you the trouble of having to read the whole book. I also like how this chapter and subsequent chapters are titled, “Lying to …”, giving us explicit acknowledgement that Lucy is deceiving herself and others about her feelings. There is a level of introspection here, which, combined with the above speech, definitely elevates A Room with a View above the frivolity of mere romance. Yet Lucy is about all that is interesting about this book, as I mentioned above. George is no Mr. Darcy or Captain Wentworth. As far as I’m concerned, Lucy would be better off burning everything down and moving to Canada. Hmm. Not a bad fanfic idea…. Anyway, Forster’s writing just doesn’t get to me. It’s an incompatibility of style and of plotting rather than ability, though. I can recognize that Forster is trying to do interesting things here, and I see why other people might find this book captivating. It does not speak to me, though. Some books, the right books, will transport you into their world and make you never want to let go. And when you’ve read enough of those, you know immediately when you’ve cracked open a book that won’t. A Room with a View is such a book for me. It might not be the same with you, but that’s not enough for me to recommend it. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 27, 2016
|
Dec 28, 2016
|
Dec 27, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
3.78
| 3,850
| Jan 07, 2017
| Jan 03, 2017
|
really liked it
|
I want to start with the author bio at the end of this book: “Chibundu Onuzo was born in Lagos, Nigeria in 1991.” When I read this, I did a doubletake
I want to start with the author bio at the end of this book: “Chibundu Onuzo was born in Lagos, Nigeria in 1991.” When I read this, I did a doubletake, because that makes Onuzo only 25 years old and 2 years younger than me. I had just assumed she was much older, because her voice sounds so much older, so much richer in terms of experience and worldliness. I am in awe, and in no small part envious, of this 25-year-old’s talent. I first encountered Onuzo and her writing quite recently, when I read an article of hers in The Guardian and used it for a summarizing exercise in one of my classes. I had no idea she was also a novelist, but then I stumbled across Welcome to Lagos on NetGalley! I appreciate Faber and Faber making it available for me to read. Last year National Geographic published a feature on Lagos (NB: National Geographic is fantastic and remains so despite its purchase by Rupert Murdoch; my grandparents continue to give me a subscription every year and I love it). Robert Draper describes the same Lagos seen here in Onuzo’s novel. On the one hand, it’s a city rife with corruption. Everyone is on the take, hustling, from the lowliest person selling and buying on the street to the highest government officials. The level of corruption is so staggering it’s stupefying how the country functions at all. Yet it does, and on the other hand, Lagos is a vibrant city, economically and culturally. People start businesses here, become huge successes. The various tribes celebrate their traditions both different and common—both Draper and Onuzo mention the colour themes at Nigerian wedding and the expectation that guests all dress in the chosen colour. Onuzo’s meditations on Lagos and the entire country’s political situation are unequivocal. She lays the blame for the country’s situation on the doorstep of colonialism and ongoing imperialism: “the whole of Nigeria’s fortunes rose and fell on what foreigners would pay for her sweet crude”. Later, in the book, someone jokes about how Western leaders want to “impose democracy” on the country—except it’s not really a joke. I love postcolonial fiction, but I don’t read enough of it about Africa. As a native of Lagos, Onuzo is in the best position to explain and portray her hometown’s history and situation. I loved learning about it from her, seeing it through her characters’ eyes. Lagos is a complicated, paradoxical city, and Welcome to Lagos captures that. Its characters, for the most part, are outsiders to the city. They come in from the hinterland: Chike, a soldier who has deserted an army unit after becoming disillusioned by the brutality of his commanding officer; Fineboy, a militant more interested in radio and deals than in violence; Isoken, a woman who has lost her family and came too close to losing her autonomy; Oma, a wife fleeing an abusive husband but still tethered, spiritually, to the idea of her marriage; Yemi, Chike’s right-hand man, an illiterate and less educated soldier who nevertheless displays a deep and abiding interest in his country’s history and welfare. As these outsiders meet for the first time and begin navigating Lagos together, Onuzo introduces us to the city’s complicated character. None of them are 100 per cent adapted to navigating it. Fineboy is very adaptable but needs guidance, a goal, something bigger than himself and his own dreams. Chike is also searching for purpose, though he is more practically minded and will settle for a job first. It’s kind of your standard motley crew of nobodies coming into their own. In this case, Onuzo drops a disgraced Minister of Education on them. With the money they confiscate from Chief Sandayọ, they start renovating and resupplying one school at a time in Lagos, ironically putting the money to its originally intended use. Sandayọ himself has mixed feelings about this, and I love this portrayal: he is upset, naturally, that his plans to flee have been stymied by this group of squatters in his abandoned Lagosian home; yet he is also intrigued by how swiftly Chike et al put that money to good use where, after a year as Education Minister, he met only frustration. Onuzo indicts the paralysis gripping the corrupt government of Nigeria, something underscored more terribly when, after Sandayọ reveals the names of the schools they helped, the police swoop in and arrest the principals involved. Part of the brilliance of Welcome to Lagos is how softly it speaks. There is not a great deal of action in this book. Aside from the opening, and then later on towards the end, any confrontations or threats of violence tend to happen off the page and are recounted, theatre-style, by a character to the others. In this way Onuzo takes up the spaces between violence, focusing on the ever-present possibility of a situation becoming violent if the people with the guns, or the money, or the oil, or whatever leverage is potent at the moment, aren’t satisfied. Like any good writer, Onuzo also investigates the role of the written word in revolution. Ahmed Bakare is an intriguing revolutionary editor: so dedicated to justice, to hard reporting, yet also strangely impotent. I love the observation of the futility of his continuing to print newspaper: He would not bring down the government with the Nigerian Journal. Those days were gone, when newspapermen were feared and hounded and despised and worshipped for their recklessness. Mmm, oh, it just feels so relevant to journalism everywhere in this, 2016, the year of the Trump. Ugh. Because the line between Nigeria and a country like Canada is a thin one: we have freedom of the press, but is it really free? Nigeria just does away with the pretext, makes it very clear that if people in power don’t like what you’re saying they will burn your building to the ground and make your secretary disappear! Ahmed flees the country into the welcoming embrace of mother England only to find that the news cycle there is different from how he operates, and of course, corruption in Nigeria only has so much currency as a story. This tension between what is newsworthy and what should be reported to the public as a matter of human interest and empathy is a minor but important theme in Welcome to Lagos. Onuzo rather uses Lagos as a microcosm for the decisions that happen around the world to shape what we see, what gets reported. The report the BBC World Service runs is different from the story that Sandayọ tells David West which is different from what actually happened; along each link in this causal chain the distortions build like constructive interference. The BBC is interested in a different narrative from the one Ahmed champions or Chike encounters on a day-to-day basis. While these differing narratives share similar issues and facts at their cores, their distinct perspectives influence the opinions that form around them. I’m hearing a lot about how we’ve suddenly entered a “post-truth” or “post-fact” era. And I can’t help but think the Western world is overreacting, at least in the sense that what’s happening now is somehow new or unimaginable and has never happened before in the history of the world. Onuzu aptly demonstrates here in her novel that Nigeria is plenty familiar with a post-truth society—everyone knows one truth but is careful to state another, and this is a feature common to dictatorships, failed communist states, and basically anywhere that corruption or bureaucracy has outlived a sense of duty and integrity. And so while Welcome to Lagos does comment on how the colonialism of the past got Nigeria to where it is today, it also holds up a mirror to the continuing colonialism now impelled by international coalitions of oil companies and news services instead of the British empire. This form of colonialism might be subtler, at least to the outsider’s perspective, than what previously went on, but it is no less insidious as a result. But by the end of the book, Onuzo tightens the focus again to examine the effects these national events have had on our heroes. Are they scarred? Battle-worn? Wiser? She offers us no easy or simple answers; this is not a Hollywood film “based on a true story” where the main character conveniently dies an honourable death and everyone else pairs off and keeps their memory alive. Nope. Relationships continue to inch ever forward, one day at a time, and whether they flourish or wither is not for us to know. Each one of the protagonists has to make decisions about who they want to be, how they want to slot into life in Lagos. This is a book that captivates, that grabs your attention. It is, as I observed earlier, soft-spoken—but that does not mean it waters down its words. On the contrary, aside from the intensely interesting light it sheds on Nigerian politics, this novel is just beautiful prose from start to finish: As always, there was too much food. The table was heaped for guests that would never arrive: his dead sister, her imaginary husband and their six obese children. Onuzo wastes no words and deploys them with unerring accuracy, weapons of mass description that always find their target in the reader. Her imagery is impressive—and I say this as someone who generally ignores such things, since I don’t visualize when I read. Nevertheless, I found myself almost able to imagine the heat of the day, the sweat, the dust and grime, the absence of power and the noises of chaotic traffic. She plucks you from the familiar world, the world where your assumptions hold true, and transports you to Lagos, where everything is both the same and different. Welcome to Lagos will hopefully challenge your complacency in your knowledge of the world even as it entertains and moves you with the characters who come alive on its pages. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 22, 2016
|
Dec 24, 2016
|
Dec 22, 2016
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||||
0802189644
| 9780802189646
| B01LFQ3KWM
| 3.96
| 29,634
| Jan 03, 2017
| Nov 11, 2017
|
it was amazing
|
I still haven’t read Bad Feminist. But when I saw Roxane Gay’s new collection of short stories up for request on NetGalley, I leapt at the chance to r
I still haven’t read Bad Feminist. But when I saw Roxane Gay’s new collection of short stories up for request on NetGalley, I leapt at the chance to read them. So thanks, NetGalley and Grove Press, for this opportunity. Trigger warning in this review and book for discussions of rape and assault. In many ways, Difficult Women seems like a kind of spiritual successor to Bad Feminist. Again, I haven’t read the essay collection, so I can’t draw direct comparisons. However, in general it seems like Gay’s short stories here are echoing what her essays say about the fraught and flawed nature of existing as a woman, or indeed, as a human, in our society. These are stories full of characters who are bad feminists! Some of the protagonists are likeable, some aren’t, but at every turn they are complex and conflicted and full of nuance. These are short stories beautiful both in their writing and in what they have to say about how we live our lives. If I had to choose one word to describe this collection, it would be charged, or maybe raw. All of these stories concern, to one degree or another, the act of sex. Women having sex with their boyfriends, husbands, lovers, or even against their will. Gay’s writing surfaces problematic tropes. Many of her protagonists sleep with bad boys or men who are otherwise unhealthy for them. Moreover, quite often Gay has them describe their enjoyment of rough sex, of being made to feel “sore”, of being used for the man’s pleasure. This is far from the second-wave feminist ideal of sex as a liberating act in which the woman takes back control over her body and seeks pleasure on her terms rather than a man’s—this is bad feminist stuff! Yet these descriptions are co-located with an intense focus of the reader’s gaze on the embodiment of the characters and how they are acutely aware of their bodies at all times. From “Florida”: Marcy enjoyed the pleasant soreness as she drove the five blocks home after each class. She liked how for an hour, there was a precise set of instructions she was meant to follow, a clear sense of direction. I don’t know if it’s intentional, but this phrase reverberates through later stories, sometimes in an association with sexual activity, as in “Baby Arm” below: A couple of months later, he comes over to my apartment in the middle of the night because we’ve long abandoned any pretense of a mutual interest in anything but dirty sex…. and “Bone Density”: Bennett is not romantic and we don'>t delude ourselves about the state of our affair. He is, however, intense and always leaves me sore in uncomfortable places. and “The Sacrifice of Darkness”: She gave in to the weight of him. He held her face between his hands like he might crush her skull. The pressure of his hands made her head throb, almost pleasantly. When Hiram kiss Mara that morning, her lips swelled and bruised, threatened to split open and spill. Her lips felt pulpy against his, beautifully misshapen. The whole of her body felt that way by the time he was done, as if every muscle, every part of her skin, had been worked through his hands and his mouth and his eyes until was broken all the way down. Sometimes the phrasing refers to non-sexual activity, as in “Florida” above or here, in “Requiem for a Glass Heart”: After her afternoons in the park, the stone thrower’s wife finds herself sweaty and pleasantly sore. She walks home slowly, breathing deeply. She revels. Then she takes a cold shower, emerges, wraps herself in a soft cotton robe. This focus on embodiment appears in other ways as well. Some of the stories involve twins: in one, a woman loves her husband’s twin more than him, pretends not to notice how they switch places constantly; in another, a woman has delayed leaving an abusive situation because she does not want to leave her twin. Others, such as “Requiem for a Glass Heart”, take a more magical realist turn, wherein the paradox of fragility and resilience manifests literally in the form of a glass woman. In every story, the protagonists are hyperaware of their bodies, how they move, how they are perceived by others. This transcends class or race. In “La Negra Blanca”, which might be my favourite story of the collection, Gay shows both the woman’s hyperawareness of the male gaze and the man’s gaze itself. Sarah/Sierra, a biracial stripper stereotypically putting herself through school, uses her body to make money and has conflicted feelings about it. As William becomes obsessed with Sierra, with all that she represents in body and soul, we see him entertain—and then act on—increasingly depraved fantasies. We see the reality disappoint in contrast to the fantasy, and the cost this has for Sarah. William can walk away, dismiss his role in the rape as a mistake, an action in the past that he can forget. Sarah cannot let that go. (Gay explores this idea, that abuse is so traumatic in part because it exists outside of time for the victim, that it is not merely the abuse-in-the-moment that is harmful but the fact that the victim is forever anchored to that moment in time, in some of the other stories, including “I Will Follow You”. It is quite powerful, and I think people who have not experienced such abuse will find these stories very helpful in understanding why it is so harmful and its effects so long-lasting.) “North Country” plays off this motif of hyperawareness in a different way. In Kate, female readers will recognize the tightrope between professional life and personal life that women are asked to walk by the patriarchy: I teach a section of Design of Concrete Structures and a section of Structural Dynamics. I have no female students in either class. The boys stare at me after class, they linger in the hallway just outside the classroom. They try to flirt. I remind them I will assess their final grades. They made inappropriate comments about extra credit. For men like myself, Gay’s exquisite prose and descriptions help us understand this experience from “the other side”, if you will. Most men don’t have to constantly wonder whether the attention they receive is the result of their looks or their activities. Most men don’t have to fend off the continual, almost automatic advances of colleagues simply because they are young, unattached, and attractive. And while I know this, intellectually, from my reading and my conversations with female friends, there is something very emotionally intense about Gay’s writing. I like to read because I like putting myself in other characters’ shoes, to build empathy for experiences I cannot (or am lucky enough not) to have myself. Difficult Women does this for me. Beyond considerations of race, class, and gender, Gay’s emphasis on embodiment fascinates me on a personal level because I don’t feel very in touch with my body. I don’t pay much attention to it, and I even find it fairly awkward at times. So there is something very intriguing about the different facets of embodiment that Gay explores throughout this anthology, from sexual intercourse to combat to the gaze of others. What Gay depicts in these stories is life at its messiest, life in the liminal spaces. The women of this collection are difficult because, like any woman, they do not fit neatly in the boxes and labels that anyone—on any part of the political or social spectra—ascribes to them. They are not always entirely happy with this or with themselves—but that is part of the theme here. And Gay brings this out through a diverse set of stories, each one unique and intriguing in tone and style. It’s not too hard to write stories that are enjoyable to read; it’s not too hard to write stories that are meaningful and thought-provoking. Gay has managed to combine these two feats—no small order—and I’m always delighted when that happens. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 18, 2016
|
Dec 19, 2016
|
Dec 18, 2016
|
Kindle Edition
| |||||||||||||||
0439226775
| 9780439226776
| 0439226775
| 4.15
| 3,190
| Nov 1999
| Jan 01, 1999
|
really liked it
|
These “Chronicles” special volumes are always a delight. Visser is the story of Visser One, aka Edriss 562, whose host body is also Marco’s mom. Visse
These “Chronicles” special volumes are always a delight. Visser is the story of Visser One, aka Edriss 562, whose host body is also Marco’s mom. Visser One is on trial by the Council of Thirteen, the ultimate governing body of the Yeerks, subject only to the whims of the Yeerk Emperor, whose identity is known only to the council members. Visser Three is prosecuting the trial, and his rivalry with Visser One is a major source of conflict in this book. Visser One must tell the story of how she discovered Earth’s existence and made preparations for the Yeerk invasion—meanwhile, Marco and the Animorphs might be her only hope of getting out of this trial alive. There is so much to love about this book! First, we get unprecedented exposure to internal Yeerk politics. Up until this point, all we really knew about the Yeerks was that they have an “empire” with military positions including vissers, sub-vissers, etc. We knew that Vissers One and Three have a long-standing rivalry over how to handle the invasion of Earth. Visser One sheds more light on this in her story, and through her, Applegate reveals the schism within the empire: all Yeerks want Earth, but how to get it remains up in the air. Visser Three is pressing for an all-out invasion, to conquer humanity by force. This puts the reader in the awkward position of sympathizing with Visser One’s point of view, because even if she is arguing for the invasion of Earth, she is at least keeping it on the down-low. At one point, Marco briefly muses whether all-out warfare wouldn’t be a bad thing—at least the Animorphs would not have to hide, then. (Ugh, so much foreshadowing!) Yet Visser One points out that this would cause an immense death toll. Hence, the complexity of this problem should not be understated. Given that this book is from her point of view, Visser One appearing as more sympathetic probably shouldn’t come as a surprise. Nevertheless, I don’t think we had a grasp on how close Visser One is to turning traitor. She pretty much admits in this book to falling in love with humanity, to forming some kind of weird marriage alliance with her first host, her host’s husband, and the Yeerk controlling him. And she would do anything to protect the human children that she had with her host/host’s husband, even though they will never know her. Remember that, owing to how Yeerks are born in pools, they do not have any sense of “family” in the human sense of the word. Latent in this revelation, then, is the idea that humanity’s cultures and values are somehow infectious, even viral. Visser One arrives on Earth and “goes human”, as they put it. Visser gives Applegate an opportunity to fill us in on the history of how Yeerks found Earth and the invasion began. This is essentially the purpose of the Chronicles series: The Andalite Chronicles showed us how Elfangor’s involvement changed the war between the Yeerks and Andalites forever; The Hork-Bajir Chronicles showed us how the Yeerks got their formidable warrior hosts. Now we get to learn about why Visser One created the Sharing, how she first implemented it, and what her ultimate plans were. Along the way, Applegate comments on what she perceives are both the strengths and weaknesses of humanity. I also love that we get some time with Eva, Marco’s mom. It’s heartbreaking but heroic of her to volunteer to continue hosting Visser One because to escape would be too suspicious. While there is clearly no love lost between Eva and Visser One, or Marco and Visser One, there are nuances here to the relationship that helps belie the buffoonish depiction of other characters, like Visser Three. (To be fair, I feel like this latter portrayal can mostly be chalked up to Visser One’s unreliable narration—Visser Three might be more hot-tempered and less competent than her, but he clearly hasn’t bungled the invasion yet.) As always, Animorphs is a series deceptively complex given its often juvenile branding and marketing. Visser is just another example of that. My reviews of Animorphs: ← #36: The Mutation | #37 The Weakness → [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 15, 2016
|
Dec 15, 2016
|
Dec 15, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
0994050712
| 9780994050717
| 0994050712
| 3.93
| 122
| Nov 01, 2015
| Nov 01, 2015
|
liked it
|
She doesn’t want to get married. She wants her darker skin to be celebrated, not medicated. She wants to escape the memories of abuse at the hands of he She doesn’t want to get married. She wants her darker skin to be celebrated, not medicated. She wants to escape the memories of abuse at the hands of her uncle and break the cycle for her own daughter. She wants a job and doesn’t understand why it’s so hard for the men who might hire her to look her in the eye instead of her breasts. None of these stories are my stories. My story is one of comfort and privilege, ensconced in my male, white, Canadian body. These are the stories of 14 ordinary women from India, women who had the courage to show up at a comic-drawing workshop put on by an Indian artist, Priya Kuriyan, and two German artists, Ludmilla Bartscht and Larissa Bertonasco. Drawing the Line: Indian Women Fight Back! is the product of this creative awakening. As these three explain in their afterword, no one knew quite what to expect. Bartscht and Bertonasco went to India with all these pre-conceptions about what the women would and would not be comfortable drawing and telling. Kuriyan had no idea if she would get along with two foreign artists. No one knew if the women, most of whom had never drawn in their life, would open up enough to share themselves. Well, spoiler alert: it turned out fantastically. I backed Ad Astra’s Kickstarter for this North American edition. I don’t really know why; I think someone shared it on Twitter, and it seemed like a nice idea, and I could back at a level appropriate for my budget and get a copy of the book—win-win. This is not the type of book I usually read. And that is exactly why it’s so important that I read it. I think a lot about the idea of “reading widely”, both what it means and why it is important. Even when we try not to judge others for what they read, we are often judgmental through how we profess our own reading tastes. “Oh, science fiction? I don’t touch the stuff” is not really much better than just coming out and telling me you think my sci-fi habit is juvenile or silly. And I’m just as guilty of looking down my nose at romance-readers, Western enthusiasts, or hardcore thriller tasters. We’re a judgy species; we like to label and categorize ourselves and others. I don’t often read graphic novels. Visual storytelling does not fill the space in my soul the same way a page packed with words does. And I don’t often read the types of stories contained in Drawing the Line—though this, I feel, is more because I have not sought out such stories, nor are they as ubiquitous, rather than a preference on my part. So it’s important for me, every once in a while, to stretch myself. To read outside of that comfort zone. Sometimes that means trying on a romance or a thriller for size. Sometimes that means picking up an anthology of comics created by women who want to share their voices with the world. I didn’t understand every nuance of these stories, of course, but in general they are eye-opening glimpses at incidents and ideas I wouldn’t otherwise consider. The whole thing about skin-lightening, for instance. Several women link the lightness of their skin to marriage prospects and family attitudes. Also, I really enjoyed “An Ideal Girl” by Soumya Menon, both in its artistic execution and in the story it tells. Menon’s positive depiction of how the eponymous girl breaks out of the mould of expectations set for her to take agency is quite compelling. The variety of art styles might be distracting to some, but I kind of like it. I like the idea that in the future I can take this down from the shelf, open it to a story at random, and get something a little different every time. I don’t know if I would recommend Drawing the Line specifically to everyone, though I’d encourage you to check it out if you get an opportunity. But this is the type of book I’d recommend to everyone, in so far as I think everyone should read more, and read widely. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 08, 2016
|
Dec 08, 2016
|
Dec 08, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
1781125856
| 9781781125854
| 1781125856
| 3.87
| 861
| Aug 15, 2016
| Aug 15, 2016
|
really liked it
|
I want to teach high school because I want to stay young forever. Seriously. There is nothing like spending your day around teenagers, feeling their e
I want to teach high school because I want to stay young forever. Seriously. There is nothing like spending your day around teenagers, feeling their energy and their enthusiasm, being exposed to their perspectives in the world. At the moment my teaching career has shifted sideways, and I’m working with adults who need their high school diplomas (and that has its own rewards). Even then, I can still stay young by reading YA. I started writing reviews on Goodreads when I was 18, when I could still comfortably call myself a young adult. Now, at 27, that stage of my life is, like my hairline, receding. Whereas 18-year-old Ben could review Unboxed and other YA from a YA reader’s perspective, I’m having to come to terms with the fact that I can only review it from an adult-who-is-reading YA perspective. Don’t get me wrong: I think these labels are largely marketing, that YA novels can be high quality literature, and that adults should read YA and can find it relevant. I just want to highlight that what I get from a YA novel isn’t necessarily what teenage readers might get from the same story, and that is an important distinction. Still, in Unboxed Non Pratt deals with a subject that all adults will recognize. Sometimes I think the hardest thing about getting older is not the physical process of aging but the inevitability of leaving people, or rather one’s relationships with people, behind. Regardless of the details, we can all relate to Alix and her mixed feelings about reuniting with Ben, Zara, and Dean to unearth a time capsule five years on from its burial, with their now-deceased friend Millie an omnipresent ghost over the night’s proceedings. There’s few things better than a writer who knows novellas. Unboxed is a surgical strike of storytelling. Like, I’m disappointed it’s not a full novel simply because I want me more Pratt—but I can see the wisdom of this particular length. This is a lean, mean, storytelling machine where every scene pays off, every conversation reveals more about these characters. And it is all towards this theme of what friendship actually means and whether it is OK for friends to drift apart as they change. I also think this is a book that will really appeal to more reluctant readers, both in terms of subject matter and length, and in my opinion any book that is a gateway drug to reading is a good thing. One thing I find very fascinating is Pratt’s decision to tell the story entirely from Alix’s perspective. Why no split POV? Why Alix in particular? (Pratt has since answered this question on Twitter! Yay interwebs.) I don’t think it’s a spoiler to talk about Alix being gay, since we learn it at the beginning of the book. I love the way Pratt weaves Alix’s sexuality, and her complex feelings about hiding her discovery of it from her friends five years ago, throughout the other developments in this book. Alix isn’t a gay character for the sake of having a gay character in some kind of tokenist move; neither, however, is her sexuality her sole defining trait. Rather, it’s a part of Alix’s wider identity, and the conflict she feels as the night goes on is an interesting foil to her otherwise forthright, take-charge attitude. Pratt clearly delineates a special connection from Millie to Alix to the rest of the group: they point out that Millie knew the others would come if Alix asked on her behalf. And throughout the evening, despite her anxiety about coming out to her friends, Alix is a driving force in this activity. Millie’s role in the book is also fascinating just because she’s, you know, dead. She is a posthumous character in the most literal sense; aside from that last letter, everything we learn about her comes from how the others speak about her. As is often the case, they are reluctant to speak ill of the dead. To Alix, Ben, Zara, and Dean—at least on this night of nights—Millie is mythologized, larger than life, this wise and sympathetic creature who knew them better than they knew themselves. In some ways, this is true: Millie is quite literally the force that gets them together; she plays quite a big role in the time capsule. But it’s also a comment on how we project our hopes and fears on other people, and how we sometimes need other people to validate our choices. Because I’m a wizened, old literary snob, I saw a lot of the plot points coming and so wasn’t moved by the twists per se—but I still teared up at the end, there. If you’ve read it, you know the part I’m talking about: page 128, after Alix has read her letter, that scene of unimpeachable and intense connection…. And that’s, to borrow a John Crichton turn of phrase, what I’m talking about. When you know it’s coming, you know exactly what’s going to happen, but the author still manages to sneak up and sucker punch you right in the feels—that is wonderful. Pratt doesn’t just tell stories. She makes characters come alive, and she does it with such precision and timing. In less than 150 pages we meet four dynamic individuals with flaws and doubts and questionable choices of boyfriends. We only get to join them for a night, but what a night. Unboxed is about facing the past to confront the future, and it’s a story of uncertainty and friendship and bonding that adolescents and adults alike are going to recognize. It’s edifying without being patronizing; it’s sharp and clear but does not cut. And it offers no false promises. There is a tidiness to a lot of YA stories about friendship, particularly the kind that make it to the big screen, that makes me uneasy. There is a promise, explicit or implicit, that everything works out in the end. You spend your whole story worrying about going off to different colleges but, hey, it all works out for the best. We’re so afraid of loose ends in our narratives. But it’s those loose ends that make them real. Unboxed ends on what I would term a positive and uplifting note—but Pratt offers no reassurance, no promise that this Freaksome Four will remain reunited or intact. She can’t, because they can’t, because life is unpredictable. Life gives you stomach cancer and abusive parents and crap boyfriends and divorced parents who move away and you just have to deal. But if you’re lucky, you don’t have to deal with it alone. I like it. Maybe not as much as Remix or Trouble , but they were novels, and I’m really biased in favour of novels. Unboxed is about as good as novellas get for me, though, and it really is just delightful to meet more of Pratt’s characters and hear her uncompromising, empathetic words again. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 07, 2016
|
Dec 07, 2016
|
Dec 07, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
1442254998
| 9781442254992
| 1442254998
| 3.91
| 179
| Aug 01, 2016
| Dec 01, 2016
|
it was ok
|
It’s entirely a coincidence that I read about Marie Antoinette in
Trainwreck
just prior to picking up Marie Antoinette’s Darkest Days. That being
It’s entirely a coincidence that I read about Marie Antoinette in
Trainwreck
just prior to picking up Marie Antoinette’s Darkest Days. That being said, it was nice to have a little primer from Sady Doyle about why Antoinette is such a fascinating character from a feminist perspective. Here, Will Bashor pieces together Antoinette’s experiences while imprisoned in the Conciergerie prior to her trial and execution. He draws upon a wealth of primary sources in an attempt to fill a gap in his reading of histories and biographies of this queen. While he doesn’t always succeed at holding my interest, it’s undeniable that he has produced a work of detail and an elegantly structured resource for anyone trying to learn about the French Revolution. Thanks to NetGalley and Rowman & Littlefield for providing an ARC of this book. My Kindle version wasn’t formatted very well. This book has lots of pictures that were just sort of haphazardly tossed in here, and the footnotes were scattered throughout the paragraphs (in red), like they had just scanned in the print edition and run OCR on it. There are also many extended quotations that are neither in quotation marks nor offset from the author’s text, so it can be hard to tell when they end. I say none of this to knock the book, for I’m sure the final editions will be professionally formatted—but I wanted to provide context for why I found this book difficult to read at times. My main issue with Marie Antoinette’s Darkest Days arises from Bashor’s tone and decisions to convey so much of the primary source material directly to the reader. He warns in the Author’s Note: Considering the efforts to reconstruct these scenes, readers may find that Marie Antoinette’s Darkest Days at times reads like a novel. However, with vigorous research and study of archived documents and secondary material from mostly eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sources, I have made every effort to retell this incredible story as accurately as possible. OK, unpopular opinion time: If you want to write a novel, write a novel. If you want to write a non-fiction history, write a non-fiction history. Consider Alison Weir, whose fiction and non-fiction both I have enjoyed in the past. I know Weir’s non-fiction is a bit more pop than Bashor might be going for here. The point, however, is that she recognized when she wanted to make use of the conceits and freedom provided by a novel to explore a historical person and place. If Bashor wanted to write extended scenes of mostly dialogue, whether in transcript form or no, and plumb the depths of his characters’ minds … perhaps he should have written an actual novel, instead of writing a non-fiction book and then offering up the excuse that it “reads like a novel”. I recognize that this is a stylistic quibble and that other readers can probably get over this hurdle just fine. Indeed, most of my criticism here is stylistic in nature. Marie Antoinette’s Darkest Days is far from a poor book in either structure or execution (uh, pardon the pun—and that one). It’s quite accessible to people like me, who only have a general knowledge of the French Revolution, despite Bashor offering little in the way of generalized exposition (there is a “prelude” at the front and a chronology, though, both of which are helpful). I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this as the very first book anyone reads about the Revolution, but you don’t need extensive background knowledge to follow what happens here. By the same token, Bashor sticks to his topic. Any time he deviates from discussing Antoinette directly is only to discuss the key players in those last months of her life or the investigations surrounding plots to free her. He mentions the concurrent developments in France and political squabbles between Jacobins and Girondins only insofar as they are germane to Antoinette’s situation. I applaud this focus and ability to keep on track. Each chapter follows in a logical progression from the previous one, beginning with Antoinette’s transport to and imprisonment in the Conciergerie and ending with her trial and execution. (The trial chapters were a little boring. Again, lots of transcript and minute recounting every detail.) There’s even an epilogue that traces the decades following her death and the fates of those who survived her. Marie Antoinette’s Darkest Days is at times too thorough, and this is the comment that both praises and damns the book. I can see this being a valuable resource for a student of French history, if only because Bashor has already done so much work for them in terms of finding primary and secondary sources and translating it into English. For more general audiences like myself, your reaction is likely to be far more mixed. If you’re really keen on learning about Antoinette, you will learn a little from here—though maybe not as much in her own words as you might expect. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 04, 2016
|
Dec 06, 2016
|
Dec 04, 2016
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
163215711X
| 9781632157119
| 163215711X
| 4.46
| 54,281
| Jun 29, 2016
| Jun 29, 2016
|
really liked it
|
Yay, Ghüs is back for a bit! For the third year in a row I bought Saga for my friend for a Christmas gift. As long as they keep releasing one of these Yay, Ghüs is back for a bit! For the third year in a row I bought Saga for my friend for a Christmas gift. As long as they keep releasing one of these volumes every year, I’m golden. Volume 6 jumps ahead four years, so Hazel is in kindergarten, and Alana and Marko are kind-of together again, searching for their daughter. Meanwhile, Prince Robot is enjoying being “off the grid” and away from the court, raising his son in peace—until pretty much everyone crashes his party. Sorry not sorry. Without a doubt, Hazel’s larger role as a protagonist is this volume’s most notable feature. Now old enough to have some agency over her life, Hazel is starting to grasp the politics of her situation. She and her grandmother, along with one of the women who were trying to kidnap them, are in a detention centre on Landfall. Yes, after all these attempts to keep Hazel out of Landfall’s hands, she ironically ends up right under their noses. No one except Hazel’s grandmother knows her secret—but this changes, and when it does, we’re propelled into another intense and dramatic sequence of the type Brian K. Vaughan and Fiona Staples have become so well-known for. Hazel and her grandmother must trust people who might betray them, before their time runs out. So far, Hazel is proving a very interesting character. Her perspective is certainly unique. I especially enjoy her interactions with Miss Petrichor, a trans Wreathian character. Petrichor discovers Hazel’s secret but jumps to the conclusion that Hazel is the product of a Landfall man raping a Wreath woman. Here we have someone who is subject to discrimination herself, yet even she displays the bigotry and disgust we’ve come to expect as the reaction to Hazel’s existence. Once again, Vaughan and Staples provide us with interesting, multi-dimensional characters who have both redeeming and unlikeable qualities. I could do without the two journalist guys who are poking around this story. I get how they fit into the plot, providing the Will with a way back towards Robot and (eventually) Alana and Marko. I guess I’m just impatient and want to see more of Hazel’s story! If she is this cool when she is a little kid, then I’m eager for the volumes that depict her actions as a teenager. I also have to hand it to Vaughan and Staples for their excellent world-building once again. This is an area in which the graphic nature of Saga offers a leg up over a strictly prose work. Staples can, in a single page, subtly depict the cosmopolitan nature of this galactic society, the way that all these different species can coexist. This serves as a stark contrast to the homophobia and discrimination that some of the characters face. Saga’s is such a colourful, visually interesting world, and Vaughan and Staples manage to hint at a long and complex galactic history without getting bogged down in exposition. If anything, Volume 6 only disappoints in that it doesn’t deliver a single, intense climactic moment. There are some really good scenes, some very intense scenes, but not one over-arching scene that anchors this volume in my mind. After the deaths and diversions introduced by the previous volume, this seems like a course-correction on the way to whatever goes down in the next one. I guess I’ll find out next Christmas! My reviews of Saga: ← Volume 5 | Volume 7 → [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Dec 02, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
0679410430
| 9780679410430
| 0679410430
| 3.88
| 874,434
| Sep 1955
| 1992
|
liked it
|
It’s the penultimate read for the Banging Book Club! Arguably the most well-known of this year’s selections and easily the most controversial from the
It’s the penultimate read for the Banging Book Club! Arguably the most well-known of this year’s selections and easily the most controversial from the moment of its release, Lolita is definitely complex and not an easy book to read. Lolita reminds me of Lullabies for Little Criminals , one of my favourite books and one that I revisited this year in preparation for teaching it to my adult learners (I’ve since taught it twice, to good reception). Both books deal with the sexual abuse of a pubescent girl. Whereas Lolita is abused by her stepfather, Baby, the 13-year-old protagonist of Lullabies for Little Criminals, falls in with a twenty-year-old pimp because her father is negligent, and she has sex with him in addition to prostituting herself for him. Both girls are victims of circumstance and the men who take advantage of that circumstance, although both also seem intrigued by their role in these relationships. What strikes me as the key difference between the two books, however, is the narration. Baby narrates Lullabies for Little Criminals, so everything we learn is from her perspective. We understand why she finds Alphonse an attractive option, both as a replacement kind of father figure and as a romantic/sexual mentor. Lolita, in contrast, comes to us as the ramblings of Humbert. Reliability of his recall and honesty aside, Humbert doesn’t truly know what Lolita was thinking or feeling. So it’s interesting that Nabokov chooses to tell the story this way, to objectify Lolita so totally. Despite its title, Lolita is not really about Lolita at all. It’s about Humbert, and Humbert’s dark obsession. I’m glad now that we read Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us back in the summer. Thanks to Jesse Bering, I can use the proper term for Humbert’s attraction to Lolita: hebephilia, rather than pedophilia. It doesn’t make the attraction any better or less squicky, but it’s nice to be accurate here, it helps us better understand how Humbert operates. Humbert isn’t turned on by infants or very young children; he is specifically attracted to pubescent girls, or “nymphets” as he designates them. Vladimir Nabokov does not go into much depth regarding why Humbert might have this attraction, and indeed, despite Humbert’s numerous stays in sanatoriums, little reference is provided for the psychological status of hebephilia in that time. Instead, Nabokov chooses to focus on the depths to which Humbert sinks in pursuit of his perversion. I started reading this book with a hesitant mindset. Did I want to read this? Was I going to get squicked out and have to stop halfway through? It’s not dirty in the same way that, say, Lady Chatterley’s Lover is. But it is really creepy. Nabokov is creepy good at writing a creepy character, and while I don’t agree with the people who banned (and even seized at the border, in the UK!) this book when it was first published, I understand why some people are happy to give it a miss forever. If I hadn’t been reading this for the Banging Book Club I’m not sure when, if ever, I would have picked it up. After Humbert meets Charlotte Haze and begins his relationship with her, first as lodger then as lover, I began to find the book more tolerable. Oh, his descriptions of his attraction to Lolita were still creepy—but there is something fascinating about Humbert as a character. Like any good villain, the act of exposing his thought process gives us a glimpse at the darkness within all of us as human beings. Though not everyone is attracted to pubescent children like Humbert is, we all have some measure of personality that we dislike or find shameful. Humbert, however, has clearly embraced this aspect of his personality even if he acknowledges that society disapproves of it, and he produces endless rationalizations for it. There is so much more to Humbert’s darkness than his abuse of Lolita, too. He is a narcissistic man whose first reaction to every event is how it could affect him. Long before he engages in the act of murder, he contemplates it in cold blood—and merely as a device for getting someone out of the way so he can get closer to his target. He is misogynistic, as seen in his treatment of his first wife. In general, he’s just not a nice dude. The narrative reads like Humbert attempting to convince us that his lust after nymphets is, if not acceptable, excusable. Yet by his own admission, he does terrible things to secure his dalliance with Lolita. And he knows that what he does is wrong, for he is constantly paranoid that the state is going to find out and put him in jail. I’m not just talking about the sex either—I’m talking about the negligence in his role as Lolita’s de facto guardian. There is a gulf between action and intent. We can decry the creepiness of hebephilia all we want, but if Humbert had only gawked at Lolita from afar and told us over and over about how attractive he finds pubescent girls, he would not be a monster. It’s his actions that matter in the book, not his desires, which is why it is so telling that he tries to focus the reader on the latter as if they excuse the former. Humbert’s attraction to Lolita is not the issue—it’s the length to which he blows up her life to act on that attraction. (Although Lolita’s untimely expiration is a requirement to have this memoir published so soon after the events it chronicles, I also feel like Lolita dying in childbirth is a huge cop-out on Nabokov’s part. Once again it emphasizes that this book is not about her, and in the end she was simply a loose thread that needed snipping. The book is always about Humbert, and how events affect him.) It’s also worth examining how the semiotics of Lolita have changed given our culture’s changing attitudes towards sex over the past 50 years. Lolita gained its controversial label for its depiction not just of Humbert’s sexual appetites but of any sexual appetites whatsoever. Nowadays, the depiction of a diversity of sexual appetites is so commonplace that it is literally more accessible to millions of people than, say, healthcare. My, oh my, how things have changed. I’m reading Trainwreck, by Sady Doyle, at the time of writing this review. In one chapter, Doyle describes Britney Spears’ first magazine cover, Rolling Stone April 1999, when Spears was seventeen: Inside the magazine, you could find her posing in a cheerleader outfit, coyly pulling the skirt up toward her hips, or posing in that doll-stuffed bedroom in underwear and high heels, or shot from behind, walking a pink tricycle, wearing short-shorts with the word “BABY” emblazoned in rhinestones on one ass-check. Men were supposed to want to sleep with Britney, that was clear enough. But they were supposed to want it specifically because she was a child. Those last two sentences though. I can’t underscore Doyle’s observation enough: our current society doesn’t just sell sex; it sells an ideal of sex embodied by the titillating appeal of youthful (female) bodies. While it’s reductive to view the 1950s as a less sexually-permissive time than our own, this shift in attitudes towards sex and what the media promote as “sexy” is clear. In the aftermath of the sexual revolution of the latter half of the 20th century, sex has become an endlessly packaged commodity, one sold primarily to (presumed straight) men—or to (presumed straight) women in the form of messaging about how to “get a man”. And entire industries make billions selling ephebophilic visions of barely-legal women hovering on the cusp of adulthood—not quite nymphets, then, strictly speaking in chronological terms, but culturally close enough to offer that hint of forbiddenness without all the messy moralizing. And it’s not like this is a huge secret. Indeed, to bring this experience full circle, on the next page of Trainwreck Doyle quotes Britney Spears from her 2000 interview with Rolling Stone, where Spears says, “I don’t want to be part of someone’s Lolita thing. It kind of freaks me out.” Just as mainstream culture has regrettably reduced Pride & Prejudice to a mere romance novel, so too has Lolita suffered that ignominious fate of the literary classic and become a synecdoche of itself. But the irony is that in many ways our society is much closer to validating Humbert than it is to rejecting him these days. Humbert’s lack of appeal, as a character, is both intentional and regrettable. Towards the end of the book, it got harder to read again. The narrative starts to become unhinged as Humbert searches for Lolita in vain, then discovers what has happened to her and decides to exact revenge on Quilty. It was not as tense as it should have been—and not just because we know that he is a murderer, thanks to the prologue and Humbert’s own foreshadowing. But there is also very little drama in Humbert’s confrontation with Quilty. It is too scripted, too stulted, because both men are irredeemable asses. I’m reminded of two hosts in Westworld having the same scripted conversation over and over before shooting each other as the conclusion to their loop. Nabokov states in his afterword that there is no moral to be found here. I disagree. There are no heroes in Lolita. That’s the moral. Russians, huh? I can see why some people love this book. I can see why others hate it. For me, it just puts the focus too much on the wrong things—on the villain rather than the victim, on the nihilism of the abuse rather than the society that enables it. Some of this I can lay at Nabokov’s feet, and some of it is simply where I’m coming from, in 2016, with my perspective on social justice and gender issues. Lolita is every bit as polarizing and complicated as I thought. It is an interesting look and somewhat thought-provoking. It’s not a must-read classic, though, and I think there are many more recent books written since that tackle these ideas with more relevant approaches. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Nov 24, 2016
|
Nov 27, 2016
|
Nov 24, 2016
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
0439106753
| 9780439106757
| 0439106753
| 3.63
| 2,775
| Dec 01, 1999
| Dec 1999
|
did not like it
|
OK, been a while since I’ve dropped one of these into the rotation. The Mutation is the first Jake-narrated book since #31: The Conspiracy. Whereas th
OK, been a while since I’ve dropped one of these into the rotation. The Mutation is the first Jake-narrated book since #31: The Conspiracy. Whereas the previous book focused heavily on the tough decisions Jake must make as a leader, The Mutation instead explores more broadly the toughness required of all the Animorphs. This book is like a bizarre mash-up of James Bond and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. The Animorphs discover that Visser Three has a shiny new toy to use to find the sunken Pemalite ship. So they decide to take the toy away from him the hard way. The first half of the book is fairly intense, because the Animorphs have to use a succession of morphs to locate, dive towards, and then fight the so-called Sea Blade vessel. Remember the good old days when the Animorphs used maybe two morphs in the entire book? This far along in the series, Applegate is signalling the way their lives have changed dramatically. Jake just casually mentions the Chee covering from them while they go on this trip. Similarly, although he acknowledges that all these quick morphs are draining, it definitely feels more routine than it once did. Yes, the Animorphs are transforming from a motley group of unlikely heroes into actual heroes. If only they would start, you know, planning beforehand. But that’s probably too much to ask. The second half of The Mutation is a whackadoodle narrative of epic proportions, however. Sea people, seriously?? I mean, I guess I could have gone with it—goodness knows I’ve gone with so many other weird turns in this series—but the execution is just terrible. They’re clearly a one-off, with little actual thought given to how they mutated from humans (radiation did it!, not that it works that way), and their bellicose attitudes towards the surface dwellers handwaved away by … you guessed it, radiation and inbreeding. Applegate has gone to a lot of trouble to establish her youthful protagonists as forces to be reckoned with and moral forces equivalent to adults. Hence, it is always disappointing when this series pits these protagonists against cheesy, childish foes. This isn’t Power Rangers or another Saturday-morning Japanese import where teenagers are fighting goofy alien enemies. Yes, the enemies are alien—but they are serious business. And every time the Animorphs go up against dumb sea people, or have to temporarily make a truce with Visser Three, the series creeps closer to that Saturday-morning territory. Small moments offer tantalizing glimpses of what makes Animorphs so good. Jake reflects on Cassie’s un-Cassielike bloodthirsty zeal for revenge against the Yeerks. He also has to weigh the destruction of the Sea Blade (to prevent the sea people from using it on the surface) against the Animorphs using it to escape and return to the surface. These kinds of decisions are always an interesting part of his role as leader. Unfortunately, these small moments can’t carry an otherwise loopy plot. This one has some great underwater action scenes and lots of morphing, but in terms of substance, it’s disappointing. I realize now I forgot to read Visser in between this book and the last one (I put them on my ereader a few books at a time, and these ones made it on but Visser didn’t). So, hopefully soon, we get to learn more about Visser Three! My reviews of Animorphs: ← #36: The Proposal | Visser → [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Nov 21, 2016
|
Nov 21, 2016
|
Nov 21, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
9781612347
| 3.89
| 72
| Nov 01, 2016
| Nov 01, 2016
|
really liked it
|
Oh man, I did not pick the right time to start reading Haters: Harassment, Abuse, and Violence Online (yay Oxford comma!). I started this two days bef
Oh man, I did not pick the right time to start reading Haters: Harassment, Abuse, and Violence Online (yay Oxford comma!). I started this two days before the American Election Day, and then after those results, I just had to kind of … put it down a bit. I was planning to read it over a week or so, because like
Indigenous Writes
, this is an academic-but-accessible book about some heavy stuff, and reading it in one or two sittings wasn’t going to do me any favours. Bailey Poland speaks knowledgeably and constructively about exactly what it says in the title. She grounds the book both in academic theory and in recent, important examples of targeted abuse and hatred campaigns online. The result is a book both illuminating and, at times, galvanizing—but it’s also a heavy subject. Trigger warning for abusive, misogynistic language and gendered insults. Poland acknowledges her own privileges upfront. Moreover, she repeats this throughout the book. I really like this. She says near the beginning: Sexism as it affects online life is the major focus of this work, with the key caveat that online harassment and abuse are rarely—if ever—linked to gender alone. (It’s at this point that I started to think I’d really like this book.) Towards the end, as she examines the explicit theoretical roots of cyberfeminism, Poland adds: A modern cyberfeminism must be an intersectional cyberfeminism, with room to examine how technology and the Internet can be used to combat multiple oppressions, rather than creating easy metaphors that erase variety and disguise problems that have many roots. I appreciate that Poland acknowledges her privilege and some of the privilege and biases present in the work of her predecessors. In doing this, she avoids some of the “white feminist” problems that plague a lot of feminist discourse, particularly within the spaces of tech and the Internet. Poland attempts to spotlight and centre the struggles that Black women and trans women, in particular, face, without trying to speak for these groups (as she does not belong to them). The first part of the book is devoted to defining, explaining the origins of, and categorizing cybersexism. Although Poland mostly discusses explicit examples of misogynistic acts and utterances, she also mentions the unconscious bias that pervades online spaces: For example, the design of technology to suit an ideal user (presumed to be male) or to make it more difficult for women to access and use is also cybersexism. Some examples include making smartphones too large for the average woman’s hand, health and fitness tracking apps that exclude menstruation (or regard the tracking of menstruation as only for cisgender women and aimed only at pregnancy) or designing a “revolutionar”y heart implant that works for 86 percent of men and only 20 percent of women. I’ve long been fascinated by science and technology, but I also grew up believing science was this objective, neutral pursuit. Even after I started understanding gender issues and feminism, it took me a long time to come around to the idea that science is as much of a social construct as something like gender. So this is a theme that is close to my heart, because even though I don’t go around cussing out women on the Internet, my behaviours can still be sexist. The mostly-male teams designing the technologies Poland mentions above are not sitting around going, “Hey, how can we make the world more awesome, except for women?” This is being done because people aren’t stopping to think about how users other than themselves might experience the technology—and, of course, because not enough women are represented in the field. Poland goes on to examine some specific examples of massive abuse campaigns, most notably Gamergate. (I had totally missed Christina Hoff Sommers’ involvement with Gamergate, so that was interesting to learn about.) With well-cited reference to studies and philosophers of technology and power, Poland notes how “online spaces have always been, and remain, areas where dominance and control remain deeply important”, and so: In many ways that’s the true purpose of cybersexist abuse; to wear down individual women so that they give up and leave the space to the men. This type of silencing is so troubling to me. It’s not just outright physical threats of violence. It’s more pernicious than that. And for those of us who are not exposed to such levels of abuse, this silencing is even easier for us to overlook, ignore, and erase. In doing so, even those of us with the best of intentions unintentionally contribute to the silencing of women, and that makes online spaces all the poorer. Fortunately, Haters is not just about the harassment that women experience. It is also a call to action. Poland addresses multiple stakeholders who can solve this problem. She calls on social media platforms to take more responsibility for preventing harassment without putting the onus on the victim. She calls on politicians and law enforcement to recognize online harassment for the serious problem it is, and to educate themselves so they understand what it means when someone reports being doxxed or is worried they’ll be swatted. Finally, she passes on Leigh Alexander’s advice to men: She suggests that men need to stop asking women what to do, stop expecting women to educate them about the abuse they are suffering, stop trying to explain the harassment, and stop telling women how to respond to it. Again, this is another one of those times that even well-intentioned allies can get it wrong and exacerbate a situation. It’s really natural to ask someone to explain an issue to you, especially when, as an ally, you’ve just started to learn that you should listen to the voices of marginalized people instead of talking over them. But it’s not the job of women to educate men about the harassment they are facing. If women like Poland and Alexander and Quinn, et al, want to speak out about it, then hell yeah we should listen—but we shouldn’t demand it of them. So I’ll amplify what Poland is saying in Haters (so you can get the gist of it, until you read it yourself, obviously). Men should be more aware of how their privilege helps them, blinds them, and affects those around them. We should help women one-on-one, without emphasizing their role as victims. We should reach out and help educate other men, because we shouldn’t assume that women are going to do it for us. As I’m writing this review, I’m doing two things that demonstrate the paradox of the Internet. First, I’m watching Desert Bus for Hope 10, a streaming charity marathon where a large group of people play a boring video game 24/7 to raise money for Child’s Play Charity. During the run, the group interacts with people in a chatroom, busks by performing challenges to drum up donations, and runs silent and live auctions and giveaways. There are celebrity call-ins, and good times are had. It’s all for the children, and Desert Bus manages to raise an incredible amount of money every year. This marathon is one of my favourite annual events, and it is an example of how the Internet can help bring strangers together to help other strangers. There is a wonderful power here—but there are biases too. The second thing I’m doing is watching a woman I follow on Twitter, an author, deal with days-long misogynistic and anti-Semitic abuse because she dared to email an elector with her opinion about why he shouldn’t vote for Donald Trump in December. She posted the rude response that she received, and this led to more hatred and abuse. She is far from the only woman I follow on Twitter whom I’ve seen deal with this or talk about it; and they all deal with it far more than I know about. And I’m really sad that this happens, that people feel it’s OK to do this—and that too many bystanders let it happen or don’t consider it a serious problem because “it’s online” and therefore not real. I don’t experience this type of abuse. I’m a nobody, so I don’t get any abuse, and even if I did, I’m white and male and able-bodied and present straight, so I have a whack of privilege that insulates me from these experiences. I’m so insulated, in fact, that if I didn’t pay attention and go out looking for these incidents, and books about these incidents like Haters, I could miss them. I could believe that the problem is not as widespread, urgent, or harmful as women claim it is. Here’s the thing about whether or not you should believe women when they say they’re being harassed. Many, many women can tell you stories of being harassed. So either you believe them, or you don’t. If you don’t believe women, it means you think they are lying (or mistaken because aren’t they all overly-emotional and sensitive?). And the idea that women, as a category of people, are deceptive, is stereotypical and sexist. Believing women is a prerequisite for feminist thought and, you know, being a decent human being. Unfortunately, those of us with male privilege often have experiences that make it hard for us to understand the perspectives that many women have as a result of their experiences. And it’s for this reason that I feel Haters is essential reading for men more so than for women, for whom much of this book will probably feel very obvious and familiar. Not saying women shouldn’t read this book—academically it’s quite interesting—but it will hopefully be more useful for men like me who better want to understand these experiences that we just don’t have. Haters does feel very academic, coming as it does with numerous references and a very dry, didactic tone. Unlike more polemical feminist non-fiction, then, it took a little longer for me to read—but that makes it no less useful. I wouldn’t recommend starting out here (go read Unspeakable Things first!), but if you want to continue to broaden your understanding of the complicated ways in which the Internet can be harmful for women and other marginalized groups, Haters is a great resource. Thanks to NetGalley and the University of Nebraska Press for allowing me to read an electronic ARC of this book. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Nov 07, 2016
|
Nov 15, 2016
|
Nov 07, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||||
0765388286
| 9780765388285
| 0765388286
| 3.54
| 1,102
| Oct 18, 2016
| Oct 18, 2016
|
really liked it
|
It’s difficult to overstate how much I loved Laurie Penny’s
Unspeakable Things
. You should read it, full stop. So when I heard she had a novella c
It’s difficult to overstate how much I loved Laurie Penny’s
Unspeakable Things
. You should read it, full stop. So when I heard she had a novella coming out, of course I pre-ordered it right away. Whereas some science fiction speaks so optimistically to the potential for technological innovations to make our world better, Everything Belongs to the Future falls decidedly on the opposite side of that scale. The dystopian world that Penny imagines here is chilling because it feels all too realistic. Worse still, I’m not sure I disagree with her protagonists’ methods of challenging it. One thing that Unspeakable Things does well is ground feminist thought in systemic, rather than personal, critiques. That is to say, individual people might commit sexist or misogynistic acts, but we have to view those actions as part of a larger system (the patriarchy). Penny is very good at describing how the systemic nature of discrimination is harmful to people of all genders. When viewed in this way, it becomes more evident why feminism cannot be about “women hating men” or somehow overthrowing them and usurping their power—because in the system we have today, even men don’t necessarily have as much power (they just have privilege that allows them to remain blind to this fact). Feminism and the fight for equity, liberation, and justice can benefit men as well as women, because it’s about replacing a broken system, not championing one gender over another. Penny explores this idea further in Everything Belongs to the Future. I like how there are no explicit villains in this piece. One of the antagonists, Alex, is a POV character who clearly feels that his actions are justified, that he is acting in his (and even Nina’s) best interests. The character arguably closest to being a villain, Parker, Penny portrays more like just any other cog in the machine of the company. We don’t get as much access to his head, so it’s hard to tell if he has bought into the company line as much as he seems to have done. Nevertheless, even Parker is simply another representative of the system of oppression. It’s this system, the gerontocratic version of patriarchy, that is the real villain of the piece. Penny invites us to have empathy even for the antagonists and to understand that the work of changing society is difficult and often lateral rather than direct. Penny draws heavily on Foucault as she explores the ramifications of an age-extending pill—literal biopower, if you will—on our society. I’m not sure if Foucault ever commented on the role of biopower as exercised by a corporation rather than nation-state (but I’m sure his successors have since articulated such theories). Penny imagines a future that is, unfortunately, all too possible: one wherein corporations have more power thanks to their personhood, patents, and other legal devices that individuals cannot afford to wield. The setting is full of interesting ideas. In particular, Penny observes that all the people whose lives have been extended suddenly have to deal with the consequences of global warming that they were previously happy to heap onto their descendants’ shoulders. This is science fiction at its best: a technological innovation just beyond our reach, with its consequences considered carefully as the author uses it to reflect the issues that haunt our contemporary culture. In this case, the age-extending pill just makes explicit what people who experience poverty already know: rich people can afford more time. They can afford medical treatments to extend their lives or treat debilitating illness; they don’t have to worry about working as much to make ends meet. Poverty is a kind of double tax, on one’s wallet and one’s time. And Penny is spot on when she postulates that if such an innovation were to hit the markets, it wouldn’t be the poor who benefit from it. This is not a comfortable book to read. This is not a book where our band of plucky underdogs heroically take on the big bad corporation and win (or even lose gloriously). There are not really heroes in this book. There are just people who do bad things and believe their actions justified. Penny minces no words, acknowledging that our protagonists are unabashed terrorists. One of my favourite passages comes from a fictitious piece quoted within the story: If one puts aside for a second the question of strict political morality with the understanding that it is dangerous to do so for more than a second one soon realizes that the Time Bomb is as much a paradigm shift in human violence as the machine gun, the tank or the atom bomb. Few lives are lost in its detonation, except at the center of the blast zone; strictly speaking, no injuries are caused. It is a weapon at once entirely humane and utterly monstrous. Do you remember that awful Justin Timberlake movie In Time, where one’s time left to live has become a quantifiable commodity to be bought and sold? The trajectory of this novella’s plot reminds me of that movie, if that movie had not been quite so hokey. In both stories, time becomes a weapon, and characters fight over who can give it or take it away. The comparison to—and contrast with—the atomic bomb is apt. The atomic bomb rightly freaked out everyone at the time, because it was just so destructive. Since then, though, we’ve designed plenty of equally destructive weapons—or, arguably, weapons that are even more destructive on an absolute scale, simply because we use them infinitely more often than nukes. Remotely-operated drones are freaky and deadly, but we don’t see as many people campaigning against drone strikes—partly because, since they don’t put soldiers on our side in as much danger, they seem like a safer, more “humane” way to wage war. So, returning to the biopower theme, we have this idea that the next weapons breakthrough will revolve around “humane” weapons. This is a common motif in dystopias, where the forces of social coercion are usually insidious because they are not necessarily forceful. In Everything Belongs to the Future, if you play your cards right, you get extra years on your life. If you don’t cooperate, then you will remain a mere mortal and expire, while those you snubbed will get on with their plots without you. But I can’t stop thinking about how the Time Bomb is so terrible and yet our protagonists use it anyway and Penny acknowledges it’s a bad thing. I’m reminded of the Season 5 finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and what Giles does because he knows that Buffy can’t do it: “She’s a hero, you see. She’s not like us.” Moments like this are a challenge to the reader, because you have to stop and ask yourself if you would make the same choices. Would you do it? If I were in Nina’s position, would I use such a terrible device? I don’t know the answer, of course—I don’t think it’s possible to know, really, not having experienced the same intense nadir of hopelessness that Nina and her crew have. But it bears thinking about, because even if we don’t have age-extension and Time Bombs in our current society, we are all complicit in a system of aggression—some of it micro-, far too much of it macro—and we have to ask ourselves how best we can change this system. It’s so easy to dress up for the part of revolutionary, to call for revolution. It is harder to actually become a revolutionary and live with yourself if you start one. And that ending! That ending is brutal. I can’t say I’m sorry to see it turn out that way. I don’t think it’s a particularly undeserved ending, if you know what I mean—but it’s not the way you want your stories to end. It’s an uncomfortable ending for an uncomfortable book. I like that this is a novella, and while it certainly could have been a novel, I disagree with people who are saying it should have been. The story might be novella-length, but the time that would have been taken reading a novel-length version still gets used up just thinking about what’s already here. I’m actually really grateful Penny hasn’t dropped a novel on us yet, because I’m not sure my brain could handle that much. So don’t let the size fool you here: Everything Belongs to the Future is intensely thought-provoking. It touches on matters of gender and class and sexuality. It challenges us to think about the relationship between resistance and terrorism, between corporations and consent and rape culture. These are all pressing topics in this day and age, and through the lens of the future, Penny brings clarity to the conversations we should be having in the present. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Oct 29, 2016
|
Oct 30, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
0345810228
| 9780345810229
| 0345810228
| 3.39
| 13,571
| Sep 08, 2015
| Sep 08, 2015
|
liked it
|
In Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights, Salman Rushdie combines the literary traditions from A Thousand and One Nights with aspects of Arab
In Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights, Salman Rushdie combines the literary traditions from A Thousand and One Nights with aspects of Arabic mythology and a dash of our own fascination with apocalypses of the modern age. It is an entertaining novel in its own right, but I can’t help but feel like Rushdie has gone and pulled a John Irving on me and written something on repeat. All the old standbys are here. Rushdie’s particular brand of magical realism has always been one of absurdity layered atop mysticism. As with Midnight’s Children , this book features people receiving powers all at the same time. The themes here are very much concerned with the nature of God, as well as the nature of humanity itself, and whether humanity is at essence good, evil, or neutral. These sound like heavy questions, and Rushdie occasionally engages with them directly—but at its heart, this is a story about a conflict between the jinn, in which Earth essentially becomes a battleground and the people with powers—descendants of a jinnia princess and therefore part-jinn themselves—conscripts into Dunia’s army to fight the dark jinn who killed her father. Rushdie’s writing and style are, as always, up to this monumental philosophical undertaking. His prose is beautiful, and reading Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights is relaxing even at during its most violent confrontations or wretched moments. I particularly like his descriptions of Peristan and the lives of the jinn. I appreciate his tongue-in-cheek comments about the jinni obsession with sex, or the one off-handed remark he makes about magical realism authors. This kind of wit is a nice tonic to what otherwise might be an odd clash of tones going on here: the over-the-top supernatural and the heavy-handed theological. Nevertheless, something stopped me from really embracing this book and enjoying it as I have with other novels of Rushdie’s in the past. I blame the characterization, or perhaps the narration. None of the characters felt very real to me. The book is narrated in a dry, textbook style, framed as a chronicle of history from a millennium after these events. And this just makes it difficult to connect to any of the characters. We’re talking evil beings from another world invading ours, and the closest we get to heroes is a geriatric gardener who starts hovering and a psychopath who kills people with lightning. These are interesting ideas for characters, but I didn’t really find myself interested in them as people. Perhaps ironically, the character I ended up sympathizing most with was Dunia. Her grief over losing her father, and the knowledge of the burden she had to assume now as ruler of his kingdom, is a poignant moment that shifts the tone of the novel into decidedly more serious territory. This book is more literary experiment than actual narrative. Rushdie is very consciously attempting to emulate the stories-within-stories that comprise Arabian Nights. And while I have a lot of appreciation, and sometimes occasionally patience, for these types of experiments, I find myself less and less tolerant of them when their stories and characterization don’t match up. It’s not that I disliked this book. It’s good, on most such metrics. Yet I find myself asking the question: would I rather have read this, or re-read another Rushdie novel I’ve previously enjoyed? It’s not good—or at least, not good for this book—that my answer is the latter. Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights has its moments, but in the end all it really did was make me want to read The Satanic Verses and Midnight’s Children again. So … yay? I guess? [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 24, 2016
|
Oct 28, 2016
|
Oct 24, 2016
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
0812568583
| 9780812568585
| 0812568583
| 3.91
| 2,238
| 1998
| Aug 15, 2000
|
it was ok
|
What happens when the Singularity leaves you behind--or worse, forcibly uploads a copy of your mind state and then goes off and builds a wormhole usin
What happens when the Singularity leaves you behind--or worse, forcibly uploads a copy of your mind state and then goes off and builds a wormhole using your mind as forced labour? The Cassini Division asks just these sorts of mind-boggling posthuman questions. Ellen May Ngwethu is a few centuries old, thanks a telomere hack, and living in a post-scarcity society, thanks to nanomachine manufacturing. She has chosen to live on the front lines, literally, and is now a senior member of the eponymous group that watches over the slumbering AIs who built a wormhole out near Jupiter and then lapsed into senescence. Now there are signs that they are back, evolving (or re-evolving), and Ellen and her colleagues aim to do something to stop that. Ken MacLeod pits humans against machines here, where machines are the evolved intellects of other humans. But this is also a book that attempts to get at heavy issues of philosophy of mind and even economics. MacLeod's characters debate everything from the most efficient decision-making structure to the nature of morality. It's a lot to squish into a three-hundred-some page book, and MacLeod isn't always successful. That being said, it's not a bad effort, and I could see someone else really getting a kick out of this. As far as posthuman SF goes--and you know how lukewarm I feel about that subgenre these days--this is a good one. Everything regarding the Singularity, AI, mind uploading, etc.--this is where The Cassini Division shines. MacLeod is great at portraying the different opinions regarding mind uploading through his characters. Ellen and many of her allies look down on the idea that consciousness can exist independently of a biological, human brain. To her, an "upload" is just a copy, a stored state, and if it is run on a machine, it is a simulation of a person rather than that actual person's consciousness. Although Ellen and the Division make use of "backups" before they go into dangerous situations, they only load those backups into cloned bodies--and even then, Ellen acknowledges that entity is a copy of the "original" rather than a continuation of that original's identity. The posthumans who became the Outwarders disagree. They believe that consciousness is preserved, that a mind running on a computer (even one where computation speeds up the experience of "consciousness" thousands of times over) is actually conscious and living. Hence, they see this existence as generally superior, although it leads to an evolution in mental capacity and state--the Singularity. Far from being philosophical discussion without any purpose, this all has very real implications within the story. MacLeod points out that the descendants of Singularity-uploaded humans may not regard regular ol' humans as all that necessary to keep around. We're just taking up space, using valuable matter that can be gobbled up and converted to smart matter. So for Ellen and crew, stopping the posthumans by any means necessary is simply a preemptive means of survival. Her disdain for anything involving electronics and AIs, the way that the Solar Union has stuck with chemical and mechanical computing, despite its speed trade-offs, to avoid computer viruses from the posthumans, is all very fascinating. MacLeod has created a possible future that is interesting, original, but also believable within the Singularity conceit. Where The Cassini Division starts to falter is its dichotomous depiction of an anarcho-communist Solar Union and the anarcho-capitalist New Martians (along with similar non-cooperatives, nor "non-cos" scattered throughout the Union). It's not so much that I find these social setups unrealistic. But I find the way in which the members of these societies engage in offhand philosophical and economical debates about the relative merits of their systems somewhat stifling. It's almost Heinleinian. I get that you're excited because you have no money any more, but you don't have to point it out all the time. And why is everyone so obsessed with free love? Oh my god, it is a Heinlein novel! Run! I also didn't care for Ellen all that much. She's not a sympathetic character. Her hard-line stance regarding AIs is interesting, but she just strikes me as uncomfortably genocide-happy. Her amoral adherence to the "True Knowledge" is creepy. I want to think this is intentional on MacLeod's part, just another way of depicting how different this society is. Still, it made me difficult to cheer for Ellen. The rushed resolution, the way she turns out to be right about everything after all and just conveniently manages to "fix" things (maybe) adds to my dissatisfaction. The Cassini Division is the third book in a series. Nevertheless, it reads fine as a standalone. MacLeod lets you in on the historical details without hitting you over the head with them. I see now that I have the earlier books on my to-read list--but I don't think I'll bother, to be honest. This is the third MacLeod book I've read and the third I haven't enjoyed all that much. It's not the books so much as just my personal experience with his writing and his style, so you might enjoy them. Third time for me, however, proves not to be the charm. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 22, 2016
|
Oct 24, 2016
|
Oct 22, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
0804138141
| 9780804138147
| 0804138141
| 3.91
| 220,501
| Sep 15, 2015
| Sep 15, 2015
|
liked it
|
First off, an update on the shoe situation: I’m much faster at putting on shoes now. I’ve been training hard, lots of montages and such, and I’m proud
First off, an update on the shoe situation: I’m much faster at putting on shoes now. I’ve been training hard, lots of montages and such, and I’m proud to say I’ve seen great improvement. Why Not Me? is the second autobiographical set of essays from Mindy Kaling. In Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me? (And Other Concerns), Kaling told us about her childhood and the path that led to her involvement with The Office. In this book, Kaling reflects more on her adult life, talks about developing her own TV show, and shares her opinions on being in the position of a somewhat recognizable celebrity. Kaling’s humour once again suffuses her writing, with delightful sentences such as, “… a honeymoon is, after all, a sex vacation you’re giving yourself after a massive party in your honour”. But this book probably works so well because it neither glamourizes nor downplays the life of a Hollywood actor/writer. In one chapter, Kaling describes a typical day of working on the set of The Mindy Project, from waking at an ungodly hour to get to work, to going to bed at an ungodly hour after a long day of acting, writing, editing, and occasionally cake-eating. Replete with (often unflattering) pictures to illustrate the long process of early-morning makeup and late-night editing, this chapter reminds us that making TV shows is hard work for everyone involved. Typical coverage of celebrities tends to focus on the red carpet galas and extravagant premieres, but this over-emphasis on the glamour of acting in Hollywood detracts from the hard work it takes to actually make these entertainments. On the flip side, though, Kaling is quick to acknowledge the disconnect between her experiences now versus her experiences a decade ago. She mentions hiring a “team of stylists” and then remarks on how weird it is to say that—but that it’s also incredibly useful. Kaling is careful not to minimize the impact that her increasing success has had on her life. Claims by celebrities that they are “just like us” tend to ring hollow. Firstly, it’s obvious that all celebrities are actually lizard people in human suits. Secondly, it doesn’t matter how famous a celebrity is: just living and existing in that particular sphere of social interaction necessitates a different lifestyle. Kaling remains down to earth, but she never claims to be “just like us” (doesn’t deny the lizard thing either, you notice). In case it’s not obvious, I’m not necessarily Kaling’s target audience. She goes so far as to explicitly acknowledge this in her introduction. So take my three-star rating with that grain of salt. Nevertheless, there were a couple of passages that resonated with me, such as this one from her chapter on weddings and friendship: Until I realized: this long expanse of free time to rekindle friendships is not real. We will never come home to each other again and we will never again have each other’s undivided attention. That version of our friendship is over forever. Every once in a while, Kaling drops nuggets of hard truth in between her jokes. I shared the above realization with her as I have grown older. Many of my friends have moved away, or entered into long-term relationships, even had kids—and this is great and all, but it is a big change. Particularly as someone who doesn’t enjoy “going out” and prefers to have one or two close friends over just to hang out, it’s a change that requires a lot of adjustment. I also enjoyed this observation about differences between women’s and men’s magazines: I laugh thinking about if they ever tried to do “Who Wore It Best?” for men’s magazines. They wouldn’t, because no one would care. Men don’t care which men looked better in the same clothes because it’s so obviously a huge waste of time. It’s also why they don’t have astrology sections in men’s magazines. Zing! But a zing with a heavy dose of truth about different expectations of genders. And so this is why, even if I’m not the target audience and not, in fact, a huge fan of Kaling herself, I still enjoyed Why Not Me?. It’s modest but honest, and rather than serving up chapter after chapter of fluff, Kaling sticks in real, thoughtful, often feminist observations about our society. This is a book that can check off both the “easy read” and “meaningful read” boxes on the reading checklist I know you keep beside your bed. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 19, 2016
|
Oct 20, 2016
|
Oct 19, 2016
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
1611732050
| 9781611732054
| 1611732050
| 3.57
| 64,059
| Jan 27, 1927
| Jan 01, 2011
|
did not like it
|
**spoiler alert** Guys, this book is legitimately terrible. I knew, given Agatha Christie’s prolific output, that not all of her books, not even all of **spoiler alert** Guys, this book is legitimately terrible. I knew, given Agatha Christie’s prolific output, that not all of her books, not even all of her Poirot mysteries, could be good. There was bound to be a few stinkers in there. But The Big Four is to Poirot what “Threshold” is to Star Trek: Voyager—which is to say, it is a well-intentioned attempt that might have once held interesting ideas but, when executed, became a shambles of a story that is best forgotten. I’m not even sure where to begin, because this is like the opposite of a Hercule Poirot story. It’s like the Robert Downey version of Sherlock Holmes. Instead of a quaint country house mystery that subtly reveals the innate darkness in every human’s psychology, we get an over-the-top spy thriller in which Poirot and Hastings must stop four people from total world domination. I’m not kidding. It sounds like a bad fanfic, right? The book opens with Hastings coming back from South America for a bit of a visit and catch-up with Poirot. He learns that Poirot is becoming obsessed with a shadowy secret organization called “the Big Four”, after the codenames the four of them use. Over the course of the book—its constituent chapters having first been published as a series of short stories—Poirot and Hastings uncover the identities of the Big Four while solving mysteries, which sometimes don’t initially appear to be related. Along the way, the Big Four tend to be several steps ahead of our intrepid duo, although Poirot more often than not uses his little grey cells to escape whatever traps they’ve sprung before he and Hastings come to serious harm. That is, of course, until Poirot has to fake his own death, pose as his “long lost twin” Achille Poirot, so that he and Hastings can stop the Big Four from unleashing some kind of superweapon on the world. I am not joking. That is the plot of this book. No, I cannot believe it either. It sounds like a James Bond plot, but Christie wrote it. And it’s just so bad. We can even put aside, for the moment, the outsized world domination plot. I get where Christie is coming from with this, because at the time she was writing The Big Four, fascism was on the rise in Europe. The idea that secret societies might be plotting to start another war didn’t always seem far-fetched. That being said, the idea that four individuals alone could run such a secretive apparatus, and that they would choose to dispose of people through a costume-wearing assassin, is a little out there. Even ignoring this part of the story, however, The Big Four is a disappointing array of mysteries. When Hastings opens the book with his disclaimer that Poirot doesn’t go in for measuring footprints and using disguises, à la Holmes, I cheered a little. Yet he does exactly that! At first I thought Christie was lampshading all the way—but it feels genuine. I think Christie is genuinely trying to write a Poirot novel that is also a thriller. And it just doesn’t work. Look, I love the little bursts of action when Hastings gets to sweep the leg as much as any Poirot fan. At its core, however, these novels are always about Poirot puzzling out aspects of human psychology. And Christie knows it too, which is why the story always comes back to framing the plot as a game of wits, Poirot versus the Big Four, and how the turning point proves to be Poirot’s careful analysis of the psychology of Number Four. I am a Poirot completionist, i.e., I want to read all the novels there are. But I don’t ever want to read this one again, and unless you are as diehard as me, you should skip this one too. My only consolation is that, according to Wikipedia, the ITV Poirot adaptation of this story is almost entirely different because Mark Gatiss agrees with me! So at least I don’t have to watch them struggle to realize this on screen. Here’s hoping the next Poirot mystery I read has more of the little grey cells and less disguises, hmm? [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 17, 2016
|
Oct 18, 2016
|
Oct 17, 2016
|
Library Binding
| |||||||||||||||
0060856440
| 9780060856441
| 0060856440
| 3.58
| 192,679
| 1992
| Jul 19, 2005
|
did not like it
|
Wow, this one was rough. I had to borrow the audiobook version from my library/Hoopla because that was the only format available, and it is the abridg
Wow, this one was rough. I had to borrow the audiobook version from my library/Hoopla because that was the only format available, and it is the abridged audio edition. I normally avoid abridged editions. What’s the point in missing out on a bunch of the book? In the case of Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus, however, I think I’ll make an exception. This is just a terrible, even actively harmful book, and judging from the Banging Book Club video where they talk about things that weren’t present in the abridgement, I’m very, very lucky. Yes, this is the October pick for the Banging Book Club, a monthly club that reads books about sex, sexuality, and gender. This month’s pick is a doozy. Apparently this was an influential book in the 1990s and started the eponymous saying, so I get the reasons for wanting to read it. But it is just so bad. As you can guess from the title, John Gray thinks men and women are very different creatures. But it gets worse. He frames the book in an extended metaphor, setting for us a scenario in which men came from Mars, women from Venus, and started living together here on Earth until they forgot their origins. It’s tortured and overwrought and would be the first thing on the cutting room floor if a half-decent editor had their way. It probably goes without saying, but this book is incredibly cis/heteronormative. Not once does Gray entertain the idea that you're in a relationship with anyone who is of the same sex as you; not once does he entertain the notion that there might be more to the performance of gender than “man” and “woman”. So though there is advice in here that makes sense (I mean, “listen to your partner” is always good advice), it is so wrapped up in harmful assumptions that it becomes useless. The idea that men and women are somehow fundamentally different, especially when it comes to something like romance, is hard for us to shake. Even feminists often have trouble with this notion, especially at first. And observationally, yeah, men and women often do act differently or in stereotypical ways—but it is very difficult to pinpoint whether those observed differences are biological or cultural in origin. Very often, sex-linked or gender-linked differences turn out to have both biological and cultural elements to them (e.g., hormonal and social cues influencing when we feel ready to pursue a new romantic relationship). Like most science, this type of science is hard. So I don’t need Not-a-Real-Doctor Dr. John Gray to tell me it’s so simple he can teach me in an hour and a half. (Wikipedia tells me he isn’t a real doctor, making Gray about as reliable as Wikipedia.) So Gray pretty much ignores anyone in the LGBTQIA+ constellation of gender and sexual identity. And this, in a book written in the early nineties! It sounds to me like something rooted more in the 1960s or 1970s—I was picturing the Jetsons for all his examples. His assumption that a romantic relationship is monogamous and heterosexual and that both parties are cisgender erases anyone who is different. Plus, it’s boring. Beyond this, so much of Gray’s advice is just so facile. It’s either so simple as to be obvious—communicate better—or it’s stereotypical and peculiarly specific. In addition to the Martian/Venusian metaphor, Gray decides to talk about women being like waves and men being like rubber bands. Sure, I guess? Can I be like a disco ball with a bow-tie? Do we get to pick our similes, or are they all assigned at birth? Look, if you read this book and it helped me, I’m not saying that’s not real. But I think it’s important that we differentiate between pop psychology and actual science, and that when we make decisions, we base them on the latter. And we need to call out bullshit when we see it, particularly when it makes restrictive assumptions about the type of people living our society. Men aren’t from Mars and women aren’t from Venus, and attempting to reinforce the gender binary and gender norms does no one any favours. [image] ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 12, 2016
|
Oct 25, 2016
|
Oct 12, 2016
|
Audiobook
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.59
|
liked it
|
Dec 2016
not set
|
Sep 27, 2024
|
||||||
3.54
|
did not like it
|
Jan 19, 2017
|
Jan 19, 2017
|
||||||
3.80
|
liked it
|
Dec 28, 2016
|
Dec 30, 2016
|
||||||
3.90
|
it was ok
|
Dec 28, 2016
|
Dec 27, 2016
|
||||||
3.78
|
really liked it
|
Dec 24, 2016
|
Dec 22, 2016
|
||||||
3.96
|
it was amazing
|
Dec 19, 2016
|
Dec 18, 2016
|
||||||
4.15
|
really liked it
|
Dec 15, 2016
|
Dec 15, 2016
|
||||||
3.93
|
liked it
|
Dec 08, 2016
|
Dec 08, 2016
|
||||||
3.87
|
really liked it
|
Dec 07, 2016
|
Dec 07, 2016
|
||||||
3.91
|
it was ok
|
Dec 06, 2016
|
Dec 04, 2016
|
||||||
4.46
|
really liked it
|
not set
|
Dec 02, 2016
|
||||||
3.88
|
liked it
|
Nov 27, 2016
|
Nov 24, 2016
|
||||||
3.63
|
did not like it
|
Nov 21, 2016
|
Nov 21, 2016
|
||||||
3.89
|
really liked it
|
Nov 15, 2016
|
Nov 07, 2016
|
||||||
3.54
|
really liked it
|
Oct 29, 2016
|
Oct 30, 2016
|
||||||
3.39
|
liked it
|
Oct 28, 2016
|
Oct 24, 2016
|
||||||
3.91
|
it was ok
|
Oct 24, 2016
|
Oct 22, 2016
|
||||||
3.91
|
liked it
|
Oct 20, 2016
|
Oct 19, 2016
|
||||||
3.57
|
did not like it
|
Oct 18, 2016
|
Oct 17, 2016
|
||||||
3.58
|
did not like it
|
Oct 25, 2016
|
Oct 12, 2016
|