Thursday, October 08, 2009

Books Read 2008

It's official: I am a failure as a blogger. I've managed to come to terms with it and even accepted the fact that I'll most likely never blog in any consistent manner.

Having written that, I've decided that I would like to at least keep track of my reading here. I do keep a record in my little notebook, but things happen--fires, floods, theft, amnesia--and I'd really like to not permanently lose the list. So here are the books I read in 2008--much less than 2007 for several reasons: new job and a little baby being the most time consuming. Total books read was 33, exactly half the total of last year. Once again, in rough chronological order:

Old Man's War, John Scalzi
The Stress of Her Regard, Tim Powers
Snake Agent, Liz Williams
The Ghost Brigades, John Scalzi
The Digging Leviathan, James Blaylock

Fiasco, Stanislaw Lem
The Last Colony, John Scalzi

Half the Blood of Brooklyn, Charlie Huston
Sharp Teeth, Toby Barlow
Caught Stealing, Charlie Huston
Six Bad Things, Charlie Huston
A Dangerous Man, Charlie Huston

The Orphan's Tales: In the Cities of Coin and Spice, Catherynne Valente
A Secret History of Moscow, Ekaterina Sedia



Accelerando, Charles Stross

The Girl in the Glass, Jeffrey Ford
Iron Council, China Mieville
The Shadow of the Wind, Carlos Ruiz Zafon
The Resurrectionist, Jack O'Connell

Heart Shaped Box, Joe Hill

Anathem, Neal Stephenson
When You are Engulfed in Flame, David Sedaris
Hidden Talents, David Lubar
The Graveyard Book, Neil Gaiman
The Ghost in Love, Jonathan Carroll
Crooked Little Vein, Warren Ellis

The Somnambulist, Jonathan Barnes
The Coyote Kings of the Space-Age Bachelor Pad, Minister Faust
The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, David Wroblewski
The Good Thief, Hannah Tinti
Ghostwritten, David Mitchell

The Last Coin, James Blaylock
The Paper Grail, James Blaylock

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Books Read 2007

I was a miserable failure as a blogger in 2007 and so far 2008 isn’t looking much better. Be that as it may, there is one thing I want to do here and that is compile a list of all the books I read in 2007. This is the first full year I have actually kept track of the books I read—which was part of a resolution to just read more in general. I ended up finishing 66 books during the year, but if you look at the monthly breakdown, I read over 70% of those before August. That coincides with the arrival of a new baby in our household. The reading time suffered dramatically from that point.

Curiously, only one of the books I read was nonfiction (and even that one, Songlines, is only marginally nonfiction.) I usually read a handful of nonfiction, I’d say somewhere between 4-8 books per year, but I was really pushing to read more books in 2007 and nonfiction just takes more time. I did read a decent chunk of Herodotus, but didn’t finish it last year—still haven’t. I intend to address that lack this year, although I’ll still heavily favor genre fiction. So here it is, in more or less chronological reading order:

On Stranger Tides, Tim Powers
Overtime, Tom Holt
Three Days to Never, Tim Powers
The Drawing of the Dark, Tim Powers
Sharp Objects, Gillian Flynn
Farthing, Jo Walton

Black Swan Green, David Mitchell
The Scar, China Miéville
Looking for Alaska, John Green
A Scanner Darkly, Philip K. Dick
Pobby and Dingan, Ben Rice
The Long Goodbye, Raymond Chandler
The Trial of Flowers, Jay Lake
The Book of Lost Things, John Connolly
An Abundance of Katherines, John Green

The Empire of Ice Cream, Jeffrey Ford
The Exquisite, Laird Hunt
Homunculus, James P. Blaylock
The Children’s Hospital, Chris Adrian

Number9Dream, David Mitchell
Grey, Jon Armstrong
The Road, Cormac McCarthy
Lord Kelvin’s Machine, James P. Blaylock
Syrup, Max Barry
You Suck, Christopher Moore
Already Dead, Charlie Huston
The Circus of Dr. Lao, Charles G. Finney
In Persuasion Nation, George Saunders

Fragile Things, Neil Gaiman
No Dominion, Charlie Huston
Majestrum, Matthew Hughes
Hard Boiled Wonderland, Haruki Murakami
The Android’s Dream, John Scalzi
13 Bullets, David Wellington

The Orphan’s Tales: In the Night Garden, Catherynne Valente
The Fourth Circle, Zoran Živković
Un Lun Dun, China Miéville
Yiddish Policemen’s Union, Michael Chabon
The Big Sleep, Raymond Chandler
Farewell, My Lovely, Raymond Chandler

JulyThe Stars My Destination, Alfred Bester
The High Window, Raymond Chandler
The Lady in the Lake, Raymond Chandler
Playback, Raymond Chandler
The Little Sister, Raymond Chandler
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, J.K. Rowling
Soon I Will Be Invincible, Austin Grossman
Wintersmith, Terry Pratchett

Dhalgren, Samuel R. Delaney
Mr. Thundermug, Cornelius Medvei
Stardust, Neil Gaiman

A Canticle for Leibowitz, Walter M. Miller, Jr.
The Thin Man, Dashiell Hammett
Spaceman Blues, Brian Francis Slattery
The Demolished Man, Alfred Bester

Bad Monkeys, Matt Ruff
Land of Dreams, James P. Blaylock
Declare, Tim Powers
Making Money, Terry Pratchett

Little People, Tom Holt
Songlines, Bruce Chatwin
CivilWarLand in Bad Decline, George Saunders

The Master and Margarita, Mikhail Bulgakov
Pastoralia, George Saunders
20th Century Ghosts, Joe Hill
One For Sorrow, Chris Barzak

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Terry Brooks and the Haters of Shannara

There's an interesting thread in the Fantasybookspot forum under the heading Overreaction? in which FBS member amberdrake wonders why some genre fans when they

find something that they don't like about an author (be it poor writing, copying others trends, or mass sales) will automatically HATE that person and everything they say, do, think, wear, eat, etc. How do we go from 'I don't like his books.' to 'he's such an idiot.' These do not necessarily follow logically. What is it, jealousy?

Most of the responses seemed to veer away from the original question into a discussion of different authors' unpopular religious or political views and how the things they've written on those or other controversial topics cause a lot of fans to hate on them. As is often the case in these discussions, Terry Goodkind and Orson Scott Card were set up as exhibits A and B. No arguments here. Both authors have written/said some stuff that is out there, although Goodkind may be in a class all his own. Regardless, I think the point of the original point was lost, or at least misplaced. Here is the response I posted:

I don't know that I've ever read any type of review/blog/rant where dislike
of the work is expressed as outright hatred for the author, but I have been
amazed at the amount of scorn that is regularly heaped on Terry Brooks in these types of forums, as well as blogs, etc. I even caught a derogatory reference in one of the panels at Readercon.

Now I'm not a huge Brooks fan, but the The Sword of Shannara was one of the first fantasy novels I read after The Hobbit and LOTR and I absolutely loved it. Granted, I was ten years old at the time, but it remains one of the few books that I will go back and reread. Sure its derivative of Tolkien, but what epic/high fantasy isn't? As a boy I loved the story and the characters and maybe I'm biased by sentimentality, but the last time I read it(probably 8-10 years ago)it stood the test of time for me.

To borrow Amber's original thought, I'm curious what all the Brooks-haters
out there really hate about the guy. He's a perennial best-seller, so I can't be
the only one here who has something good to say about him. Is it the writing? Some perception that he is undeserving of his success? I'd really like to know.

After further consideration, I've decided that the hate has to stem from his popularity. After all, there are plenty of awful fantasy novels out there (I've never been able to get through even one of those Weis and Hickman books!) that languish in obscurity and quickly fall out-of-print with little to no comment from the fan base. I guess it just galls some people that Brooks is more popular than most of the critically acclaimed genre authors--e.g., Gene Wolfe and China Mieville. I can understand that. But the popularity of certain books has always amazed me. Have you read The Da Vinci Code? Its awful! But millions love it. Go figure. The difference, in my opinion, between Dan Brown's mess of a novel and SoS is that SoS is actually a good book, and I never see that acknowledged anywhere, which is a real shame. The original Shannara books are at least as good as the first Riftwar series, and I never see Raymond Feist's name or books slammed in the same manner.

I think another part of it is that, at least among the most vocal genre critics/reviewers/gatekeepers, the epic fantasy subgenre has lost much of its allure. I get that too, because I'm the same way. I'd rather read a good urban fantasy now than another farmboy-on-a-quest series. But that doesn't mean I need to disregard the books that got me into the genre in the first place. Despite the fact that I gave up on Brooks after the fourth or fifth book (Brooks could never match the magic of the first two books) in the series, SoS and even The Elfstones of Shannara will always hold a special place in the heart of my inner child.

Friday, August 10, 2007

You have got to be kidding

I've been a big fan of AMC, the American Movie Classics channel, for a long time. True, I pine for the days when they actually showed classic films--the old black and white gems from the 30s and 40s--but they still show some good flicks from time to time. And their original programming isn't bad either--I liked the first season of Hustle and I've seen a couple episodes of Mad Men, a show set on Madison Avenue in the 1950s. You would think the channel airing a show about the advertising game would have some concept of what makes a good ad. You would be wrong. Whoever is doing AMC's promos needs to watch their own series.

The tag line for the August promo is "Long live cool" or something like that. They show some iconic images--Clint Eastwood in his poncho, cigarillo hanging from his lips; Steve McQueen in Bullit; Robert Redford in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; Sharon Stone in The Quick and the Dead. Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper in Easy Rider; Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Ummm...what? Yes, AMC is comparing that horrible Sharon Stone/Gene Hackman travesty of a "western" to some of the classic cool movies of the 60s and 70s. I mean, come on! There is no doubting the star power of that film. Hackman (in one of his worst roles ever,) Russell Crow, Leonardo DiCaprio--even Stone (quick, name a decent Sharon Stone movie besides Basic Instinct. Can't be done.) But the movie is terrible. There have been some good westerns made in the last few decades (Silverado, Unforgiven, Open Range) but this is not one of them. Come on AMC, no matter how you edit that ad, trying to compare The Quick and the Dead to those other films is just slapping lipstick on a pig.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Welcome to the world, baby!

Not that anyone is reading this blog anyway, but I've got a pretty good excuse for the gap in posts: my wife gave birth to our daughter over the weekend! With four big brothers, this baby girl will be well (probably over-) protected. We've been pretty excited for the arrival of a girl into our House of Testosterone--none more so than her mom. She had pretty much come to terms with the fact that we would never have dolls or Easy-Bake Ovens (do they still make those?) in our home. Still, when she figured out she was pregnant this time there was just the tiniest spark of hope in her eyes.

A few months ago when we went in for an ultrasound and the doctor said he was 90% sure it was a girl, we were both stunned. My wife overcame the shock quickly and spent the next couple of months buying every pink baby item she could find. Seriously, our house looks a bit like the epicenter of a Pepto Bismal-bomb strike. I continued to be skeptical until a few days ago when I got to hold a living, breathing baby girl that moments before had struggled her way out of the womb. It was amazing.

So that is my excuse. I really do plan on writing some reviews of books I've read recently. I'm afraid I don't have the benefit of ARCs or review copies of forthcoming publications, so I'll just be reviewing the books I'm reading. Some will be new (or fairly new) releases and others will be backlist titles. For instance, I'm currently reading Dhalgren by Samuel R. Delaney. I'm about 180 pages in so far. It is definitely interesting, but I don't think I've gotten far enough to make up my mind about its classic status.

I'm really going to try and do more regular posts--at least three times a week. Thats my goal anyway. We'll see how it goes.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

The End of Harry Potter

We've all gone a bit potty at our house. Son #1 and I both read THE BOOK last weekend. My wife just finished it last night, and son #2 will probably be done in the next couple of days. Son #3 just started reading the series (on his own--I've read most of them to him aloud) a few weeks ago and is almost done with Chamber of Secrets. We've been fans of the books since they first came out here in the U.S.

So here is a short, spoiler-free review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows I posted over at Library Thing (if you are not familiar with LT, you must check it out.) They've got a contest going where you can win prizes for reviewing the book and giving a thumbs-up to other reviews. This review, if you can call it that, doesn't address all the issues I had with the book (the completely unnecessary device of the Hallows, for instance) but sums up my overall reaction quite nicely.

Expectations were high for this final installment in the HP series. One hundred pages in, I felt sure those expectations would be met. Three hundred pages in, I was beginning to have my doubts. By page 500, I was seriously worried. But by the time I read the last word on page 759 I was completely satisfied.

The book starts off with a bang, but the bulk of the middle chapters turn into a standard fantasy quest. Which, in and of itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing; however, in this instance, the story really gets bogged down and never seems to advance in any meaningful way until the very end. This isn't to say there aren't some wonderful, exciting scenes mixed in along the way--they are just few and far between.

The problem is that one of the series' main characters doesn't really make an appearance until the end of the book. No, not that guy. I'm talking about Hogwarts. So much of the wonder and magic of the series has to do with the school itself--the classes, the teachers, Quidditch, the castle with its myriad rooms and hidden passages, the Forbidden Forest, etc., etc. I know it was necessary for the story that the main action take place away from Hogwarts, but I think it really hurt the book to keep Harry away from his only true home for so long.

Because once Harry and friends finally arrive at Hogwarts, things really get moving. Everything kicks into overdrive and leads up to a real corker of an ending. I'll forever have imprinted in my brain the image of a certain character's charge across the room, wand waving, shouting out "..." (Sorry, I almost forgot I want this to be a spoiler-free review!) Shades of Ripley's final stand against the Queen in Aliens!

Despite my concerns, Rowling manages in the last couple of chapters (plus the epilogue) to close out the series in absolutely satisfying fashion. I've gone back and reread the epilogue a few times already, not only for what it reveals, but for the way Rowling is able in a few short pages to come full circle and set the ending tone back to that optimistic sense of wonder and magic that so fully embodied the first few books in the series.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Readercon 18, cont.

I knew when I sent in my registration for the con that I would only be able to attend Thursday and Friday. The open-to-all Thursday night sessions were great and I was really anticipating an enjoyable day's worth of programming on Friday. I was not disappointed.

I caught the tail-end of the opening panel on Heinlein. The claim was made that Heinlein introduced dialogue to popular SF. Before he came along, SF was almost exclusively descriptive, with the exception of H.G. Wells, whom Heinlein worshipped. I skipped out early because I wanted to make sure I got a seat for the first session that I was really excited about: a Jeff Ford reading.

There was another reading still going on, so I was cooling my heels in the hallway, when up walks Jeffrey Ford. I was only introduced to Ford's work last year via several sites/blogs (most memorably Jay Tomio's blog, where he was listing his Top 100 of the last ten years) but have developed into a big fan. I enjoyed his novel, Mrs. Charbuque, but it is through his short stories that his talent really shines through. He's got lots of great stories, but Botch Town might be my favorite. So here I am, alone with Jeff Ford, and what do I do? Nothing. I would love to talk with him, but approaching people I don't know is not a strength of mine. Also, I don't want to bother the guy. So the room empties and we head in with others that have shown up. The room seats about 30-40 and just has a long, low table at the front--no podium. None of which matters, because we get started and Ford pulls out a brand new story, The Drowned Life, and starts to read. It's a great story. Very much in the Ford ouevre--dark, a bit twisted, with an eye for the odd detail that really gives life to his stories.

Next was a panel discussion on The Slipstream/Fabulation/Magic Realism canon (with handouts!). Although I wasn't at the last two days of the con, I'm pretty sure this panel took the 'Most panelists crammed onto one dais' award. I was looking forward to this one mostly because I really like the writings of Paul DiFillipo and Catherynne Valente. Other panelists included F. Brett Cox, Ron Drummond, Graham Sleight, John Kessel, Victoria McManus and Theodora Goss. I'm definitely going to be checking out Goss' short story collection In the Forest of Forgetting because she presented some very articulate and intelligent arguments. Unfortunately, the panel spent a lot of time just trying to figure out a working definition for "slipstream". Listening to the discussion, my main thought was, "So what?" I mean, what difference does nailing down a definition really make? None that I could see. My own definition of slipstream would be something like this: anything that isn't easily categorizable as science fiction, fantasy or horror. End of discussion.

I actually left early since it didn't look like there was going to be any discussion of actual books. They did hand out a rather disjointed list of titles organized (?) in some puzzling ways. Paul DiFillipo has posted the entire list here. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the fact that several of the titles listed in the "core canon" were published in the last few years makes the whole thing seem a bit silly. The fact that one of the titles had not yet been published was ridiculous! And no Mark Helprin?! I know his politics are pretty unpopular with the majority of the SF set, but Winters Tale is an incredible book, and Helprin is generally acknowledged as an American magic realist. Borges' Collected Fictions was the only unanimous choice, which I don't think anyone will argue with. At the very least, I've got another list of recommended titles that I can sift through.

I meant to attend another reading at 3:00 p.m., given by Chris Genoa, the author of Foop!, but they opened the dealer room at the same time, and I was lost for quite awhile. Too. many. books. I managed to extricate myself with only moderate damage to the bank account and made my way to a reading by Kelly Link. Much like Jeff Ford, it hasn't been long since I read my first Link story. Her collection, Magic for Beginners, was released last year to pretty much universal acclaim--and it deserved it. Her stories stick with you long after you've finished reading, so I was thrilled to hear her reading a new story, a unique take on the Cinderella fairytale. I also caught a reading by Catherynne Valente who read a couple of stories from her upcoming The Orphan's Tales: In the Cities of Coin and Spice. This is the sequel to the first Orphan's Tales book, In the Night Garden, which I read a few months ago. These books are novels told in an amazing series of nested stories. Valente writes beautifully and if you haven't read this, you are missing out.

Young (and Very Young) Adult F&SF was the next panel I attended. I had a few reasons for attending this one. I've got four boys that all fall into this readership category, so I'm always interested in finding new titles that might interest them. My #3 son is a big Spiderwick fan and the author of that series, Holly Black was one of the panelists. Last, but not least, I'm in the midst of writing (or attempting to write) a kids book that would probably fall into the very YA category. Besides Ms. Black, the panel consisted of Michael J. Daley, Sarah Beth Durst, Nina Kiriki Hoffman, Sharyn November, and Elizabeth Wein. This panel had the potential to be a major yawner were it not for the efforts of the moderator, Ms. November. She was hilarious. First, she ripped into the panel description provided by the organizers and pretty much did what she wanted from that point onward. It actually turned into an interesting discussion on the different types of YA and some of the influences of the panelists/authors. The glut of YA fantasy was a topic, as was the inclusion of "smut" (Ms. Black's word) in YA fiction. As the father of four boys I was particularly interested to learn about Daley's book, a YA sci-fi adventure called Shanghaied to the Moon.

I rounded out my Readercon experience with readings by James Morrow and John Crowley. Both read from novels-in-progress, The Philosopher's Apprentice and Four Freedoms, respectively. Both were excellent, though I have to admit by this time I was running on fumes since I hadn't taken a dinner break. I attended the The 2008 Cordwainer Smith Rediscovery Award Ceremony and the Meet the Pros(e) Party, where I spoke with Michael Daley for a few minutes and got to meet Ted Chiang.

Overall it was a great experience, and I was sorry I couldn't attend the rest of the con. Maybe next year.