Timewaster's Guide Archive

I thought that it was a good book, as was Diamond Age, but am I the only one here who was bothered by the amount of swearing and sex in those two books?  That's why I haven't read more CyberPunk.  Is it a common thing in the genre, or just in the two I happened to read?

(PS Can I just say that I always refer to KFC as the House of the Venerable and Inscrutable Colonel?)

I sent most of the following to Brandon already, but I thought it would be interesting to hear other people's reactions to my comments on the book.
___________________________________________

I think that there's far more good than bad in the book, and so I'm going to talk mostly about what I think needs to be polished.

Overall, I liked it -- about as well as anything I've read lately that isn't Lemony Snicket -- certainly better than several books whose cover art was designed to make me think of LS. There is obviously a market for this sort of book, if all the marketing people are trying to make their books look like they're similar to LS, even if they have nothing much really in common.

The author interjections are certainly a major part of my reaction.  I laughed more at them than at the storyline which, while silly, is not often funny if you take my meaning.  On the other hand, I think that the author interjections need the most work before it can be published.  Several of them say the same thing, mostly about hooks, and though it makes the one that's mostly blah blah blah a bit funnier, I think that there's enough you can say about the writer's craft that you don't have to repeat yourself.  

I dislike the first paragraph immensely, mostly because I couldn't tell what person you were going to be writing in, since it seems to shift through all three in the first two sentences.  You just can't say, "makes A person stop and think about THEIR liveS"  especially after saying, "YOU're about to get sacrificed" and just before saying, "YOU'LL have to take MY word on matters."  I personally think that's what put the idea of a first person rewrite into your editor's head.  Having said all that, I think that the ideas in the first paragraph are a great way to start off the book, just not quite that syntax.

I was also confused about the author's feelings toward books and libraries altogether.  Does he like them?  He certainly seems to when he talks about his most treasured possession.  At the same time he seems to be anti books and Libraries since they're often the tools of the antagonists.  I think that this can be reconciled, for instance by saying that uncorrupted books and libraries are the most wonderful things in the world, and that therefore the tainted ones are the absolute worst.  For this age audience, though, I think you need to spell it out a bit more clearly.

I have lots of proofreading comments, which I won't supply unless specifically requested.  I'm sure you've got people who can assist with that.  I would like to mention that you use the word "Whom" too often.  Sometimes, it's just plain wrong grammatically (only use it when you'd replace it with him rather than he), but even when it's grammatically correct, a person like Alcatraz probably wouldn't use it in everyday speech.

As for the names -- Why is Bastille named that?  She's not a Smedry, or an Oculator.  Is everybody in the Outer World named after prisons? If not, then you might want to reconsider.  It's a really good name, I like it, but it didn't seem consistant with what you laid down as the reason for it.  You could continue to use it if you gave her some reason to be using somebody else's family names -- for instance, you could say that members of the resistance tend to use those names, rather than just Smedries (chapter 10 by the way).  Also, aren't Sing and Quentin Smedries as well?  If they are, then I don't think that Bastille would be likely to refer to Levenworth by his last name alone (at the end of chapter 4)-- it would just cause confusion.

I think you should make a joke about looking at the world through rose colored glasses.  I was waiting for it for a while.

OK, I was exaggerating on the Harvard guy thing, but have you been a woman trying to get a job in the sciences or other male dominated fields like computers?  Sure, most women don't want one, and that's fine, but those that do have a hard time.  

I have been in that position.  I've never been on a team with more than three women in a group of twelve to fifteen, and I've often been the only one.  Generally the women last about a third as long as the guys do, and I've NEVER worked under a woman in computers.  

I think that the major reason for this is that in order to get anywhere in male dominated fields you have to be one of the guys, or at least be able to pretend you are.  I know enough about cars and video games and computer hardware and sports to be able to hold up my side of the conversation during social times, and so when we're working I can get help when I need it, and they'll listen to my expertise when I happen to know more.  The other women are often simply shut out.

Also, do you watch TV at all?  Do you notice how women are portrayed in commercials?  If you want an extreme taste of what I'm talking about, go watch just the commercials on Spike TV.  They're like beer ads -- women are objects to use for sex if they're not your wife, or someone who nags you and gets in the way of having fun if she is your wife or mother.

I'm NOT saying that sexism is as bad as it has been.  Most people pay at least lip-service to the idea of equal rights.  I'm NOT saying that there isn't reverse sexism.  Certainly a white male has a harder time getting a scholarship than a Native American, disabled woman.  What I AM saying is that pretending that it's all gone in our enlightened age is ridiculous.  Just like saying that all racism is gone as well.

Now I don't blame THE MAN for all my hardships in life.  I don't think anyone has set out to oppress me, but there is still a (sometimes) subtle but pervasive presence that is influencing the way that YOU think and act, and you should be aware of it.

I just read the 1st person re-write, and I didn't like it.  It felt flatter.  The first was derivative of one relatively new style, yes, but this felt like a retread of a thousand stories from the slush pile back at the Edge.   This is not meant as a reflection on the author, but as a comment on first person in general.  

First person, unless it is done REALLY well, is annoying for me to read.  It's even more annoying to read if it's third person transposed into first person.  It's meant to give a greater sense of immediacy, but to me it seems artificial, and pushes me back a step.

I DO think that the author interjections work better in first person -- perhaps because it's less of a stretch for me to believe that the author is actually sitting there writing it.  Unless you build a strong case for why a person with so much going on in his life would take the time to sit and write such a long work, it just doesn't ring true.  Even Princess Diaries, which I've just gotten through four volumes of, stretches that believability just a bit -- there just aren't enough hours in her day to write all that.  

If Alcatraz is writing from years later, then how does he remember every detail so clearly?  I can't even remember that much detail a week later.  An omnicient narrator removes that question, and that's why it's used so much.  

I'd suggest a compromise -- make the Storyteller be first person, and the story third.  There's lots of precedent for this -- take Kipling for example. You can have the Storyteller be Alcatraz, or rather, somebody pretending not to be Alcatraz, and that would give him an excuse to be telling the story in third person.  To make it more chummy, you could have the Storyteller admit to knowing Alcatraz at the time, and therefore be privy to many of the details and his emotional state etc...

Anyway that's my take on it.

I finished it too.  I'll type up my comments next week when the family has left town again.  I read a LOT of middle grades/YA stuff, and this would fit right in.  I liked it a lot.  It needs some polishing in places of course, but this is an early version right?  

Question:  do you want the comments to be posted here, or sent directly?   If we're worried about spoilers, how about starting a spoiler thread for those of us who've read it so everybody else can read at their own peril?

I'm coming to this discussion late, so I have several things I want to comment on.

Cashdan says it alot better than I can, but I think he has a good point.  I think that stories have a huge psychological purpose, and when stories end badly, there's no inner triumph.

The reason we read stories is to simultaneously escape from reality, and make sense of it.  If the story doesn't do either of those things for you, then it's got problems.  If it doesn't fit with your worldview, or at least the worldview that you want to have, then it leaves you feeling unsatisfied.  If it's really good literature, that dissatisfaction might lead you to a new (hopefully better) worldview, but if it's not great literature or a better worldview, then you continue to be dissatisfied.

Endings should not be chosen on the basis of whether they are happy or sad, but whether they are satisfying (in terms of appropriateness to the events and setting and personalities of the characters) and what will develop the theme.

There are times when a happy ending is right.  There are times when Deus ex machina is right.  There are times when a sad (but satisfying) ending is right -- think of Shakespeare's tragedies.  All through the DiCaprio version of Romeo and Juliet (which I really enjoyed) I was thinking, "Maybe they'll change the ending, maybe it will come out happy this time" but at the same time I was also thinking, "I'll hate them if they do change it."

The problems come when the happy or sad ending is the wrong choice, or so unrealistically executed that you can't even pretend to believe it.

There's also the topic of balance.  Any given novel can have a sad ending as the right choice, and be excellent reading.  If that's all you read, though, it gets depressing.  Likewise, if you only read books with happy endings, it gets sappy.  Your brain wants your books to fit in with your worldview which ought to realistically acknowledge that both happy and sad things happen.

One of my friends teaches 5th grade and has what she calls her "Dead Dog Unit" She divides up her class into groups and has one group read Where the Red Fern Grows, and another group reads Old Yeller and so forth.  At the end of the unit she gives extra credit to the kids who also read No more Dead Dogs by Gordon Korman to lighten the mood.

Jeff set up the soapbox for me, and I can't tell you how sick I am of people telling me I'm wrong for not wanting to watch 24. I dislike it.  It makes me angry and violent.  Therefore, in my mind, there is definitely something wrong with the show - no other show, movie, book, ever made me angry and hateful as 24 does.

I haven't watched 24, but I did decide a couple of years ago not to watch TV that made me depressed.  I gave up ER and CSI and Law and Order (All excellent shows at times) because all I was getting from them was sickness, and death, and violent crime, and infidelity, and so on.  I think if I'd had a better ablance of shows, they wouldn't have been such a problem.

I'm sorry but I'm not evil, I just don't like happy endings...they are just no good anymore. I enjoy and cliff hanger or just a bad ending for example this book never has "happy endings" http://www.lemonysnicket.com/index.cfm

Lemony Snicket has a great balance.  Not only do his books have tragedy, the kids do come out on top (sort of) through their own endeavors, and they are growing more empowered as the series progresses.  The balance is so perfect though, that I really would not be willing to bet 25 cents either way on the series having a happy ending -- or even having the kids survive.

Sorry this was so long

-Karen

We had a talk in church today that really bothered me.

In it, there was a story of a woman who was a farmer's wife.  When she and her young husband had taken over his father's farm it already had a huge mortgage.  They had big plans, but by the time the story took place, they were both overworked and falling behind.  She didn't have tome to do laundry, and keep house, and take care of the chickens, and get the tomatoes picked and taken to market, and take care of the children, and get all the fruit in from the orchard before it rotted.  

So she did what she could, but the house was a mess, and the mortgage payment was overdue, and the children were unwashed, and she was too tired to even care anymore.

Then one day while she's struggling to haul in a load of tomatoes to take to market, a car comes down the road, and a beautifully dressed lady comes to the door and wants to buy some apples, so the farm wife takes her out to the orchard, and starts to haul out the big ladder to get at the good ones, and the lady is all, "No don't do that, it's too heavy for you, that's man's  work."  and the farmwife laughs in her face and says, "Look lady, you're all fine in your pretty grey wool suit, but if I don't do a man's work around here, we just won't make it."

Then the lady says, "When we were first married, and my husband was first starting out his company, he wanted me to keep my job as a secretary while he went out and did sales, but I knew that if we did that, we'd both be tired at the end of the day and we'd only eat takeout, and we'd both be miserable, so I stayed at home and made sure we had a feast on the table every night, even if it wasn't out of much, and we had some hard times, but we got by."

So then the lady leaves, but accidentally drops her perfumed handkerchief on the way out, and when the farmwife finds it, she decides to ignore the tomatoes, and let them rot in the barn for all she cares, and she puts on her one pretty dress, and cleans the kitchen, and makes a good meal, and when her husband comes in from the fields that night, and she's looking all pretty and serves him that nice meal he looks more grateful than he did when she hauled in all those potatoes last fall, and she knows now what her husband really wants from her: a clean house, a good meal, and a smiling face.

Is it just me, or is this story of the devil?

It totally sets up unrealistic expectations for women, and implies that if they can't get the laundry done that they've failed in their true calling in life, and maybe lost the love and respect of their husbands as well.  It was further compounded by the fact that the next song we sang was "There is Beauty All Around" which implies that if you can't see the roses blooming beneath your feet, you must not have enough love in your family.

Maybe it's just because I'm having trouble even jugging work and keeping house, let alone the fact that everybody that hears I'm newly married makes me feel guilty about putting off having kids until Peter's job offers him benefits, and I'm just jealous of my cousins and sisters in law who can stay home and have beautiful little blonde babies, but I was seriously in tears by the end of sacrament meeting.

Any thoughts?

-Karen