(I'm setting aside the YA protagonists and the setup that requires dramatic simplification of the entourage of a presidential candidate, and seeing other flaws. But also a ripping good yarn and a very strong voice and an attempt at world-building a post-zombie-apocalypse society that goes a bit further than usual. For which, kudos.)
]]>Bujold, for two new series doing something new (Chalion and the Sharing Knife). The most important book for me personally is 'Paladin of Souls'.
The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms. I'm a card-carrying Bujold fan but I voted for this ahead of Cryoburn.
Diana Wynne Jones: The Tough Guide to Fantasy.
]]>(Main issues with Feed? Firstly, it's set 30 years in the future -- but it doesn't feel it; it's depicting a world hit by a zombie plague decades ago but it feels very "now", as if the plague hit circa 1980. Secondly, so far (I'm 60% of the way in) there has been zip usage of the main metaphor for which zombies stand in: the poor. We're seeing only rich folks through the narrator's eyes -- they're all rich, privileged, or background-less security guards. Zombies are the menacing horde, a metaphor for American angst about the underclass -- but there's no use of that in the story (at least so far): it's what is termed, in British SF circles, a cosy catastrophe (or the aftermath thereof) and I o/d'd on that particular form in the 1970s because it was about the commonest mcguffin in British SF of a certain period. Finally, Big Boss Bad Guy is Bad: I'm pretty sure I guessed the plot reveal around 45% of the way in, although I'm still reading to find out.)
]]>No I am not.
Because one of the problems of the job I do is that it puts you off reading for pleasure in your spare time.
I used to read >100 novels a year, routinely. Since I've switched to writing them, it's a good year when I read more than 12. (I'm not the only novelist with this problem, although it's the kind of embarrassing personal affliction that we don't generally talk about in public.) I am quite simply unqualified to pronounce on what's good or not. Hence the previous discussion thread.
I will add that I tend to binge when I finish a book, and my comfort reading is pretty much the opposite of what you'd expect given what I write -- again, because once it's the day job you don't necessarily want to take it home with you in the evening.
]]>Important books since 2000 - I would say 'Oryx and Crake'/'After the flood' because it brought science fiction to a lot of readers who otherwise turn their noses up at the stuff.
]]>Actually three now.
]]>From that perspective, I think it would have to be Twilight. (The first Harry Potter book was apparently published in 1997 – hey, I didn't start reading them until the last one was published, of course I had to look up the date – and thus does not qualify.) It strikes me as the sort of book about which someone (or several someones) said "No one's going to read that, it's just sparkly vampires, who cares?" Whether or not that's all it is, a lot of people cared ... perhaps not to the extent that people did/do about Mr. Potter and his young friends, but Meyer definitely attracted a very sizable audience. (It doesn't matter that her vampires aren't "real" vampires, that they don't follow established vampire rules. She seems to have guessed that her audience wouldn't care about that, and she turned out to be correct.)
I read the series. The first one was interesting enough that I wanted to finish the series to find out what happened, but overall it wasn't my cup of tea ... no big deal, because I'm not the target audience. I enjoyed Rowling's books much more, in no small part because I could identify with Harry more than with Bella.
I read Twilight because it was the book we were reading that month for book club; a couple of years later, I read The Hunger Games for the same reason (but also because my best friend strongly recommended the trilogy). I also ended up reading Harry Potter based on her recommendation ... Boneshaker when it was io9's book of the month, back before Gawker made their entire family of sites completely unviewable by anyone with an eye for layout ... and The Help as a book for our book club. They're important in different ways, but I fear that a common thread is that they are reminding the stodgy part of the publishing industry that yes, women can write books that people want to read, and honestly we ought to be past that point by now.
And I think that is what OGH is getting at in 115, that obviously we're not past that point. I can't say that I would have read most of those books if someone whose opinion I trust hadn't basically said "This is good, read this." (My best friend is the one who cajoled me into joining the book club in the first place, so she gets credit for all the books above.) There will always be plenty of books I'd like to read and will never take the opportunity to read, and yet my default behavior, when it's time to pick up another book, is basically "Let's see what's out there that is similar to what I already know I like."
There are several authors I like who have rather large collections of work, so it's easy to default to something of theirs I haven't read ... and they all happen to be white men, so I just end up reading more books from the same group. The thing is, I enjoyed J.K. Rowling and Cherie Priest and Octavia Butler and Suzanne Collins (and before them, Le Guin and McCaffrey); there's obviously more out there like what they've written, it's just a matter of making the effort to look. It isn't so much about making sure that X% of what I read is by someone other than a white man, it's more about making sure that publishers realize that white men can actually enjoy books by people not exactly like them. (Not that I'm speaking for my entire demographic.)
]]>Rather than re-hash my existing response, I'll mention that one of the oldest novels that I consider important also happened to be written by a woman: Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, whose (214th) birthday happens to be today. It's not important because it's one of the first examples of science fiction, or of horror, or of the novel as a format, or even because the story sticks with us for so long and became such a part of our culture. READ the damned thing, and think about it, and discuss it with people, and you'll see.
(My own assertion is that it's fundamentally a novel about the consequences of the choices parents make in raising children, but there's certainly room for discussion.)
Bonus points for those with short attention spans: watch the 1986 movie "Gothic" to get a better understanding of the context in which it was written. (If you don't already know why, then read the wikipedia article on the movie to understand the relationship.)
Once again, happy birthday, Mary Shelley!
]]>This is your yellow card.
Reason: fightin' talk directed at a genre of fiction that lots of people -- whether or not you agree with them -- hold in considerable esteem. Also: egregious sexism directed at the majority of fiction readers.
I refer you to the moderation policy. Do it again and you will be banned from this topic and your comment deleted.
Some additional clarification: genre romance accounts for around 52% of all published fiction in the US market. A lot of it is undoubtedly formulaic ... just as is a large proportion of SF and Fantasy. And as with SF and Fantasy, Sturgeon's Law applies: if 99% of SF is drek, that other 1% is something else -- and so with romance. It's invariably a bad mistake to write off an entire genre as unworthy of consideration, and that's what you just did.
]]>The bulk of Infocom games were fantasy (like Zork) or science fiction (like Planetfall). There were a few mysteries thrown in as well (like Deadline).
"Plundered Hearts" was a no-apoligies up-front full-fledged BODICE RIPPER. The heroine (who was the character you played as) was involved in plots involving governors and pirates in the West Indies, intrigue, romance, everything. The box art even almost looked like a painting with Fabio.
(Oh, and as an aside, the game designer happens to have been a woman. But I'm somehow not used to thinking of that as odd with regard to games from this time period, with examples like Roberta Williams and Jane Jensen as awesome examples in my memory.)
And... it was a good game! I thoroughly enjoyed playing it.
Now, I still can't personally stand the genre of fiction upon which it's based, but I take that to say more about my tastes than about that genre. This game helped me catch a glimpse of what some people see in it.
(For those who want to try it: the game is in the "Lost Treasures of Infocom 2" collection, and the data file is just sitting there ready to load into interpreters that run pretty much everywhere, including under "Frotz" for the iPad and iPhone. I originally played it on an MS-DOS PC, but now, yes, I can load it up on my phone.)
]]>Important? An interesting question — I'm not sure whether YA fiction can be important or whether, on the other hand, YA authors are automatically important in that they get to their readers before those readers have got too jaded.
(Disclaimer: I know her peripherally, and have cooked for her, which was slightly tricky since she's vegetarian and it was someone else's BBQ. On the other hand, I don't know her so well that I consider my judgement particularly affected.)
]]>Yes, Susanna Clarke and Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrel is the current featured article.
]]>