In article <9bidnXPK35F6123XnZ2dnUVZ_tOdn...@giganews.com>, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> writes: >"Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:hcnh14$m55$1@news.eternal-september.org: >> I would have thought Earthquake Weather made >> no sense without the first two.
>Omit the last four words.
It's amazing how people's experiences vary. _Expiration Date_ was my first exposure to Powers, and it blew me away. _Earthquake Weather_ was, to me, a worthy sequel.
Then, I picked up _Last Call_, and decided to read all three together. My reaction to _Last Call_ was so unenthusiastic that it sucked much of the life out of _Expiration Date_ and prevented me from finishing _Earthquake Weather_.
I've seen other people here say "<book A> retroactively destroyed my enjoyment of <book B>". Before this, I didn't think that such a thing was possible.
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> If this is our corporate opinion, you will be billed for it.
Michael Stemper wrote: > In article <9bidnXPK35F6123XnZ2dnUVZ_tOdn...@giganews.com>, Louann > Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> writes: >> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote in >> news:hcnh14$m55$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>>> I would have thought Earthquake Weather made >>> no sense without the first two.
>> Omit the last four words.
> It's amazing how people's experiences vary. _Expiration Date_ was my > first exposure to Powers, and it blew me away. _Earthquake Weather_ > was, to me, a worthy sequel.
> Then, I picked up _Last Call_, and decided to read all three together. > My reaction to _Last Call_ was so unenthusiastic that it sucked much > of the life out of _Expiration Date_ and prevented me from finishing > _Earthquake Weather_.
Very odd, since most people would make LC the best of the three, and for many it's their favorite Powers. (I'm a TAG man, myself.)
"Endymion9" <endymio...@comcast.net> writes: >Just tried to read this. Won't rate it since I bogged down and just couldn't >get thru it. I got about 250 pages in before giving up and tried skimming >ahead to the end, but obviously missed way too much that way.
Probably, it's a very dense book with a lot of threads hidden in plain sight.
>Has all the elements of a fantastic story. But just got bogged down in both >the wordiness and my inability to keep the players straight. There were >just too many factions for me to hold them all in my head as I read.
Like "Stress of Her Regard", it takes a long time to get moving, making at least one bounce-off likely if you're not a Powers fan and don't know to give the story time to take shape.
>Anyone else read this? Enjoy it?
Not my favorite Powers by any means, but yes. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> writes: >So I ration out Powers, because I want to keep reading and find the >ones I'll love, but I don't want to find myself in the middle of one of >the ones I just can't get into.
I ration him out because he spends so much time crafting books. Not that it isn't worth it in the end. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
"Endymion9" <endymio...@comcast.net> writes: >and thought it was one of the best novels I'd ever read. Grabbed Deviant's >Palace drooling and hated it and never could get far into it. Got Anubis
"Dinner at Deviant's palace" is very atypical Powers. It's at the bottom of my ranking of his books, but there's still things in it that stuck with me to this day, like the name "Pocaloca" and aggressively drumming your fingers. Mileage varies as usual. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
"rexga...@yahoo.co.uk" <rexga...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >I found both books made much more sense after I read Last Call
As you would expect since Last Call is the first book in the series. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:44:05 -0600, pv+use...@pobox.com (PV) wrote: >"Dinner at Deviant's palace" is very atypical Powers. It's at the bottom of >my ranking of his books, but there's still things in it that stuck with me >to this day, like the name "Pocaloca" and aggressively drumming your >fingers. Mileage varies as usual. *
And a very good title.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:55:34 -0600, > Johnny Tindalos <Jamai...@UnrealEmail.arg> > wrote: >> Mary Gentle would be one example:
>> _Rats & Gargoyles_: Yay! >> _The Architecture of Desire_: SQUICK! >> _Ash_: Yay! >> _1610: A Sundial in a Grave_: SQUICK! >> _Ilario_: too scared to read it...
> I would say that _Ilario_ is a Yay! even though I didn't have the > Squick! reactions you did. Not as good as _Ash_ but still pretty much > up there.
Ah, wonderful!
I have it in a pile somewhere, where it would have stayed until the sun went out if it hadn't been for this thread...
> Here, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:55:34 -0600, >> Johnny Tindalos <Jamai...@UnrealEmail.arg> wrote: >> > Mary Gentle would be one example:
This was probably the worst one for me, of which the worst bit...augh, there were several, but I think that (apart from the obvious bits), <rot- 13 for spoilage, also it's not very nice either and may cause squickage> gur oerngugnxvat erfphr bs Cbyyrasnk Pnyzbql sebz gur tnyybjf ol Inyragvar ba ubefronpx, juvpu jnf ernyyl ivivqyl qrfpevorq...naq juvpu fur evfxf urefrys gb nppbzcyvfu orpnhfr *fur'f whfg nf zhpu bs n encvfg nf ur vf*...jryy, gung jnf n ovg gbb zhpu sbe zr gb gnxr.
>> > _Ash_: Yay! >> > _1610: A Sundial in a Grave_: SQUICK!
> I grok that categorization. Not so much "squick" as "the author's > misanthropy has broken the levees and flooded the book."
It's odd that it should seem to come and go by title; perhaps she suffers from cyclic bad moods? Anyway, I'm glad you agree; am afraid my friends have only read the ones I gave them, which were all Yay!s...
>> > _Ilario_: too scared to read it...
>> I would say that _Ilario_ is a Yay! even though I didn't have the >> Squick! reactions you did. Not as good as _Ash_ but still pretty >> much up there.
> Better than _Ash_, I thought. And much better than _R&G_, which was a > feast of wonderful ideas that would have been even better if they'd > been made into a novel.
This is very cool, and thank you for letting me know, for I have that very book (Ilario, that is) and am now looking forward to reading it!
> _Ilario_ is the book where Gentle takes her acute perception of > humanity's flaws -- see above -- and builds it into a powerful story > about humans, rather than just waving it around on a stick and > spitting at the audience.
That's a good description of what she does when what she does is not what I wish she'd do.
> (I've seen people argue that _Ilario_ is too much idiot-plotting, but > I've never been good at noticing that.)
I also don't tend to notice that sort of thing unless it's really too much, as I have met a great many idiots, and so don't find it unconvincing...also, I suspend disbelief (I usually tell myself it's all happening in a parallel universe) so unless it goes against my understanding of how things actually work (see _Darwin's Radio_, by Greg Bear...how someone that smart can miss obvious properties of natural selection, I truly do not know) I just accept that the characters did what the author says they did.
> Johnny Tindalos <Jamai...@UnrealEmail.arg> writes: >>Mary Gentle would be one example:
>>have left off the Orthe novels
> Loved the first, but it was totally wrecked by the second. *
I shall bear that in mind when I actually get round to looking at them, which I will do one day (Gentle writes some of the best and most atmospheric descriptive prose I've seen --- the bits in _Ash_ where gur ragvgvrf va Pneguntr unir znahsnpgherq n ahpyrne jvagre ner nofbyhgryl puvyyvat (sbe jnag bs n orggre jbeq) --- so unless it's Squick Sunday, I always like to check out what she's done); thanks!
> >> _Rats & Gargoyles_: Yay! > >> _The Architecture of Desire_: SQUICK! > >> _Ash_: Yay! > >> _1610: A Sundial in a Grave_: SQUICK! > >> _Ilario_: too scared to read it...
I've not much read much by Gentle but considering that the opening pages of _Ash_ feature the anal rape of an 8 year old girl, I'm now curious as to what it would have to do to earn a SQUICK rating.
And if the two books listed above do earn a SQUICK rating on that scale, then I ain't reading them.
Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote in news:9331f92a-63d2-411d-93f5- 35ad8fa3c...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> <piggybacking off an earlier post here> >> >> Mary Gentle would be one example:
>> >> _Rats & Gargoyles_: Yay! >> >> _The Architecture of Desire_: SQUICK! >> >> _Ash_: Yay! >> >> _1610: A Sundial in a Grave_: SQUICK! >> >> _Ilario_: too scared to read it...
> I've not much read much by Gentle but considering that the opening > pages of _Ash_ feature the anal rape of an 8 year old girl, I'm now > curious as to what it would have to do to earn a SQUICK rating.
> And if the two books listed above do earn a SQUICK rating on that > scale, then I ain't reading them.
That is a very sensible decision, which I wish had occured to me before I *did* read them.
> -Moriarty
The opening pages of _Ash_ (which made me feel sick, by the way) are by *far* the worst bits of it, and nothing that bad happens again (in fact when Ash grows up, she is very good about preventing the mercenaries in her company from doing that sort of thing) although Ash is obviously traumatised by her experience and parts of her psyche do not operate properly thereafter. (She doesn't realise it, having nothing to compare it with, but that's why some things, particularly to do with genuine romantic feelings, don't connect for her.)
(Also _Ash_ was responsible for me making the acquaintance of a really nice SF fan called Rebecca who works in a bookshop in London, and who has since recommended me several cool things, so it would be hard for me to hate it, even if it wasn't great.)
_The Architecture of Desire_, while featuring really atmospheric descriptions, squicked me for (among other reasons) that which I rot-13'd above; really, don't un-rot-13 it if you haven't already; it's quite nasty and I think you might prefer to do what I wish I'd done and read something else.
As for _1610_, it squicked me for (again, among other things), jung unccraf gb gur tvey (jubfr anzr V qb abg abj erpnyy), jung gur znyr cebgntbavfg *jbhyq* unir qbar gb ure (juvyr ur gubhtug fur jnf n obl) vs fur unqa'g orra cebnpgvir (naq abg va gur jnl lbh'er cebonoyl guvaxvat), naq sbe gur znyr cebgntbavfg'f oybbql vpxl uhzvyvngvba srgvfu, juvpu vf whfg tebff vs lbh'er abg gung *cerpvfr* xvaq bs fhoovr....vg erzvaqrq zr n ovg bs Znaserq Znpk va _Nppryrenaqb_; lnee entu vpuuu oyhretu! Gur fbeg bs guvat gung vs vg'f abg lbhe phc bs grn, vg'yy or lbhe phc bs fvpx, ernyyl!
Anyway, don't decipher that, it's just for the benefit of the curious; you might like Gentle's _Rats and Gargoyles_ though, or even more so the rather wonderful short stories collected in _Scholars and Soliders_ (at least, I thought they were very pretty indeed).
I might also add that I wish that I had never read any John Barnes or John Courtenay-Grimwood, for reasons of simliar or worse squickery.
|
