UBC # 17: Black Powder War / UBC in progress

[truepenny]

UBC #17
Novik, Naomi. Black Powder War. New York: Del Rey-Ballantine Books, 2006.

I've been dithering about what to say about this book for a couple of days now. Because on the one hand, I liked it; on the other hand, I thought it had more flaws than the previous two books; on the gripping hand, although I do not--quite--know naominovik, we have friends in common, and she may or may not be reading this blog.

(This is where the whole living genre thing gets very very weird. I'm used to talking about people who've been dead for 400 years. So, you know, if I say I think Timon of Athens kind of sucks, I don't have to worry that Shakespeare will see it. And, yes, I think it is something to be mindful of.)

So, yes, I enjoyed it, but I did think it had problems. Mostly to do with the fact, as I have said before, that travel narrative is hard.

---

I'm currently reading a couple of books at once. scott_lynch's The Lies of Locke Lamora (which is so far shiny and very clever), and Angus Fletcher's Allegory: The Theory of a Symbolic Mode. (Mr. Fletcher for the table, Mr. Lynch for the bedroom.)

I'll have a great deal to say about Allegory when I've finished it, but for now I want to offer an artifact of 1964, which is when it was published. He's talking about the use of animals in the doubled plots of allegory:

A popular novel like The Strange One runs two parallel stories at once, one telling of miscegenation between a white boy and an Indian girl, the other describing the mismating of two different species of geese.
(Fletcher 192-93)

To which I can only say, as I said in the margin, "!"

A footnote tells us that The Strange One was written by Fred Bodsworth and published in 1959. Has anyone ever heard of this book? Can anyone report back on whether it's truly as awful, muddle-headed (species and race are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, thankyouverymuch), and offensive as it sounds?

Morbid curiosity is possibly the worst kind.

---
WORKS CITED
Fletcher, Angus. Allegory: The Theory of a Symbolic Mode. 1964. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.

Comments

[txanne.livejournal.com]

I've never seen The Strange One, so I don't know, but here it is. (http://utdirect.utexas.edu/lib/utnetcat/full.WBX?search_type=FL&search_text=STRANGE+ONE&next_action=N&next_record_brn=008918952&loc_display_type=V) Mr. Bodsworth also wrote something called The Sparrow's Fall in 1967, which my univ has, but which I believe I'll refrain from looking at.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

When I was posting regularly on rec.arts.sf.written I evolved a convention whereby the person I knew was (e.g.) Pamela and the author whose work I was discussing was (e.g.) Dean. Likewise, the person I didn't know but whose (e.g.) recent life-event I was noting was (e.g.) Ms Dean, whereas she continued to be Dean in discussions of the work.

I'm still doing this... with variations for LJ names as first names.

This occasionally leads to awkwardnesses, but only really falls down where you have five sisters, none of whom you know, four of whom you own works by, and all of whose lives you frequently discuss.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

That isn't quite what I meant.

I'm talking more about the unfortunate who presented a paper on Le Guin's work, and at the end, a lady stood up near the back and said, "No, I didn't."

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

*promptly adds that one to The Anxiety Closet*

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I was once on a panel on the work of Ken MacLeod, and Ken was in the back row of the audience listening quietly with a smile on his face. He didn't say anything at all, and when I asked him afterwards what he thought about it, he said "It was very interesting, I certainly learned a thing or two." I only aspire to be that gracious about reviews and criticism, but I think it's the right attitude to have.

Also, I once beta-read something for someone who replied with a variation "no I didn't" to "this bit didn't work for me", which reminds me of Z saying he hadn't kicked me, honestly.

[lalouve.livejournal.com]

I think C. S. Lewis (of all people) has a useful comment on how to comment on texts, essentially saying that it's wiser to talk about the effect the work has on the reader than about the writer's intentions. His example is 'this is an afterthought,' which he knew it wasn't, having written the book, but he would have liked to know why it looked like one.
It is awkward with living writers, though. Myself, I have one friend who is an author, and I normally use the possibilities of my reviewing his work as a threat...

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Oh, never try to talk about the author's intentions.

Unless you're the author.

It is surprisingly difficult to convince undergraduates of this.

[lalouve.livejournal.com]

I've noticed...I blame the schools, myself - I think the poor students have been taught to look for author intention nd now they can't shake the habit.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Worse than that: they've been taught to look for didactic intention.

The number of students who assured me Shakespeare wanted us to learn things from his plays ...

[lalouve.livejournal.com]

Nngh. I've heard that one, too. Or the students who read Austen at face value, without recognising the irony, and then tells me she wants to teach us whatever about love or marriage...

[kate_nepveu]

Since the first time an author shocked me by e-mailing me after reading a review I'd written on the 'net (Mary Doria Russell, _The Sparrow_, 1997), I've been aware that *any* living author might read what I write about their books. As a result, I've tried to preserve the distinction between "this is bad" and "I didn't like this," and to keep an eye on hyperbole.

(Which is not to say I haven't ranted when I hated the living authors' books.)

Other than that, well, writing about people's books is what I do, and so I just try and do it in a way that I could look the author in the eye if I needed to.

(Hence, http://www.steelypips.org/weblog/2006/06/novik_03.php .)

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

That, as Jack Sparrow says, is very interesting. Since the part of the book I thought worked best was the Napoleonic stuff.

(I agree about the character introduced near the end.)

[kate_nepveu]

This would be the travel-narrative-is-hard thing? Yeah, it is, but for me at least it was movement, where the Napoleonic stuff felt like work to get through.

Is there _anyone_ who doesn't like the character introduced near the end? On general statistical principles there must be, but it's hard for me to imagine.