A pilgrim proceeds (into 2021)

January

✓1. False Value by Ben Aaronovitch (327 pages) - 3.5 stars
✓2. Spycraft Rebooted: How Technology is Changing Espionage by Edward Lucas (59 pages) - 4 stars
✓3. Scoop by Evelyn Waugh (222 pages) - 3 stars
✓4. ♪♪The Midnight Library by Matt Haig (narr. Bryony Hannah) - 1 star
✓5. Witch World by Andre Norton (210 pages) - 4 stars
✓6. Web of the Witch World by Andre Norton (192 pages) - 4 stars
✓7. Monstress #1 by Marjorie M. Liu and Sana Takeda (illustrator) (71 pages) - 0.5 stars
✓8. Year of the Unicorn by Andre Norton (203 pages) - 4.5 stars
✓9. In Search of Holy Russia by Father Spyridon Bailey (135 pages) - 3 stars
✓10. The Quantum Curators and the Fabergé Egg by Eva St. John (186 pages) - 2.5 stars
✓11. The Quantum Curators and the Enemy Within by Eva St. John (211 pages) - 2.5 stars
✓12. The Abolition of Sanity: C. S. Lewis on the Consequences of Modernism by Steve Turley (35 pages) - 1.5 stars
✓13. Star Ka'at by Andre Norton (49 pages) - 2 stars

February

✓1. Star Ka'at World (in Star Ka'ats) by Andre Norton (60 pages) - 1.5 stars
✓2. Compulsory by Martha Wells - 2.5 stars
3. The Fatal Eggs and Other Soviet Satire edited by Mirra Ginsburg (305 pages) - 4 stars
✓4. Nervous People by Mikhail Zoshchenko (trans. by Dean Moore) - 2.5 stars
✓5. Bear Head by Adrian Tchaikovsky (400 pages) - 4.5 stars
✓6. Jim Butcher's Dresden Files: Fool Moon Volume 1 (graphic novel) by Jim Butcher and Mark Powers (drawn by Chase Conley) (104 pages) - 2.5 stars
✓7. Jim Butcher's Dresden Files: Fool Moon Volume 2 (graphic novel) by Jim Butcher and Mark Powers (drawn by Chase Conley) (117 pages) - 2 stars
✓8. The Bathhouse (short story) by Mikhail Zoshchenko - 3 stars
✓9. The Crypto Mindset - The Beginners Guide to a Simple Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Investment Approach called HODL by Ivica Milaric (24 pages) - 3 stars
✓10. The Fuller Memorandum by Charles Stross (301 pages) - 3 stars
✓11. Overtime (short story) by Charles Stross (30 pages) - 2.5 stars
✓12. Comet Weather by Liz Williams (291 pages) - 3 stars

Currently Reading

Kindle


Jim Butcher's Dresden Files: Down Town by Jim Butcher and Mark Powers (illus. by Carlos Gomez)
Started: 4/1/2021


The Orthodox Study Bible by crimson publishing bible
Started: 29/11/2020


The Rotten Heart of Europe by Bernard Connolly
Started: 8/1/2021

The Black Robe by Wilkie Collins
Started: 19/1/2021

Audiobooks

Cloud of Witnesses by Dorothy L. Sayers
(narrated by Ian Carmichael)
Started: 19/1/2021

The Inimitable Jeeves by P. G. Wodehouse (narrated by Jonathan Cecil)
Started: 9/2/2021

Series List

Series in progress

Fiction
Heartstrikers by Rachel Aaron: 1, 2-5 - Bethesda Heartstriker: Mother of the Year
Rivers of London by Ben Aaronovitch: 1-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - Action at a Distance, A Dedicated Follower of Fashion, The Cockpit; Body Work, What Abigail Did That Summer, The Loneliness of the Long Distance Granny, Night Witch, Favourite Uncle, Black Mould, The Furthest Station; Detective Stories, Cry Fox, Water Weed, The October Man, The Fey and the Furious
The Adventures of Erast Fandorin by Boris Akunin: 1 - Turkish Gambit
The Adventures of Sister Pelagia by Boris Akunin: 1-2 - Pelagia and the Red Rooster
Dania Gorska by Hania Allen: 1 - Clearing the Dark

Chronicles of Amber by John Gregory Betancourt: P1, 1-10 - Chaos and Amber
Dominion of The Fallen by Aliette de Bodard: 0.2-0.5, 0.8-1 - Against the Encroaching Darkness, Children of Thorns, Children of Water, The House of Binding Thorns
Obsidian and Blood by Aliette de Bodard: 0.1-1 - Harbinger of the Storm
Xuya Universe by Aliette de Bodard: 8, 27 - The Jaguar House, In Shadow, Fleeing Tezcatlipoca
Pieter Posthumous by Britta Bolt: 3 - Lonely Graves
Alpha and Omega by Patricia Briggs: 1-2 - Fair Game
Mercy Thompson by Patricia Briggs: 1-8 - Fire Touched
Sianim by Patricia Briggs: 3-4 - Masques
World of the Five Gods by Lois McMasters Bujold: 1.1, 2 -Penric and the Shaman, The Paladin of Souls
Chains of Honor by Lindsay Buroker: P1-P3, 1-2: Snake Heart, Assassin's Bond
Emperor's Edge by Lindsay Buroker: 1-8 - Diplomats and Fugitives
Fallen Empire by Lindsay Buroker: P-3 - Relic of Sorrows
The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher: 1-2 - Welcome to the Jungle, Grave Peril

Holly Danger by Amanda Carlson: 1 - Danger's Vice
Greatcoats by Sebastian de Castell: 1 - Knight's Shadow
Spellslinger by Sebastian de Castell: 1-6 -
The Way of the Argosi
The Daevabad Trilogy by S. A. Chakraborty: 1 - The Kingdom of Copper
Poirot by Agatha Christie: The Murder on the Links
Chronicles of an Age of Darkness by Hugh Cook: 1 - The Wordsmiths and the Warguild
The Saxon Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell: 1-2 - The Lords of the North
Sharpe by Bernard Cornwell:1, 6, 8-9, 13 - Sharpe's Triumph
Arkady Renko by Martin Cruz Smith: 1 - Polar Star

Marcus Didius Falco by Lindsey Davis: 1-6 - Time to Depart
Flavia Albia by Lindsey Davis: 1-2.5 - Deadly Election
Priya's Shakti by Ram Devineni & Dan Goldman: 1-2 - Priya and the Lost Girls
John Pearce by David Donachie: 1, 14 - A Shot-Rolling Ship
The Privateersman Mysteries by David Donachie: 1-2 - A Hanging Matter
The Marie Antoinette Romances by Alexandre Dumas: 2 - Cagliostro
The Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas: 1-3 - Louise de la Vallière
Cliff Janeway by John Dunning: 1 - The Bookman's Wake

The Beginner's Guide to Necromancy by Hailey Edwards: 1 - How to Claim an Undead Soul
The Time Quintet by Madeleine L'Engle: 1 - A Wind in the Door

Metro 203x by Dmitry Glukhovsky: 1-1.5 - Metro 2034
The Archangel Project by C Gockel: 1- 1.5 - Noa's Ark
Shakespearean Murder Mysteries by Philip Gooden: 1-3 - Alms for Oblivion
The Earthsea Cycle by Ursula le Guin 1 - The Tombs of Atuan

Forever War by Joe Haldeman: 1 - Forever Free
Benjamin January by Barbara Hambly: 1 - Fever Season
Darwath by Barbara Hambly: 1-3 - Mother of Winter
James Asher by Barbara Hambly: 1-2, 4-6 - Blood Maidens, Pale Guardian
Sun Wolf and Star Hawk by Barbara Hambly: 1-3 - Hazard
The Windrose Chronicles by Barbara Hambly: 1-3 - Firemaggot
The Stainless Steel Rat by Harry Harrison 4-5, 9 - The Stainless Steel Rat Is Born
Ink & Sigil by Kevin Hearne: 1 - Paper & Blood
Thomas Hawkins by Antonia Hodgson: 1-2 - A Death at Fountains Abbey
The Paper Magician by Charlie N. Holmberg: 1-2, 4 - The Master Magician

Conqueror by Conn Iggulden: 1 - Lords of the Bow

Alex Verus by Benedict Jacka: 1, 9 - Cursed

The Danilov Quintet by Jasper Kent:1 - Thirteen Years Later

The Jane Doe Chronicles by Jeremy Lachlan: 1 - The Key of All Souls
The Book of the Ancestor by Mark Lawrence: 1 - Grey Sister
The Kalle Blomqvist Mysteries by Astrid Lindgren: 3 - Master Detective
Monstress by Marjorie M. Liu and Sana Takeda: 1

Robert Colbeck by Edward Marston: 1 - The Excursion Train
Dragonriders of Perm by Anne McCaffrey: 1 - Dragonquest
The Raven's Mark by Ed McDonald: 1 - Ravencry
Colonel Vaughn de Vries by Paul Mendelson: 1-2 - The History of Blood

The Psammead by E. Nesbit: 1-2, 3 - The Story of the Amulet
Tertius by Robert Newman: 1 - The Testing of Tertius
Moonsinger by Andre Norton: 1-3 - Dare to Go A'Hunting
Witch World by Andre Norton: 1-3 - Three Against the Witch World
Star Ka'ats by Andre Norton and Dorothy Madlee: 1-3 - Star Ka'ats and the Winged Warriors

Giordano Bruno by S.J. Parris: 5 - Heresy
Brother Cadfael by Ellis Peters: 1-12 - The Rose Rent
The Gaian Consortium by Christine Pope: 1 - Breath of Life
Discworld by Sir Terry Pratchett: 1-15.5 - Soul Music

Theseus by Mary Renault: 1 - The Bull From the Sea
Divergent by Veronica Roth: 1, 2.5 - Insurgent

The Witcher by Andrzej Sapkowski: 1 - The Last Wish, Time of Contempt
Lord Peter Wimsey by Dorothy L. Sayers: 3, 5, 9 - Clouds of Witness
Old Man's War by John Scalzi: 1 - The Ghost Brigades
The Rhenwars Saga by M. L. Spencer: 1 - Darklands
The Raven Cycle by Maggie Stiefvater: 0.2, 1 - The Dream Thieves
The Laundry Files by Charles Stross: 1-3.1 - The Apocalypse Codex
Merchant Princes by Charles Stross: 2 - The Family Trade
The Dolphin Ring by Rosemary Sutcliff: 1, 3-6, 8 - The Silver Branch

The Ember Quartet by Sabaa Tahir: 2 - An Ember in the Ashes
Jem Flockhart by E. S. Thomson: 2 - Beloved Poison
A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain: 1-2 - Part 3

The Murderbot Diaries by Martha Wells: 0.5 - All Systems Red
Miss Silver by Patricia Wentworth: 1 - The Case is Closed
Aspects of Power by Charles Williams: 1 - Many Dimensions
Detective Inspector Chen by Liz Williams: 1 - The Demon and the City
The Gestes by P. C. Wren: 1 - Beau Sabreur
Jeeves by P. G. Wodehouse: 1 - The Inimitable Jeeves

Non-fiction

The Spiritual Life by Hieromonk Gregorios: 1 - Be Ready

The History of Middle Earth by Christopher Tolkien: ??

Series up to date

Paul Samson by Henry Porter: 1-2 - The Old Enemy
The Hitman's Guide by Alice Winters: 1-2
Tom Mondrian by Ross Armstrong: 1
The Folk of the Air by Holly Black: P1-3, 1-3 - How the King of Elfhame Learned to Hate Stories
The Green Man's Heir by Juliet E. McKenna: 1-3
The Quantum Curators by Eva St. John: 1-2 - The Quantum Curators and the Missing Codex
The Dogs of War by Adrian Tchaikovsky: 1-2
Comet Weather by Liz Williams: 1-2

N.b.
(i) This list is still probably incomplete.
(ii) The named book is the next to be read
(iii) Inclusion of a series does not imply intent to complete it.
(iv) I have read some of the series in bold type during this year (2021).
(v) I have pruned out of this list some series that I began in 2019, but definitely do not intend to continue.

Viewing

January

✓1. Agatha Christie's Poirot: Season 1, Episodes 1-2 (1989, English)
✓2. Yolki (2010, Russian)
3. Detective Anna: Season 1, Episodes 27-33 (2016, Russian)
✓4. Yolki 2 (2011, Russian)
✓5. Cadfael: Season 3, Episode 2 St. Peter's Fair (1997, English)
6. The Magicians: Season 1, Episodes 1-3 (2016, English (American))
✓7. Zog (2018, English)
✓8. The Prestige (2006, English)
9. Spirited: Season 1, Episode 1 (2010, English (Australian))
✓10. Snowden (2016, English (American))
✓11 Deutschland 83 (2016, German)
12. Apparitions: Season 1, Episodes 1-2 (2008, English)

February

1. Detective Anna: Season 1, Episodes 37-42 (2016, Russian)
✓2. Wilde (1997, English)
3. Jeeves and Wooster: Season 1, Episode 1 (1990, English)
4. Nicolas le Floch: Season 5: Murder at the Hotel Saint-Florentin; The Baker's Blood (2013, French)
✓5. :The Pirate (2012, English/Greek/Russian)
✓6. What Dreams May Come (1998, English(New Zealand/American))
7. The Making of the Mob - Chicago - Season 1, Episodes 1-2 (2016, English (American))
✓8. The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982, English)

Welcome to my book reviewing thread for 2021!

There are mince pies, salads, cold meats, cheese, and beverages of all kinds - both alcoholic and non-alcoholic - on the table. Make yourselves at home.

>6 -pilgrim-: How can one refuse! That is an excellent spread.

Congrats on your new thread and thanks for the snacks!

Here's hoping to many good books in 2021!

Happy reading in the new year.

Happy new thread!

Earth to Earth sounds fascinating. I'm looking forward to your thoughts about it.

Thank you! I might just nibble a virtual mince pie.

Happy New Thread! May all of your 2021 reads be gems!

>1 -pilgrim-: Happy new year!

>3 -pilgrim-: I notice you started your audiobook 11 months ago. Is that due to some of the issues we share with audiobook listening? I have one I've been trying to get through for at least two years -- I like the story and the narrator, just not the listening experience. I recently started over with it and it seems to be going a little better this time now that I'm listening while stitching instead of while driving. I still feel like I'm missing a lot versus reading print, though.

>14 YouKneeK: Thank you, and the same to you!

Six months ago, not 11 - I write dates according to the British custom. (day/month/year). But you are completely correct as to the reason for the slow progress!

Unlike the Cadfael audiobooks that I have been listening to recently (see December thread), which were definitely abridged, Servant of the Underworld weighs in at over 13 hours and is, I assume, complete. I have the Kindle/Audible combined form, which means that I can switch to reading passages of necessary. And the reading is very well done, and gives the first person narrator distinct personality.

It is just the usual problem striking again..

>12 haydninvienna: Virtual food never does any harm to the health - or the waistline!

>15 -pilgrim-: Oh I'm an idiot, I knew that about the dates -- I work with British and European sites and I knew you were in the UK. There is now a palm print on my forehead. :)

13 hours is pretty long. I've enjoyed some shorter audiobooks quite a bit, like Legion which is only a couple hours. The one I'm currently listening to is about 22 hours.

When this thread gets long enough, will you start a Be A pilgrim (in 2021)? Just to keep the Alphabet?

>3 -pilgrim-: Couple of books there I will be looking forward to your review of. Awkward sentence. Sorry.

>18 BookstoogeLT: When I chose that soubriquet, I had in mind the byname of William Palmer, the eponymous character in the radio dramas from Sebastian Baczkiewicz.

But given that I was reading The Way of the Pilgrim last year, and intend to continue with its sequel in 2021, and have begun the year with BEing Orthodox, I think you are probably right...

*sings
♪♪He who would valiant be...♪♪

>20 -pilgrim-: Now I'll have to re-play Maddy Prior's vehement rendition of that hymn.

>21 haydninvienna: Ditto. And done.

>22 -pilgrim-: Bless! I think she is just wonderful.

Earth to earth looks very interesting. And by Stefan Buczacki too!

I will be interested to see what you think of The Honjin murders. Pushkin Press seem to have published quite a lot of Japanese mysteries in the last couple of years. I'm not a big reader of the genre, but I've read and enjoyed several such books by Japanese authors.

I hope this is a MUCH better year for you than the last.

OOOOH, Earth to Earth is included in my Kindle Unlimited membership. Sweet!

Oh and Happy New Year & New Thread

>24 Sakerfalcon: I found Pushkin Vintage Crime series through reading The Master of the Day of Judgment early last year. (The title refers to an unknown (fictitious) artist and their most famous work.) I thought that was excellent, so had been intending to try some more fiction from that era.

Starting it now was the result of my failed attempt at the Helmet Reading Challenge for 2020 (#26 & #29) - unfortunately it arrived too late.

And a Happy New Year to you too.

That is where I found Earth to Earth too.

And, again, reading it was spurred on by last year's Helmet Reading Challenge (#20)

Happy (Orthodox) Christmas!

A slightly delayed happy new year to you!

>28 hfglen:

A much belated happy new year!

>6 -pilgrim-: mince(meat) pie, ahhh.

Once you're feeling a tiny bit better, please let us know what you think about the read for a Williams book.

January #2:



Spycraft Rebooted: How Technology is Changing Espionage by Edward Lucas - 4 stars
23/7/2020-6/1/2021

In 2018-2019 I tried reading (as in "started but gave up on") a few books by authors who purported to be "former CIA agents". This seemed to redact to "cool stuff I have done", and left me with the impression that either (i) these were written by people whose self-aggrandizing personalities meant they never should have been in that line of work, (ii) they were written by fantasizing "wannabes" who never were in that line of work or (iii) they were written as disinformation by some poor saps who have been ordered to make themselves look ridiculous in the line of duty.

Spycraft Rebooted is coming from quite a different direction. The author is a journalist who spent 14 years as a foreign correspondent for The Economist and another decade as its editor. He claims no personal experience in practising spycraft; however his need to deal with confidential material and sources in the course of his reporting should have necessitated his being aware of the likelihood of such practices being exercised upon him.

Perhaps the largest portion of this book deals with major espionage exploits, followed in each case with an explanation of why they would be either impossible or, at best, vastly more difficult, today. Examples are taken from published memoirs, where anecdotes are passed on, it is done with the proviso that they are not necessarily regularly true, but do, however, effectively illustrate the point being made. (Lucas never makes claim to dubious "inside knowledge".)

This reminded me of the justification given by Capt. Pat Reid when quizzed about the propriety of giving so much detail about the methods used by escaping prisoners-of-war in his account, The Colditz Story, when future generations might "might need to make use of them". His response that technological advances had already made most of the methods described obsolete, for practical purposes, by the end of the Second World War, but examples of the mindset involved might inspire the ingenuity of future generations, in the unfortunate circumstance that that should become necessary.

I think that same attitude accounts for the length of time spent discussing admittedly obsolete practices: the insight into the mindset, priorities and approaches used in the past are more informative about likely current day activities than mere unsubstantiated hypotheses.

The reason for the great changes in what is practicable is the rapid advances in electronic technology and, most importantly, the generation of massive databases that make identity checks far easier and quicker to perform.

The latter part of the book deals with how modern electronic techniques, and modern data storage, are active assets in espionage.

The catastrophic implications for apparently minor slip-ups in data security is illustrated by the Office of Public Records hack, which Lucas attributes to Chinese espionage, and which accessed the personal and biometric details of 22.1 million Americans, including federal employees. Although the current Wikipedia article"cannot see any purpose in this", it illustrates perfectly the use of "negative data".

Obviously, the personnel details of CIA operatives aware not held in this database. Therefore, any American diplomat whose records are not on this database is likely to be a spy - with sufficient likelihood to warrant their being investigated and all their contacts, past and present, rendered suspect. (For these purposes, a "false positive" result is not a big problem.)

The applicability of this principle is more general: nowadays, there are so many organisations collecting data, that failing to have accumulated a data trail is itself grounds for suspecting an identity to be fake.

And background data on innocent, apparently innocuous individuals, is also useful. The fallacy of "if I have done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide" is demonstrated: the more is known about you, the more a "phishing" attack can be targeted to be plausible. Moreover it is no longer necessary to target a high ranking official to gain access to sensitive information - if an employee in a low sensitivity post can be persuaded to open an unwise email attachment on their office computer, the "trojan" thus introduced can do the rest.

This is an example of past informing understanding of a very different present: identifying suitable targets was always the most difficult part of a skilled agent's job; thus easy access to personal information is a major advantage.

(Although the inability to lie about, or simply change, one's identity might initially appear to be a good thing, this ignores the number of people who are seeking to evade being the victims, rather than the perpetrators, of criminal offences - whether this be victims of domestic violence, targets of extremist hate groups, whistleblowers, or political activists opposing oppressive regimes.)

And Lucas' point is that in the information war, it is the totalitarian regimes that have the intrinsic advantage:

they do not have to worry about violating the privacy of human rights of their own citizens, allowing greater monitoring, data collection, and use of techniques that might adversely affect the health of innocent citizens;

they do not publicize their records, so that database searching is largely a one-way street;

the fact that clandestine operations now face a higher likelihood of being exposed after the event, by journalists, is more of a problem for democratic regimes whose operatives are thus publicly accountable.

(Lucas believes that "the West" had the advantage previously, because the twin rewards of economic improvement and ideological superiority were better at "turning assets". I am not sure that the latter is true: it seems to me that a partisan representation of history can always be made convincing to a certain proportion of a population (in whichever direction).)

Having spent such a lot of his book explaining the dangers inherent in this large datasets - which is not surprising given his previous books on the topic of cybersecurity - and his emphasis on the fundamental difference between "us" and "the opposition" as being "our" respect for the human rights of the individual, I was surprised that his conclusion was that we need to increase funding of the "surveillance society".

This conclusion did not appear to me to follow from the direction in which he had been arguing throughout the book, and was presented without further explanation.

There were no major surprises here, but it was an interesting light overview, sprinkled with some fascinating anecdotes.

There was a certain emphasis on Britain and Russia. However I do not think this should be taking as meaning that Lucas considers the Russian Federation as the only, or even the most important, current opponent. It is rather that his years in Moscow give him a greater familiarity with that field of play. (Just as his British background means that a lot of his examples are taken from British espionage history.)

I do not think that Edward Lucas can be considered a politically neutral author. He currently works for the European Centre for Policy Analysis. I suspect the apparently sudden leap to his conclusions would not have so surprised me if I were familiar with his journalistic output. He is fluent in several East and Central European languages, and has honorary awards from the state of Lithuania, which may be relevant in apprising both his level of informed knowledge, and his political orientation.

Nevertheless, his overview is more interested in giving information than promulgating his own opinions. The reader is free to draw their own conclusions.

This is an intelligent, well-written and informed book. I enjoyed reading it. I would recommend it to both technophiles and lovers of espionage fiction.

I could tell you were a few pages ahead of me.

>36 pgmcc: Your handlers will be most displeased.

My first TV detective of 2021:

Agatha Christie's Poirot: The Adventure of the Clapham Cook adapted by Clive Exton from the short story by Agatha Christie - 2.5 stars
First broadcast: 1989 by Granada TV

I have never warmed to what I have seen of Hercule Poirot in the films and I was hoping that the TV version might give me a better feel for why so many people love this character. It did not.

The episode could be summarised as "snobbish foreigner is insulted by snobbish English people in turn". The only character that I warmed to - the eponymous cook - was left in a possibly awful situation at the end, with no resolution.

According to this blog the episode stays very close to the short story on which it is based, whilst adding several extra clues, and this lack of resolution exists also in the original. I felt the snobbish attitudes extended to the viewpoint - neither the author of the adapter considered that we ought to care about the fate of the deceived cook.

The decision of the film company to include a clear indicator of the guilty party before the credits even rolled did not endear this to me from a mystery point of view.

Since this is not Agatha Christie's first book, I am puzzled as to why the TV company choose to start here - this was the first episode of the first series.

What I did notice were some lovely performances in minor rôles, and a beautiful Art Deco-inspired credit sequence.

Have just finished watching a documentary, Being Poirot, mainly consisting of interview material with David Suchet, and also presented by him. Listening to him enthuse about the character have me a far better understanding of what there is to like about Hercule Poirot.

I have previously avoided explorations of Agatha Christie's personal life; her notorious disappearance made is obvious that she suggested great stress in her private life and it seemed prurient to investigate. (I am not one who believes that the creation of works of art, of any kind, automatically places one's private life into the public sphere. Arguably that does apply to those who seek to improve their sales by self-publicity, but Agatha Christie was a very private person.)

However the warmth towards and obvious affection for this author that David Suchet has encouraged me to watch Perspectives: the Mystery of Agatha Christie; it proved a very balanced account, with the aim of understanding her as a person, and how that affected her writing, rather than looking for scandal.

Two things that struck me:

Agatha Christie attributed her writing to her lack of education. Being bored gave her plenty of time to practise exercising her imagination.

It seems to me that the pressure of modern life leaves little time free to write for those who do not make it their full-time profession, and places major time constraints on those who attempt to earn their living in this way.

Agatha Christie never claimed to be writing "great literature", but she also never had to support herself (either by writing or by holding another job), until a point in her life when her output meant that she was already comfortably off. She was this able to expend considerable time and effort in crafting her writing, without such constraints.

I have commented previously (notably here and here), about how many cover artists appear not to have read the novels they are illustrating. (The S. F. Masterworks covers for anything by the Strugatsky brothers appear as another egregious example.) The contrast with Tom Adams, who read each novel three times before designing a cover for it, making notes on themes and images as he went, is remarkable. His goal was not to directly illustrate anything that happened in the book, but to represent its themes in the painting that he produced. Such dedication, in producing covers for what were considered in that era - the seventies and eighties - to be disposable detective novel paperbacks, is truly admirable.

The other day I was comparing the covers of the seventies Puffin editions of Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising novels - the ones that I read - and noting how none of the subsequent editions can hold a candle to them (in my opinion). I now suspect that the different working practices of that era may provide an explanation.

>35 -pilgrim-: That sounds interesting. Adding to my wish list.

>41 Narilka: It is not very long. But it does inspire me to try his more in depth books.

And it is currently available on Kindle Unlimited.

After the documentaries that I mentioned in >39 -pilgrim-: & >40 -pilgrim-:, I decided to try the second episode of the first season of the Granada television adaptation:

Agatha Christie's Poirot: Murder in the Mews, directed by Edward Bennett - 2.5 stars
First broadcast: 1989

Yes, I could see Poirot's obsession with justice portrayed here, as mentioned in the documentaries, which gives him a least one positive character trait.

The episodes are evidently grossly out of order: in previous the one, Inspector Japp is sarcastic and obviously resentful of Poirot, whilst here they appear write chummy, and in fact it is Japp who first invites Poirot to take an interest in the case.

The documentaries made much of the film crew's obsessive attention to detail. Why then did Major Eustace have a pencil moustache, when Miss Plenderleith clearly described him as having a "toothbrush" moustache? He was a regular visitor, so she is unlikely to have made a mistake.

And I had the same dissatisfaction with this story as I had with the last: the loose ends. MAJOR SPOILER: Although Miss Plenderleith may be morally guilty of attempted murder, she is not legally. However, she IS legally guilty of "attempting to pervert the course of justice" by tampering with the evidence. Yet she simply walks tearfully away from Poirot and the Inspector at the end of the episode. Is she going to be prosecuted of not?

I feel frustrated. Despite David Suchet's obvious commitment to the character and his rôle, I still did not find the result particularly good. Enjoyable time-passing, but never gripping or thought-provoking.

If you are interested and can find it, Agatha Christie's autobiography was a good read for me.

>44 MrsLee: Thank you for the recommendation, Lee. David Suchet was lent the original manuscript to read by Agatha Christie's grandson; it is evident that it is the informative type of autobiography, rather than the self-aggrandising.

Have you seen the TV series of dramatisations that I have been writing about? If so, what is your opinion of them?

I think I have worked out why the episodes make no attempt to follow the chronology of the books. The first season episodes are only 50 minutes long, so I think they are deliberately picking her short stories to adapt. It is easier to pad out a mystery than compress one.

>45 -pilgrim-: I love David Suchet as Poirot. He is how I always envision Poirot when reading a story. Very much enjoyed those mystery shows for the settings they were in. I love that time period.

I enjoy an Agatha Christie mystery, but more for the settings than the characters or the mystery. They are on my second tier of favorites, meaning, I can always pick one up and enjoy reading it, but I don't feel compelled to own them in my house. Only a few authors enjoy that privilege. Dorothy L. Sayers, Rex Stout, Ellis Peters being my all-time favorites.

>46 MrsLee: I agree - in my opinion both Lord Peter and Brother Cadfael have more substance, as characters.

The viewing that I have most enjoyed so far this year is Yolki - a 2010 Russian New Year's film, reviewed here.

It has just the right balance of "feel good" versus schmaltz. There are no life-changing, improbable happy endings, just a lot of little ones - even if some of the chain of events stretch credulity a bit!

Helmet Film Challenge 2021: #3, #20.

>47 -pilgrim-: agreed. I have read a couple Poirot mysteries and didn't connect with the detective.

Yolki 2 (2011, Russian) directed by Dmitry Kiselev, Aleksandr Baranov, Aleksandr Kott and Levan Gabriadze - 3.5 stars

I needed another dose of seasonal "feel good" film, so I watched this sequel to Yolki, set on New Year's Eve again, a year later. Many of the same characters return, and again different parts of the story are set in different regions of the Russian Federation.

But this time the framing story is an tragic love affair: a letter that was never delivered meant that a pilot waited every day for 40 years in Red Square for a woman who never came. The year that the post office (in Astana, Kazakhstan) is renovated, and the letter finally delivered by a helpful Kazakh workman, is the year the pilot finally gave up. Pasha Bondarev, the cab driver last year, is now a private in the Presidential Guard. When the Asian street sweeper - the same that played such a pivotal rôle last year - alerts Pasha to the situation, our young lover determines to obtain a happy ending, and initiates the chain of phonecalls.

The perils this year are more serious. With the exception of the ridiculous sequence where Boris is given amnesia by a blow to the head cured, like in a cartoon, by a similar blow from the other side, and is trying to guess what the initials scrawled on his hand mean, and where his Olya lives, the stories are somewhat sadder - although all have happy endings. Yet the coincidences of how these characters all connect, usually by being related to ones another, has become more far-fetched (and even, I think, causes the renaming of one character between films - I think the younger Grigori Zemlyanikin was addressed as "Kolyan" in the first. But this may be an error in subtitling - maybe he only shares a surname with the elder Zemlyanikin. I noticed a major potential confusion caused by a cousin being introduced in the subtitles as a brother.)

(The subtitling struggled at one point - having changed the initials on Boris' hand to match the initials of the translation of what they stand for i.e. GP for "Grand Plan"the translator was at a loss how to translate the stream of suggestions, once they stopped being nonsense... And in particular, when the stream included the surname of the pilot, which begins with З. A quick reminder of the difficulties of the translator's job!)

I mentioned the ethnicities of the street sweeper and the workman because, through their pivotal helpful deeds, it seems that the writers and directors are (again) trying to improve the attitudes of Russians to their Asian minorities.

Most overtly in this theme of healing internal divisions, there is the love between a Chechen boy and the daughter of a police captain, opposed by both fathers.

Kazakhstan, a country that was a former Soviet republic, is being treated as almost part of Russia, in its inclusion among the "all regions share the same New Year customs" theme. This contrasts with the Frenchman, Olya's new boyfriend, who dislikes Russian customs and cannot fit in.

The overall theme is of healing long-held divisions (in which the non-Soviet character is not included), and the reminiscences towards the Soviet era are sometimes overt. There is young love, but also couples long parted.

But that is probably reading too much political intent on what is a film that is basically trying to repeat the success of the previous year, and engender a spirit of peace and goodwill for the holiday season.

And like many sequels, it tries to up the ante, by being more serious in its perils and more crazy in its slapstick.

The result is not as good as the first film, but still an enjoyable.

Helmet Film Challenge: #20

Cadfael: St. Peter's Fair adapted by Russell Lewis from the novel by Ellis Peters - 3 stars
Director: Herbert Wise
First broadcast: 1997

Although this is an adaptation of the 4th book by Ellis Peters, it was not dramatised until the 3rd season of the television series, which resulted in a change of the actor playing Hugh Berengar - and a more abrasive characterisation.

I spotted the perpetrator immediately, but was left puzzled by the motive until Cadfael's explanation, so this was not enjoyable as a mystery.

As usual with this source material, I found the plot plausible, and the setting well-described. I felt the quality of the acting to have deteriorated though; it seemed more cliché in the characterisation.

I came across a blog by a historian, who criticised this episode for having a "tavern" as a regular establishment in s small town. But during a fair, particularly when forbidden by the King's charter to the abbey to trade, I could quite see some enterprising townsman opening his doors to refresh visitors (and bend the regulations).

I did agree with his criticism of how much physical contact the brothers had with women - not with any improper motivation, but gestures of taking a woman's hand to pass he through a doorway, for example, should have given any of them (particularly those raised in the monastery) the sort of discomfort that Brother Jerome usually manifests.

And I am curious as to whether the contents of Brother Cadfael's little homilies came from the source novel? Although their views on, for example, the necessity of "the last rites" (i.e. confession and priestly absolution) immediately prior to death, were very much in line with what a churchman might say nowadays, they were extremely unorthodox with respect to the teaching of the Catholic Church in that period.

Also - and this is something that was very obvious in another TV series, which made me notice it in this - the lack of instinctive response to the dead. Why does Brother Cadfael, or indeed any other devout character, not immediately make the sign of the cross over a newly discovered corpse and immediately make a brief prayer for the safe passing of their spirit?

The representation of the the monastic order, and how it provides spiritual refuge for some, but not worldly opportunities for those who seek them, is well portrayed, as is the degree to which the doings of the monks, both secular and religious, influence the life of the nearby town. So it seems incongruous that a series so focussed on the lives of those who have taken monastic vows, should omit this ubiquitous sign of respect for the dead, and concern for their spiritual welfare. By ubiquitous, I am not, of course, ascribing deep faith as being universal; I am talking about customary observance. Some actions become socially expected and thus instinctive.

It is a very minor point. But it jars precisely because such care had been taken with historical accuracy on other points.

Something odd seems to be going on with my interaction with the Green Dragon.

When I returned to the topic list, the screen refreshed itself, and I lost all the info as to the date and time of last message to fit each thread.

Did I hit the wrong point on the screen? Or is this the latest "improvement"?

I also then acquired a button at the top of that page, telling me that I can "join" or "watch" the Green Dragon group. So, on the assumption that I had accidentally pressed something that caused me to leave, I clicked "join".

I immediately lost all notification of how many messages, out of a given thread, were still unread.

After some experiments (sorry clamairy!) - including switching between mobile and desktop views - I conclude that it is when, as the foot of this page currently tells me, I am NOT a member of this group, that I can post, see number left unread etc. But when I have "joined", I lose this information!

Is anyone else experiencing this? Or is this a glitch peculiar to me?

>52 -pilgrim-: Something is odd. I see the "join" also, but not going to touch it. I figure it's a glitch, hopefully temporary. I did check to see if I was signed in as me. Sometimes LT likes us to sing in, and so signs us out.

>52 -pilgrim-: I haven’t seen anything unusual, but I use the Talk page to access the newest posts and rarely go to the Groups page so that might be why. From this post, over in “Talk About Librarything”, it looks like LT staff are actively working on rolling out changes that are affecting the Groups page and are "fighting dragons". https://www.librarything.com/topic/328648

I only interact in threads that I have starred, and those seem tohave stayed inline.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear staff are messing around under the hood...

I too usually use the Talk page to access posts I've starred. That is definitely a different look to the group pages. It's going to take some getting used to.

There’s a more detailed post out now about some of the changes to the Groups pages in the New Features group. They're asking for bugs and other feedback to be reported in this thread.
https://www.librarything.com/topic/328654

I haven't noticed this either, but I use Talk then Your Groups to read threads as they are added to. >57 YouKneeK: Thanks for the link, I will go and see what's going on.

Wow. Really not fond of these changes, it's even difficult to navigate on my laptop. Clicking on unread messages doesn't automatically take you to the unread ones, you have to click again. Screen is taken up by too much side info crap and the main group page doesn't show the pretty picture of the Green Dragon Clammy posted unless you click to see more. :(

>59 MrsLee: Hear, hear!

>59 MrsLee:, >60 hfglen:
Agreed. Yet again, changes that bring no advantages that I can see, that appear to be solely for the sake of consistency with a "branding" image - and that make things that worked perfectly well harder to use than before.

Thank you >57 YouKneeK:, for pointing out what is going on.

>61 -pilgrim-: Add me to the list, I'm not a fan of the recent changes of the group page.

>61 -pilgrim-: The changes appear to have messed up viewing on a mobile phone which will be dear to your heart. Even when you hit the "see more" button it still truncates images.

And I just checked out the group tab. Ughhhh. I do not like that new setup one bit!

I briefly got the USEFUL information - last poster in thread, and date/time stamp for that post - back. But then, a lot of database query error pages it had gone back to the "improved"data sparse form.

At least I can now be a member of this group AND see the number of unread posts again.

Please everyone, be sure to leave your complaints/comments in the thread linked >57 YouKneeK:. That way the folks that need to know will know, and there are some explanations of the whys and wherefores there as well.

>59 MrsLee: On my mobile, I can find no way to restore the Green Dragon to her former beauty - all I can see is the swordsman. But that is a problem they already know about.

>66 MrsLee: I had the reply that they already know about the missing information on the Group page,; they say they know and are working on it.
Given the current instability, they seem to be doing so. We don't yet know what their intended end result is.

>68 -pilgrim-: Catching up on the thread it looks like a good thing that I've been working so many extra hours with no time to read threads as I've missed all the excitement of things going missing! 😉 Either that or I'm being incredibly lucky and things seem to be more or less as they should be.

January #3:



Scoop by Evelyn Waugh - 3 stars
3/11/2020-11/1/2021

For the first two thirds of this book, I was not really interested, with just enough curiosity as to where it was going to prevent me giving up. It was only in the final third that the pace started to pick up and I actually got more involved.

I did not find this "hilarious" (another case of puffery!), or even particularly funny. I suppose that is because its main theme - that journalists make up news, that the news that is reported is slanted to for the preconceived views of their proprietors and their readers (rather than the facts), and so on - is something that is taken for granted nowadays. We all know this; journalists behaving in this way is not a surprise.

No one comes out of this well. Journalists are crude, unprincipled and corrupt; proprietors are egotistical, conceited and tyrannical, and so on.

Racist slurs are casually used - "darkie", "yid", the n-word - but by the characters (who are equally dislikeable in other ways), not directly by the author. On the other hand, references to "rolling eyes", "flashing white teeth" and "woolly pates" are frequent enough to suggest the author is not as superior to his characters as he would like the reader to think. There is a reference to a meal being unappetising because the waiter's "brown thumbs" are in the dish itself - would it have been more hygienic if they had been pink?

The journalists are being sent to report from the African country of Ishmaelia, which is rumoured to be on the brink of civil war - as soon as the rains end. The government is portrayed as kleptocratic, with only the thinnest veneer of democracy, and its population as ignorant and primitive.

Yet it is also made clear that transplanting American model civic institutions onto the country, in order to "civilise" it, was not necessarily in the best interests of that country. The "ignorant natives" are running rings around the supercilious journalists - it even seems likely, at one point, that they themselves have started the rumour of war, in order to boost the economy by influx of money (to the locals from the journalists, to the government from foreign powers attempting to alter the balance of power).

Certainly the only actually competent character is black - even if he is a scoundrel - which makes it hard to conclude that the author has any genuine views of racial inferiority. And the apparently self-indulgent ruling family are actually doing what is best for the country, by assiduously hiding its assets in order to prevent the colonising powers (Russian, German, British) from taking an interest in it, whilst playing their representatives off against one another.

My conclusion is that the author simply does not like anybody very much.

He hates snobs, but despises those who have to toadie to idiots because they need their wages in order to support their families. But there is also real bite to his attack on the magnates, whether social or financial, who have such influence over the lives of others, whilst having no actual talents to deserve the fawning respect in which they are held.

His portrayal of the Ishmaelites is frequently insulting; his portrayal of the lower classes of rural England even more so. All the female characters portrayed are selfish and materialistic, but so are most of the men. Is it misogyny when he hates his fellow man as well?

The only likeable character is William Boot, who is living in genteel poverty on his country estate, supporting himself and his household by writing a weekly column, as "The Countryman", for a national paper. His columns are full of lush, purple descriptions of the wildlife.

And yet his success in the course of the novel is as entirely due to accidents, and relying on others, just as much as are the misfortunes studying from various miscomprehensions by people who consider themselves too superior to check their facts. Having been to the right school too helps.

This is a nasty book. A lot of satire has at heart an exasperated fondness for its targets; this is simply acerbic. I get the impression that Waugh hates and despises anyone who does not fit a very narrow definition of "like him".

But the reason that its is worth reading is that Waugh can write. His vignettes are often horrifying in their hostility, but his choice of words enables you to instantly envisage the scene he is portraying.

This was first published in 1938. What I found fascinating is that his views of the future were often remarkably prescient. More than most of his contemporaries, he is aware of the horrors of the Gulag - both of its existence, and that its victims were not just active "enemies of the State", but, in the majority, ordinary people. He was right about the foolishness of trying to forcibly import an alien governmental system, rather than developing one out of the existing social ties. And his description of the journalistic world is perhaps even more accurate now than when it was written.

So there are brains behind all the sniping. But the outlook is actually extremely bleak, made palatable only by its delivering a happy ending (regardless of deserts) for almost all its characters - as much a result of random events as everything else.

The perspicacity made it interesting. But it was not cheering to read such a misanthropic author.

Helmet Reading Challenge 2021: #41

I read Scoop back in 2016 and my thoughts on it were much as yours - although not as well expressed.

And a Happy Old New Year to everyone!

ETA: For anyone who is puzzled;
https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/333267-old-new-year-russia

>67 -pilgrim-: I can see just the dragon on my Android phone.

>73 fuzzi: We should probably not attempt to put our phones in direct conversation then - they may start attacking each other :)

January #7:


Monstress #1 by Marjorie M. Liu and Sana Takeda - 0.5 stars

Many years ago, I read "The Vivisectionist" by Andrew J. Offut - a short story in Shadows of Sanctuary, a Thieves' World anthology. Thieves' World is a shared setting, where characters created by one author can assist in the stories of the authors (as long as they do not kill them off, and seek permission before including events with permanent consequences on them). Tempus Thales is a mercenary chief who is also periodically the earthly avatar of his god, and in return has received various powers, including immortality and the ability to heal from any wound. He is portrayed by his own author as if he is thus invulnerable.

One tells how his character (Hanse the thief) is commissioned to rescueTempus from a vivisectionist. Tempus was enslaved (if I remember correctly, as the result of failure to complete a contract) and legally sold there. He had been there a long time; he is his owner's favourite subject, since every experiment can be repeated multiple times, when the removed part grows back.

It is a horrific concept, and an extremely disturbing story, but it has a point. It says that no one is invulnerable. Under these circumstances, what would normally be considered a blessing only makes Tempus' suffering worse.

Also, although what is happening is horrific, its portrayal is largely left to the imagination, as Hanse encounters the results. Herophilus of Alexandria's immense advances in medical understanding have been attributed to the laws of Alexandria having permitted the vivisection of certsin types of convicted prisoners, so although the idea is intensely disturbing, it is rooted in reality. (There are of course, also 20th century examples of such research.)

And that story came to mind because the plot of Monstress turns out to be about an order of "nuns" who vivisect beings with supernatural powers in order to extract power to fuel their own magic. The slaver who is followed by the start of this story specialises in selling children to them. And this is a graphic novel!

Monstress #1 tells the story of an attempt to attack the vivisectionists. The protagonist has herself done awful things in the past, in order to survive (also drawn).

The world building seems to be complex. The situation appears to be a stalemate in a long war between humans and those who are not, and (unlike my complaint about Battlestar Galactica), this episode, at any rate, places the point of view with the enslaved non-humans. The population appears to be female predominant, and matriarchal. The style in architecture, features, and cultural images seem to be Asian-inspired.

Since this is the first episode of a 30 part magazine issue, this may eventually have some deeper point to make. Or maybe not. Currently the only point that it seems to be making its that some people do awful things to survive. But images of child victims of vivisection is far, far past the boundaries of acceptable "entertainment" for me.

There is a short article by the author, Marjorie M. Liu at the back, which made me consider that it is possible that the author had some serious intent behind the production of this awfulness. Her father is Taiwanese, and she grew up in America, listening to tales from her Chinese grandparents about the terrible things that they had seen and endured. Given the rape camps, the mass murders, and the activities of Unit 731, all perpetrated on the Chinese people during their lifetimes (by both Chinese and Japanese), I did wonder whether this was an ill-judged attempt to raise awareness of the true level of horror that may be committed by groups of people on demonised opponents (whether on racial or ideological grounds).

But the illustrator is Japanese. This is in no way suggesting that Sana Takeda has ANY sympathy with the atrocities perpetrated by Japanese soldiers on Chinese civilians (and others) - I know nothing about her political views. But I have known several people who were the children of such victims. They struggle to interact with the Japanese generation who are the children of the occupiers. To have sought out a Japanese illustrator for her tale belies any sensitivity for her grandparents' feelings and makes me return to my initial reaction that this is nothing more than a despicable attempt to make money out of knowledge of the worst side of human nature.

What drew me back to trying another graphic novel, after being so unimpressed with the genre, was the beauty of Sana Takeda's artwork on the cover. Her style is distinctive, more detailed than other graphic novel work that I have seen. Beautiful, imaginative images, in terms of costume and architecture. Given some of the subject matter, that somehow only makes it worse.

(Note: there is a coyness about nudity - obscured by strategically placed stands of hair etc. - which seems bizarre given the level of violence.)

Further thoughts about Monstress #1:

The idea of humans gaining their magical power from the harvesting of body parts is something I have come across elsewhere recently: that is also a major plot point in Aliette de Bodard's series, Dominion of the Fallen. The Fallen are killed for their body parts and angel dust, which is also consumed as a drug. I think I remember someone hacking off fingers, in haste, from an unconscious foe, rather than waiting until they were dead - but because they had been disturbed, and needed to retreat, and wanted to retrieve at least a little profit, rather than out of any desire to maim of torture.

The fact the magic substance - "lilium" - seems to be in gas form in Monstress #1 may be the "justification" for why vivisection is needed there.

But it also stated explicitly that victims are tortured (apparently with electricity) as well, and no reason (yet) was given for that.

The guards are sadistic, giving electric shocks and threatening female-on-female rape using the same device (apparently a usual hobby). And yes, that is something known from real history.

This looks to me as if it is a calculated attempt to up the shock value to the maximum:
Harvesting body parts : been done - in fantasy fiction and real life
Vivisection: been done - in fantasy fiction and real life
Torture by organ removal: reportedly currently done in real life
Victims of the above being children: not in fiction that I know of

Illustration of such scenes in a graphic novel: I have never seen such, but I assume so.

Victims of the above being children: not that I know of, either in fiction or real life - but the callousness, greed and brutality of humanity never ceases to astound me.

This looks like a cynical attempt by an author to maximise shock value to increase sales.

BUT

Danzig Baldaev was a KGB officer and prison guard in the Soviet Union. The son of an anthropologist, orphaned by his parents being sent to the camps, and raised in a KGB orphanage, he made a study of Russian criminal tattoos, recording many, many hand-drawn images.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, he collaborated with a photographer who had collected photographs of criminal tattoos to publish on the subject. This collection, The Russian Criminal Tattoo Encyclopedia, three books in all, gained some popularity in the West in the nineties for the unusual style and quality of his artwork and the novelty of the subject matter. After his death, publishers pestered his wife for "any further pictures", and she got out a collection that he had kept under his bed, never intending for publication.

These pictures are not of tattoos. They are illustrations of interrogation techniques used by KGB officers on prisoners, and other scenes of life "in the GULag". Short descriptive passages accompany the pictures, as necessary. Danzig Baldaev: Drawings from the GULag is horrifying to the point where I found it impossible to read, all in Baldaev's distinctive style.

Why was there a chest a chest full of such drawings? I believe that that was how the man coped with his demons - a great full of memories that he could not forget but neither could he talk about. I think his wife did him a great disservice by releasing the private contents of his head to a foreign public in this way. (I do not blame her; I doubt that the pension for the widow of a former KGB officer was easy to live on at that point.)

The book has been castigated as "torture porn" - an accusation justifiably made against the publishers, although they could argue the importance of historical record - but unfair against the creator of those images, since he never intended them to be used in that way.

That is why I am still prepared to consider the claim that Marjorie M. Liu is not just a shock jock riding the historical material to inspire a product for sale.

Maybe she heard too much too young and is haunted by images of what she was told, and is genuinely trying to expiate them in this way.

Or maybe not. I do not know. I cannot.

But that does not excuse the publication.

You've been posting so frequently that I can't easily relocate the original items to I wanted to respond. But basically here are my take-aways:

(1) Thank you for pointing me to the Pushkin Vertigo line of mysteries. Some of those look quite interesting. I don't think you've published your review of The Honjin Murders but I'll be very interested to hear your thoughts.

(2) With regard to the Poirot television series and the actual stories on which they were based, I think you'll encounter a number of odd adaptations. One that I remember quite clearly being annoyed by was a story involving a classic country house murder and centering around issues of class and hierarchy. Poirot's valet accompanied him rather than Arthur Hastings. The TV episode was transformed into a story about corporate espionage. Suchet's performances are enjoyable in their own right, but there were times when the scripts were not overly faithful to the original source material.

(3) And I've not found Evelyn Waugh to be all that enjoyable as an author either, even in those titles considered to be his best.

Happy new year! (In a belated, old-calendar kind of way...)

>77 jillmwo: Thank you Jill.

Would you say that the Poirot novels have more depth than the TV adaptations?

I find David Suchet's commitment to portraying Poirot perfectly to be admirable, and the photography and set decor has a lush love of period. But the fact that they have chose to set all the stories in one time period, disregarding what was written, demonstrates that their commitment is more to style than to plot.

The reveal of the criminal in the pre-credit sequence of Agatha Christie's Poirot: the Adventure of the Clapham Cook is surely information added by the adaptation, and suggests a rather low opinion of its audience's capability to follow a mystery.

You have talked about lack of faithfulness to the plot of the books. Would you say that they are dumbing down, and that there is more to the books than is reaching the screen?

>77 jillmwo: I have never dared face Brideshead Revisited, after seeing some of the TV serial. My uncle was at Cambridge at a time to be a contemporary of the characters, whilst not being of the "correct" social class, so I found the portrayal of the social attitudes rather too near the knuckle.

But I thought I ought to give Waugh a chance. My impression now is that I can recognise his ability, but do not like him.

Have His Carcase dramatised by Alistair Beaton from the novel by Dorothy L. Sayers
Director: Martin Fisher
First broadcast: 21/10/1981

This is the latest serialised radio play that I have been listening to on Radio 4. I found it enjoyable enough, and based on an interesting premise.

The adaptation was by the same writer as for Busman's Honeymoon, which I reviewed here but without the same snobbery that I found there. I was surprised to see that it was by the same author.

Ian Carmichael again plays Lord Peter Wimsey, but Harriet Vane is here played by Maria Aitken.

Again there was an older woman in love with a younger man, and the revelation that he was only after her money. But the attitude towards her was somewhat different. There was no sympathy for the son who wanted to prevent her marrying her toy boy because he wanted to inherit, and the ease at which she moved on to a new, young admirer after the death of the first suggested that she may well not be deluded, but aware of the unspoken bargain she was making.

It was a much more sympathetic portrayal. Was it her wealth that entitled her to this?

What spoilt it somewhat for me was the final instalment, where there was a major flaw in the logic of the final reveal: Lord Peter and Harriet decided that the coded letter must be bogus, and not from a genuine revolutionary, because, although coded, it was written in English - and why should two Russians write to one another in English? There are two sets of problems with this:
1. I can think of good reasons for them to write in English.

If it was a genuine plot, however incompetently carried out - and Russian history is full of incompetent aristocratic plots! - then the plotters feared the "Bolsheviks", who would be looking for such plots, more than the British police, who have no reason to suspect one, and are not terribly interested in the internal politics of a foreign country anyway. So if two plotters both speak the same foreign language ( i.e. English) they might still choose to use it as an added security against discovery my Russian enemies, since it is harder to decode a secret message when you are unfamiliar with the letter of the underlying text.
(The revelation of how tenuous the claim to the throne is, is the real proof that the counter-revolutionary is bogus, but Harriet and Lord Peter only get that information later.)

I can't remember if it was ever stated when Alexis came to Britain. Was he fleeing the Revolution? Since he is actually of bastard descent, there is no reason to assume that he was connected with pre-revolutionary aristocratic circles, if indeed of full Russian blood. If he was brought up in Britain, he could be fully aware of his heritage without actually being fluent in the language (which he currently has little opportunity to use). One does not make important plans in a language one speaks imperfectly!
Moreover, verbal fluency does not require literacy. I had a Russian-born friend, an émigrée, who cannot write the language at all, having never studied it in school, although it is the language that she speaks at home.

But, discounting the reason why it might be safer to plot in English, and assuming that Alexis is fluent in his Russian:
2. Why then is Alexis deceived into believing in the bogus plot himself?
It is made clear that he desperately wants to believe, and so might ignore the oddity of being contacted in English, but what is the most natural response to being at last contacted by a fellow Russian - and one who is presumably in closer contact with the Motherland? He will respond delightedly in his native tongue! Even if the fake plotter subsequently suggests "we must speak English for safety's sake", that must need to understand any communication in Russian that they receive from Alexis (and we know that the fake plotter could not do that).
3. In real conspiracies - I was reading last year about this trying to oppose Hitler - the difficulty lies in making initial contact. There is no suggestion that Alexis has ever met "Boris" in person; that is the reason for him going to the beach. So it must have been by letter. And a code cannot be used until communication has been established. So, however a letter reached Alexis, then it must have been unencoded. And a letter in English saying let's plot in code, "here is the code to use", is going to look very risky indeed!

So Harriet and Lord Peter's reasoning for suspecting the plot to be bogus is flawed, and even if it was not, their reason for thinking Alexis could be taken in by it is.

There is also a further puzzle:
One must assume that the genealogy that Alexis gave his girlfriend was genuine. If he had been persuaded to believe in a fake one, it would be one with a better claim than "if my grandmother had married my grandfather..." And in this, it is revealed that Alexis is really Pavel Alekseevich. He has been boasting forlornly about his ancestry to English people who are not interested. Then, when he is contacted by the "counter-revolutionaries" he stops talking about his background and asks the girl to give back or destroy the information that he gave her.

So why, before he started conspiring, and keeping things secret, was he already using the assumed name of Alexis?

I suppose an answer might be that it was because he was ashamed of his profession. So this is less of a problem, but still slightly irritating.

I do not remember any such issues in the Lord Peter Wimsey novels that I have read.

Could someone who has read this - and I know there are a lot of Lord Peter fans here - please tell me whether these problems were dealt with in the book, or whether they arise from the adaptation process?

ETA: The "further puzzle" arose from my mishearing. Now resolved. (see >100 -pilgrim-:, which discusses the problems arising from the solution!)

>75 -pilgrim-: I tried Monstress a couple of years ago and DNFed it. In addition to the plot being outside my range of tastes, I found the artwork too busy.

>81 libraryperilous: I like the art style but not the content. Is that first issue representative of what it is like?

>82 -pilgrim-: Your review of Monstress made me curious so I did some brief searching. A lot of reviewers say the plot doesn't start to make sense until after issue 6. Given your very negative reaction to the first issue, I'm sure it would be unpleasant to go through at least 5 more volumes in hopes that "makes sense" means less of the things you didn't like.

I was mostly curious to see examples of the art, which looked beautiful. I'm not much into graphic novels/manga so won't seek it out to actually read.

>83 Narilka: You may remember that my last foray into graphic novels (last year), did not go well. The feedback that I got from other Dragoneers was that by trying the superhero genre, I was looking at very juvenile form.

It was the artwork that drew me in to having another look at the medium. Sana Takeda has said that she did not grow up with manga, and that her at is inspired by traditional Japanese and Chinese forms. It shows. As mixing elements from the yōkai folklore tradition with the beauty of the "floating world" art (ukiyo-e), her style makes perfect sense.

I would be interested in seeing other work that she has done, but she seems to only work on manga.

I was inspired by your comments to look for more reviews. I found this one interesting:
https://www.npr.org/2016/08/02/487633169/good-evil-and-long-black-tentacles-make...

The writer seems to believe that Marjorie M. Liu does have something to say beyond a cynical market-share grab, but that it is a flaw in her skill set that she can only conceive of portraying evil by itemizing atrocity.

In 2019 I wrote of 9, a Polish novel about the moral vacuum left by the fall of Communism. It portrays a world of hopelessness, greed, and extreme brutality. But it never goes into the details of atrocity, staying firmly within the mental states of the characters, both perpetrators and victims.

The result was more horrifying, not less.

The listing, and still worse, the depiction, of horrors in fiction has a desensitising effect. We can only cope with them by putting them into a mental category labelled "not real, don't worry". It works against anything genuinely meaningful that the author is trying to say.

People who follow my threads will know that I read about Orthodox Christianity.

I have also been discussing some interviews with David Suchet, in which he talks about Agatha Christie, and his role playing Hercule Poirot.

I have not expected these two strands of my interests to coincide!

But I have just been listening to a contribution made by the actor to a conference at the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies at Cambridge.
https://youtu.be/BRHhnxZ3eos

No further comment, of course.

I've been getting into graphic novels, too, and looked at Monstress, but decided against it due to the descriptions. Judging by what you found, it was a wise decision.

And another overlap! I watched Being Poirot and it was wonderful. Suchet had such respect for the character and absolutely loved playing Poirot for all the years he did it.

>86 Bookmarque: I know - so often you hear that an actor is"tired of" a character, and wants to move on to new challenges. Which is understandable, I suppose. But David Suchet played Poirot and covered the entire canon of novels - and still mourned playing him for the last time. That is commitment.

It is a pity that I cannot find it in me to love Poirot like he does.

The Little Russian Servant by Henri Gréville now reviewed in December 2020 thread.

The Barbarism of Berlin by G. K. Chesterton now reviewed in December 2020 thread too.

>78 -pilgrim-: Thank you for your patience in waiting for a response. The example that I had mentioned was a short story entitled The Underdog and I had to go remind myself of how it had been handled (text vs tv). The story itself is a fairly classic country house murder. The owner of the house is a wealthy businessman. He’s not particularly easy to get on with necessarily, but he likes those who are willing to stand up to him the way his (former) actress wife does. He’s actually rather devoted to her. Also living under his roof are his brother, a wayward nephew Charles, a male secretary (Owen Trefusis) and a female secretary/companion. It’s the female secretary/companion who is sent to fetch Hercule Poirot after the businessman is murdered in his Tower room. The resolution requires Poirot to interact with the employees (the secretary, the companion, and the servants) in order to identify the murderer. That by itself breaks the mold of most Golden Age British mysteries as the usual practice would have been to focus on the "upstairs" suspects in the household, minimizing the presence and access of the servants. However, of course, the servants would always be careful not to criticize the gentry.

For television, the story moved to the 1930’s. Had it remained in its original time period, the story’s ties to mining concessions of the original (published in 1926) would have made sense in terms of historical context. Having moved it to the nineteen thirties, the adaptation shifted the criminal motive to a more immediately recognizable motive for a corporate employee -- specifically someone working at a chemical corporation who is concerned with patents and profits and the like. So right there, you’ve already muddied the original author’s thematic intent.

Adaptations of the source material for the Poirot television series never changed the actual puzzle elements (the murderer was always the same person and methodology remained the same), but seemingly small details for television could change the apparent sense of the piece. Another example would be a suggestion of a sexual relationship between two women who share a flat in the television episode "Murder in the Mews" where the text gives absolutely no hint of that. Theoretically, such shifts make older stories more immediately comprehensible to a modern audience. Of course, for each viewer, the mileage may vary. I still enjoyed the Poirot series very much.

I have reviewed The Seventh Cross by Anna Seghers in my Spring 2020 thread. (4.5 stars)

"Fascism" is a word that has been bandied about in a lot of political debate recently. This novel is a timely reminder of what fascism actually is, by someone who experienced it firsthand.

I have also reviewed Moon of Three Rings by Andre Norton (4.5 stars) in my Spring 2020 thread.

I have reviewed Exiles of the Stars by Andre Norton (3.5 stars) in my Spring 2020 thread too.

Book still awaiting review from 2020:

Books awaiting review from January: 1
Books awaiting review from February: 1
Books awaiting review from March: 1
Books awaiting review from April: 1
Books awaiting review from June: 1
Books awaiting review from October: 3
Books awaiting review from December: 7

>75 -pilgrim-: Thanks for the reminder of the Thieves World books. I came across them while resorting my books and had mentally marked them down for a re-read, it has been many years since I've picked them up.

>93 -pilgrim-: What did you think of Flight to Yiktor?

>96 Karlstar: My review is here.

ETA: And I am still reading Dare To Go A'Hunting! Life keeps intervening.

>95 Karlstar: I have not read them since they initially came out - and actually the first volume not at all. Most of my copies were water-damaged a while back. I have been wondering whether to reread; I will be interested to know how you find them.

I loved the way that no character could become too overpowered (in having terms) without the offer contributors chipping in to redress the situation. I wonder how it will stand the test of time.

>90 jillmwo: I apologise for being slow in getting back to you; it has been a rough week.

I had noticed that politeness and attention to interviewing the servants seemed to be a distinctive feature of Poirot. But, since you raised the issue, I don't actually recall Wimsey neglecting that aspect either.

I had been wondering about the hints regarding the nature of the relationship between the two women in Murder in the Mews. I had thought it unlikely that Agatha Christie had implied anything romantic existed between them, because one of them had been married, and bisexuality was even more of a taboo subject than vague suggestions of lesbianism, in that era.

But I had wondered whether the original author had included it in the sense of Japp's hostility to the artist being based on the rather conservative inspector having certain prejudices regarding his expectations of how "bohemian types" behaved with respect to sexual mores.

I admit that my heart sank when I heard that the director had decided to set all the stories within the same narrow time period. I can enjoy a sumptuous costume drama, but not when that aspect is emphasised to the expense of the plot. And as you say, the outsider's perspective on the niceties of the English social structure does rather seem to be the "point" of Poirot. (ETA: I do not mean that they are anything other than primarily crime mysteries; I meant the choice of Poirot as a character for her sleuth.)

The examples that you have given are of things being added to make the plot "more explicable" to the audience (just as the perpetrator was revealed in the pre-credit sequence of The Adventure of the Clapham Cook). Do you have the impression of elements of plot being removed for TV? (The examples that I have seen are adaptations of short stories, where this is less likely to occur.)

Re Have His Carcase (see >80 -pilgrim-:):

Re-listening to the final instalment, I realised that ones of the problems arose from my mishearing "Paul Alexis" as "poor Alexis"! If Alexis is his surname, and his first name is Paul, then Pavel Alexeyevich has simply translated his first name and contracted his surname - a common sort of name Anglicisation of the period - and is not going under an assumed name at all.

However, that does provide additional evidence for "Boris" being a fake Russian. Since the letter was addressed to "Pavel Alexeyevich", I had jumped to the conclusion that Alexeyevich was his patronymic, because forename+patronymic is the normal respectful form of address. If, however, it is the recipient's surname (in its full Russian form - Alexeyevich can be either), then it is further evidence that the writer knows little about Russian manners.

Which again raises the question: why did Paul Alexis ever believe him genuine?!

January #4:



♪♪ The Midnight Library by Matt Haig (abridged audiobook) - 1 star
13/1/2021
Abridged by Jeremy Osborne
Narrated by: Bryony Hannah
First broadcast: December 2020

I have read one book by Matt Haig, The Humans, that I quite enjoyed and one, The Radleys, that I had serious issues with. This meant that I did not want to spend money on another book by this author, but when a much-mentioned book by this author appeared on the radio as an abridged audiobook version, I was curious. This was a BBC podcast (first broadcast by Radio 4).

I hated it. I know there is always a risk, when reacting to an adaptation, that one is blaming the author for butchering done to his work by someone else, but I don't think that is the case here. The problems are too fundamental.

The basic premise is that, if you are possibly dying, and hovering between wanting to live and wanting to die, you end up in some form of metaphysical library, where all the books are portals into the lives that you could have had if you had made different choices in your life - and there is a mentor there to select the book you ask for. (And you can stay in that life as long as you still want it.)

Now a fundamental flaw here is this: when you enter this new life, you only arrive with your actual memories, and none of what you did between the point of divergence, when you turned away from this future, and "now". Much fun is made of the protagonist, Nora, trying to hastily work out what the heck the parameters of her current life are - who is alive, who lives where, and so on.

But this means that this is not "the life that you would have led if you had not made decision X". As an example, Nora wanted at one point to become a glaciologist, so one option makes her well-known in her field, with several published papers, on an expedition to the Arctic. If she had stayed in that life for more than a few days, how would she have functioned with only a schoolgirl's knowledge of a field she is supposedly an expert in? She would let people down badly, and at the least be professionally humiliated and crash out of the job. That is NOTthe life she would have had if the schoolgirl HAD chosen to do a geophysics degree and actually follow that career path - because why would the geophysicist suddenly forget all her skills? In a life where she does stay longer, she slowly starts to get false memories of the intervening years, but that would not save her in any career path that requires skill. The rock star would also be doomed - unless one insultingly assumes that "playing the piano occasionally" maintains the same skill level as a professional musician.

In other words, the only viable lives are those in which she has developed no skill or talent through hard work and practice in the intervening years, that her profession builds on. That hardly fits the implication that being in a dead-end job is one of the things wrong with her life, when she could have "made something of herself" instead. Now, apparently, only non-ambition-related career paths are available - which is hardly the upbeat message that seems intended.

In reality the author is peddling the insulting fallacy that "natural talent is all you need to step into any job" - hard work, skills acquisition, athletic training, study, are all completely unnecessary.

The second point is that Sliders are taking someone else's life. It is clear that some people can tell that the Nora who is now with them is not the same person as they were the day before. They have had their close friends, lovers etc. replaced by a different version of Nora. Now it stands to reason that Nora 1 who chose to be a swimmer/glaciologist/professional musician is more likely to actually want to be the swimmer/glaciologist/professional musician more than Nora 2, who did not want it as much, and so gave it up. Because it is explicitly stated that only your choices can be changed, not the external circumstances that arise from other people's decisions. So all the people around Nora 1 lose someone who is more suited to that life in order that Nora 2 can have it. Nora in fact leaves one life because she is only mildly attracted to a man that her prior version was evidently in love with. So everyone else has to lose out on order that Nora 2 ("our" Nora, the point of view one) can have a second chance.

Thus this whole "second chance" motif is built on the selfish principle that other people should suffer in order that you can retract the consequences of your mistakes.

Of course, the actual message is meant to be that the life you regretted may not have been the right one either, and everything will be fine as long as you learn from those mistakes and make better choices in future.

BUT, as mentioned earlier, external events and those arising from the choices of others, cannot be changed.

So, basically, if the misery in your life is self-inflicted , then you get this second chance - but if you were blameless, you are screwed.

There is a discussion as to whether the Mentor is God or a projection of your subconscious. But that is either an unjust God, or a selfish, narcissistic subconscious.

I think the author is intending an upbeat, self-help treatise. But in its myth of universal agency - i.e. that everyone CAN choose not to have had things done to them - it is the ultimate in victim blaming.

So if you were crippled by someone else? Or raped? Or develop an incurable disease? Or were orphaned?

Then the real "message" of this novel is either
a) you must have incited the rapist and the abuser, you are responsible for the death of your parents, all illness can be avoided so it is your fault for developing this one, or
b) any bad thing that is done TO you, or happens to you by natural chance, is inescapable.

If you are innocent, then you don't deserve anything better. Only the guilty get second chances.

So, in the scenario where a parent self-immolates themselves with their children, only the perpetrating parent gets a new life, their horrifically injured children do not get an alternative, because they have "nothing to regret in their own actions". Do they mind what their parent did to them? Yes. Did that matter in this author's scheme of things? No. (ETA: not a situation actually covered, but the logical implication of the premise as described)

He had written elsewhere about his own mental health issues, and that is fairly clearly where the motivation behind this book is coming from.

But to write a "feel good" fantasy to comfort those who regret their own mistakes, whilst explicitly excluding from this fantasy anyone whose suffering was externally inflicted is a blinkered self-centredness that is nauseating.

Because in his outlook, there is nothing worse than being tormented by regrets about your own decisions. Which means that either he must have led a very sheltered life indeed, or he simply does not care about anyone other than himself.

This was a book that made me angry.

♪♪ Cadfael: A Virgin in the Ice (BBC Radio Crimes) adapted by Bert Coules from the novel by Ellis Peters
Narrated by Sir Michael Hordern
with Philip Madoc as Brother Cadfael
14/1/2021-20/1/2021

This was a "full cast dramatisation", i.e. a radio play. However this time there was a lot more narration of events involved. Perhaps because of the additional scene seeing this provided, I found this episode particularly effective.

It was also the first one where I found myself remembering some of the plot.

The only thing that rang false, a little, was Brother Cadfael's reaction to meeting Olivier de Bretagne. I understand how his acceptance of the monastic life would mean that he could not take up a paternal relationship with the young man, and that, given how well the boy has turned out, he would feel no need to. Also that, given this, he would not want to disconcert the not by claiming the connection. However, Cadfael's besetting sin is that he is incorrigibly curious. When he is so driven to follow the welfare of strangers, I find it hard to believe that he would not want to know how Olivier fares in the future (even if he never let the young man guess the reason for his interest).

One final thought:
This story is a beautiful example of how the men of that era regarded women. Some take major risks to protect them, such as Brother Elyas does, without connection or thought of reward. Others try to take selfish advantage of their danger - and feel entitled to a (sexual) reward.

And Brother Cadfael? We now know that he has TWICE abandoned women who loved him, and whom he claims to have loved, in order to follow selfish desires of his own. But because these are cloaked in the guise of a religious calling, then he feels no guilt about either action, despite the plight that he was leaving his "beloved" in, in each case.

As a man, I am angry with him. As a character, I love the way that his genuine holiness is not represented as implying he is perfectly virtuous. He is blind to this flaw in himself.

Rummaging around in an unsuccessful document hunt has at least had the effect of locating a few more books whose location in the moving process had become undefined.

>102 -pilgrim-: As regards that "selfishness" in leaving loved ones for a calling of God, it was pretty common, and lauded at the time. At least lauded by some, mocked by others, depending on their point of view. This from other writings I've read from that time. A "calling" was also a convenient way to avoid responsibilities and other entanglements. I never got the idea that Cadfael was trying to avoid entanglements, but that he truly felt he should go to the Crusades, and when he became disgusted with them, he truly felt his place was at home. It's been awhile since I've read these though.

>104 MrsLee: Oh I agree that those attitudes were a completely realistic portrayal of that period. That is why I like the series. But Cadfael did not simply go to the Crusades, then go home. He was promised to Richeldis, but then went off as a man-at-arms crusader.

Athough she was waiting at home for him, instead of returning when disgusted by the Crusades, he spent decades as a sailor, with a steady, sexual relationship with a Muslim widow in Antioch that was unsanctioned by the religious authorities of either. Then he abandoned her as well, to return to England, 30-40 years after leaving, and took monastic vows.

The years as a sailor were not an act of piety. They were Cadfael enjoying the world, having completely forgotten the girl he left behind.

I do not remember if it is ever discussed what turned him back to the Church. Dumping a non-Christian lover would, of course, have been seen as the pious thing to do.

One Corpse Too Many takes place in 1138, and the Second Crusade only began in the 1140s. The First Crusade ended in 1099, which is the one Cadfael took part in. In between, there is only the minor Crusade of 1101.Cadfael has spent over 30 years hanging around the Middle East as sailor! (He joined the monastery "in his fifties", I think.)

>101 -pilgrim-: You express this so well! I sampled the book and was immediately put off by the poor writing and stupid descriptors and abandoned it. When I realized it was the same author of The Radleys, I felt I’d well escaped. Haig is disgusting.

♪♪ Monk's Hood: a Brother Cadfael Mystery (BBC Radio Crimes) adapted by Bert Coules from the novel by Ellis Peters
Narrated by Sir Michael Hordern
with Philip Madoc as Brother Cadfael.
2/1/2021-13/1/2021

This is a BBC radio play version of the novel. I found an improvement on the TV adaptation, Cadfael: Monk's Hood, which I watched in December; characters were developed more and relationships more comprehensible.

Plot differences between radio and TV adaptations:

There was no appeal to the Welsh court here.

The reason for Aelfric's hatred of his master was different, and made more sense.

The fact that Gervase had been coercing Ardith into sex was omitted. This has always bothered me, as reflecting badly on Richeldis, whose duty it was, as lady of the house, to protect her maidservants.

The complaint that I had against Cadfael's behaviour - that he left a severely injured man to chase after a murderer, putting Hugh's life at risk, if Cadfael misjudges, and gets himself killed - is also removed. No Welsh court, no stabbing, no responsibility.

The stepson is fifteen here. It makes his more temperamental choices more understandable.

Cadfael's assistant here, Brother Mark, is an able and intelligent young man, who reads Cadfael rather well. Unlike the amiable blunderer, Brother Oswin.

The serjeant, William Warden, did not here shoot an innocent man, nor disobey a direct order, so my previous puzzlement as to why he continued in post becomes irrelevant.

It has been too long since I read the book, for me to be able to compare the original to these two adaptations.

But the differences between them are a salutary reminder that an adaptation may not give the same impressions as the original would have.

I am liking the radio plays more than the TV version. And, much as I love Sir Derek, I think Philip Madoc is becoming my favourite Cadfael.

January #12:


The Abolition of Sanity: C. S. Lewis on the Consequences of Modernism by Steve Turley - 1.5 stars

Researching the author, I found Steve Turley appears to hold strong political views, which arouse strong reactions among his opponents on the American political scene. These views are not evident in this book, apart from the fact that he is clearly coming from a Christian standpoint, and are therefore irrelevant to this review.

I looked into the author's background because he is described as "Steve R. Turley, PhD" on the cover. It always sets up a warning signal when an author insists on advertising his academic credentials in this way; it suggests to me that he believes that his book is not going to be convincing on its own merits. And this is a weakly written book. (Anyone who describes 1928 as "just a few years after the end of World War I" sets off warning bells for me!)

What this book consists of is a short summary of Lewis' background, evidently aimed at a readership who have not heard of him at all and expunged of any information indicating his formative influences, a chapter summarizing Lewis' The Abolition of Man, followed by three chapters summarizing each of its sections.

Then the final third of the book consists of "Famous Quotes" (which mostly have already been quoted in earlier chapters) and a "Bonus Feature: Questions for Group Discussion", which mostly just repeats, frequently verbatim, points from the earlier sections of the book.

I do not know who the intended audience was. It seems to be structured like a school text book. But I read (and understood) The Abolition of Man when I was in my early teens. It is a short enough book. If you wish to teach Lewis' philosophical thought, why not do it from his own works?

Turley opens with a quotation from Kreeft that

this is the first generation in American history that is less well educated than its parents.

If his assessment of American intellectual level, as exemplified by the repetitive "soundbite" nature of this book, is correct, then I am appalled.

Turley constructs an adequate synopsis of The Abolition of Man, but he contributes nothing. This book expresses itself most succinctly when it quotes Lewis directly.

I have rated it as high as I have, because it does provide a quick reminder of Lewis' arguments, which can be read over in half an hour or so.

And I suspect that it introduces Lewis - or rather a new side of Lewis - to a broader audience. For this is not Lewis the Christian apologist, but Lewis as classicist and moral philosopher.

I picked up this book because the novels that I have been reading do not just have a modernist worldview, they lack the concept that there can be any other.

Lewis' critique of the modernist failure to apply their own standards of scepticism to their own belief system is as apposite now as it was when he wrote it, 70 years ago. Whatever you conclude at the outcome, the debate as to whether moral value is subjective or objective needs to be had, rather than the answer implicitly assumed.

Lewis' thesis is that it is impossible to demands standards of moral behaviour without an external standard of what constitutes "moral" (or, as Plato puts it, "good").

Turley glosses over Lewis' analyses of various philosophies of morality, in favour of focussing on his conclusion.

He also injects an "anti-science" tone into Lewis' critique of scientific materialism that I did not detect as a scientist reading the original. I do not recall Lewis ever denying the validity of scientific demand for accuracy, or the importance of facts, only a rejection of science as a determiner of moral value.

My impression is that Lewis simply saw them as different fields; he opposed the idea that science could determine moral value, or that emotion could override it as a source of facts. He was controversial in the claim that human mental processes, and natural instincts, permitted of another sort of truth, that was subject to logic, but not to mechanical measurement.

Turley seems to be seeing science itself, not simply the misuse of it, as antithetical to objective morality (and truth). When he is not quoting Lewis, he is less clear, so I may be detecting something that he did not intend to imply.

It would be a pity if Turley's own weaknesses as a writer, or personal prejudices, were to undermine the reader's impression of the validity of Lewis' actual arguments.

However, having read The Abolition of Man previously, many years ago, I enjoyed the reminder of its content.

If it introduces readers to Lewis the moral philosopher, then it has a useful purpose. But Lewis' arguments, as presented here, are too abbreviated, I think, to convince anyone who does not already broadly agree with them.

I would not recommend to anyone that they buy this book - there is too little original material in it. But I got my copy on loan from Kindle Unlimited, and found the refresher useful.

Helmet Reading Challenge 2021: #2

January #13:


Star Ka'at: Book 1 of Star Ka'ats by Andre Norton and Dorothy Madlee - 2 stars
21/1/2021-27/1/2022

Having enjoyed Andre Norton's science fiction for adults very much, I was interested to see how she wrote for children.

This book was written in the 1970s, and is very much of the mindset that pervaded that era. The sense that humanity is about to destroy itself in some sort of nuclear holocaust is intrinsic to the book. At the end of the book, it seems that this has, in fact, begun, as Mr. Dale (a reservist) is suddenly called up, and looks very serious and arranges to send his wife and foster soon away to Maryland (into "the country"?) immediately.

The story concerns two space travellers, Ka'ats, who have come too Earth on a mission to evacuate those of their long sundered kin (the cats of Earth) who have not become too debased and feral to answer the call. When Ka'ats first visited Earth they helped humanity, and worked together - as can be seen from evidence of how the ancient Egyptians revered cats - but then humanity turned against them. They have been educated on how dangerous, violent and untrustworthy humans are, but told to make contact for reconnaissance purposes - and children are the safest choice.

The two children in the story, Jim Evans and Elly Mae Brown, come from very different backgrounds. Jim has the sort of middle class home as portrayed in countless sitcoms. He is struggling to cope with the death of his parents in a plane crash - and the portrayal of the way that a boy of that era would struggle with expressing emotions is one of the strengths of this book.

Elly Mae lives in extreme poverty. She lives with her Granny - I don't think her parents were ever mentioned - and Granny is very ill, so she doesn't go to school, but is risking her life scrounging on derelict sites for stuff she can sell to buy food and medicine. She is by far the more fearless and independent of the two children.

Both children seem very young - they are too young to be confident as to whether cats talking into their head is normal cat behaviour or not.

But I found this portrayal of extreme poverty shocking, because of the book's acceptance of it. The reader is getting an implicit lecture on the foolishness of warmongering, the wrongness of our attitude towards animals, and the sense that we are (i.e. were) on the brink of disaster. But the story accepts that "she needs medicines and cannot work, of course they are living like that". And I found that horrifying.

I remember the seventies. I have no reason to disbelieve this portrayal of Washington then. And there was severe deprivation in parts of my own country too. But it was never portrayed as "the norm" (even if, in some communities, it probably was). Where children were portrayed, in children's books, as living in such bad circumstances, then this was always explained as the result of something having gone wrong, with the implication that, if only they knew about it, there were adults who would try to "put this right".

It was the sense of "this is just how things are" that disturbed me. The books of my childhood sometimes dealt with families who had been bombed out, and were still living in semi-derelict housing. They admitted that things could be pretty bad. But there was never this attitude of acceptance; it was supposed to be temporary.

In a children's story that has plenty to say - via the mouths of the Ka'ats - about what is wrong with human society, this acceptance of poverty made me very uncomfortable.

Skin colour is never mentioned, but a reference to braids, plus the speech patterns Elly is given, make me suspect that she is intended to be black. I am not confident enough about American social nuances to be sure that I am interpreting correctly.

The only overt racism - or rather species-ism - is in how the Ka'ats have been educated to view humanity.

I was also slightly uncomfortable about how the story treated adults. I noticed that the children's backgrounds were being set up so as to give them no emotional ties to adults by the end of the story. But what about the foster parents' feelings? Jim eventually admits that they have been kind (they are just not his parents). I suppose we are being excused from worrying about how they must be going frantic with worry at the end of the book because they are about to die horribly in a nuclear holocaust in a few days anyway. But isn't this rather a grim attitude for an ending that is ostensibly upbeat?

Hooray! I still don't have timestamps, or last poster, on GD threads, but at least the starring of threads is now visible again.

>110 -pilgrim-: Progress!

Re >109 -pilgrim-: Star Ka'at:

I found this link to the original illustrations. They are lovely.
http://andre-norton-books.com/worlds-of-andre/andre-s-series/star-ka-at/331-star...

>106 2wonderY: And I have just discovered that The Midnight Library is Goodreads Choice Book of 2020! Words fail me.

>97 -pilgrim-: Thanks for the link. I did not enjoy Flight to Yiktor as much as you did. The editing error with Molaster drove me nuts, that was such an obvious thing to miss.

>98 -pilgrim-: I'm impressed by your recall of the Thieves World books after one reading! Everything you mentioned brought it back for me, but I couldn't have come up with any of that information if I tried, but I did read them... 40 years ago?? How can it be that long?

>114 Karlstar: Between the appalling cover art and the typographic error level, I am really unimpressed with the quality of the Baen reissues. But t least they are reissuing books from that era!

I admit that I actually read "The Vivisectionist" twice in quick succession - it was anthologized in the Mammoth Book of Short Fantasy Novels, and was what pointed me in the direction of Thieves' World in the first place.

And yes, that is 35 years ago. Which is rather horrifying, I agree.

Yet I find that I barely remember some of the books that I read a couple of years ago. Are they simply less original?

The Mysterious Affair at Styles (BBC Radio) dramatised by Michael Bakewell from the novel by Agatha Christie - 2.5 stars
Dir.: Enyd Williams
First broadcast: 2005

I found this radio play gave Poirot more personality than the TV episodes that I was watching earlier this month.

However I still felt that this was murder mystery as puzzle, rather than as human drama. Since people die - and murderers will be hanged for this - I have always found this approach rather distasteful.

However it is obvious that Agatha Christie is meticulous about he methods. The interest in poisons, as mentioned in the TV documentary that I have mentioned watching earlier, was very evident here.

>116 -pilgrim-: I noticed the 2 1/2 stars...I have tried reading Christie, and after three books, including this one, I have given up. Her books are just not my thing. And I don't care for Poirot, either.

But I love Lord Peter Wimsey, go figure.

>117 fuzzi: Don't worry, others also hate Poirot, a lot. In fact, "some" people would have fed him to sharks, James Bond style ;-)

>117 fuzzi: I was aware that TV adaptations are often not a fair representation of the books, so I thought I would give a radio version a try.

What I like about Lord Peter is his humane attitudes. David Suchet's emphasis on Poirot's Catholic faith, and how it left him conflicted about bringing murderers to justice made me think that there was more depth to the character than had been making it onto the screen.

>118 BookstoogeLT: I'm afraid Bond has priority on my shark-feeding menu.

>119 -pilgrim-: There are enough sharks to go around :-)

edited to remove the "don't worry". It was getting repetitive...

January #9:


In Search of Holy Russia by Fr. Spyridon Bailey - 3 stars
18/1/2021-22/1/2021

This book is quite a strange mixture of travel memoir and religious tract.

I have seen several recent books about "pilgrimage", by which the author means "following one of the old pilgrim routes whilst enjoying the scenery in a manner that the author found spirituality refreshing". Within this book the term is used with its original meaning of a journey to sacred sites to venerate the relics and other holy things there.

Father Spyridon, a Welshman who has been an Anglican priest, then a Greek Orthodox one, and then a priest in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (which is now in full communion with Moscow), makes a pilgrimage to Russia. His wife encourages him to go on his own, and because he is such a timid traveller, he decides to only visit monasteries in or near Moscow. In actual fact, he is quite heavily reliant on the assistance of strangers, as organised by an enthusiastic Russian member of his congregation in England.

The travelogue aspect I found quite banal, but they provided useful insight into the author's personality. I found him quite naive in worldly matters, and rather infatuated with a Russia that did not match the dire warnings he had apparently been given. The contrast of a President who is openly and overtly religious appeared to make a deep impression, and he seemed blind to diplomatic hints from his local interlocutors that suggested that they did not view the current situation as perfect. On the other hand, I was impressed by his genuine humility. He frequently makes false assumptions, and thus makes a fool of himself, but he chooses to tell these stories to his own detriment.

When one meets a priest who repeatedly changes denomination, there is always the possibility that he is a man in search of a church that he can use as a vessel of his own personal desires and beliefs; thus anything that he writes may be very informative about him, but not necessarily about the denomination that he is describing.

It was therefore refreshing to see how humbly he writes about the monks, priests and nuns that he meets. It is evident that he considers them far more advanced in life's spiritual journey than himself. He wants to learn, not to teach.

He feels that way about many of the lay people whom he meets too, and his admiration of Russia should be seen as primarily rooted in its having produced such people.

Father Spyridon is trying hard to be a pilgrim, rather than a tourist. So much of his book consists of accounts of conversations that he had has with holy people. These consist primarily of their teaching, and his asking a few questions.

Much of this has the inspiring effect that is the result of listening to genuinely good, kind and selfless people, but there is another thread in the speech of some of them, particularly when the conversation veers towards religious politics, as follows:

When conservatives in the West make derisory comments about "liberal values", there are usually quite specific doctrines that they have in mind, and they sometimes look towards Russia as a conservative state that supposedly shares their rejection of these doctrines. This book makes it very clear that from the traditional conservative Russian perspective, Western conservatives are equally infected by "liberal values". Because this perspective does not simply reject certain sexual values, it rejects ALL philosophy that seeks material comfort in this world, rather than seeing this life as an arena for self-improvement, with its goal as finding true happiness communion with God in eternity.

In this strain of Russian nationalism, it is one's religious duty to defend Russia - as some abbots urged young monks to take up arms during World War II - because without Russia to defend it, the true faith will be lost!

The misconceptions held by some Russians about the West are as great as Western misconceptions about Russia. And, of course, this is only one section of Russian society. The atheists - both Communist and materialist - are genuine also. Russia is no more homogenous than any other country.

Some of the speakers were inspiringly holy. But the prejudices held by a few regarding what other Christians believe were worryingly uninformed.

Just as Russian history is framed (to Russians) as a long struggle to defend the land against a series of invaders, so Russian Orthodoxy has an embattled outlook. After a recent history, in the actual experience of many of the speakers here, of resisting persecution by a regime with a deliberate policy of obliterating religious belief by the execution of its leaders, Russian orthodoxy now sees itself as Christianity's last bastion against demands that it should conform with worldly values.

The issue about whether the Ukrainian Orthodox Church should be recognised as autocephalous is causing deep division within Orthodoxy. Father Spyridon left the Greek Orthodox Church over this issue. The attitudes shown here were rather worrying. Either it was assumed to by a politically motivated hostile attack, by "American money", or the attitude was that "we do not really care about what goes on elsewhere, Russia is big enough".

Orthodoxy is a catholic faith. To see Russians view it as a national church, and isolate themselves religiously as well as politically in a mentality where the rest of the world is a best simply irrelevant, at worst actively hostile, was a stark contrast to their extreme friendliness at the personal level.

I have not discussed the theological content, because of pub rules, but for me that was the most interesting part of the book. However I value too the insight into the author's own personality, and politico-religious trends in current Russian thought.

This latter aspect may make this also of some interest to readers not interested in "how to better practice the faith" homilies.

Helmet Reading Challenge 2021: #4?

January #5:

Witch World: Book 1 in the Witch World Saga by Andre Norton - 4 stars
4/1/2021-13/1/2021

I found the main protagonist a little strange. He was set up as a former American military officer, wrongly disgraced and imprisoned for blackmarket dealing in post-war Europe, who then decided "since you have been given the name you might as well play the game".

He is also described as "essentially honest", which I do not find compatible with what he spent six year doing - how can you have an essentially honest black marketeer? There are other honest professions for a man with military training and a dubious record, such as bodyguard, or the French Foreign Legion.

Yet once he has crossed into another world, he readily takes service with a government there, and thereafter serves then loyally. His motive for choosing that country send to be a mixture of dislike of the behaviour of the forces of the other side towards a woman, and attraction towards her. Although he feels there is "some bond between them", there is no real prospect of a relationship in offer, so why is he so loyal to this foreign country? Work as a mercenary is easily obtained, so why is he so quick to bind himself to a foreign power he has barely met?

And he never even considers changing his allegiance. He behaves like the hero of traditional fantasy, in terms of loyalty and honour, even though he is an outsider, with no ties of blood or custom to his new country, only his given word.

Why is he then given so immoral a background? I think that the answer lies in the conversation I had with Karlstar about the sort of people who are willing to take a one-way trip to an unknown other world. They need to have no ties to this world, and a level of desperation to make so wild a gamble seem attractive, whilst not being addicted to risk in a way that would be an inconvenient personality traits in the story that she wants to tell. So not an adventurer, but desperate, whilst not being unable to "take care of himself physically". Hunted, isolated, and with no recourse to the law, is easiest set up by making your character a criminal - I think this is the motivation behind the backstory.

But the disjunct makes Simon's personality hard to understand for a while.

In other ways, he has the attitudes of a 1950s American (the era when the book was written, and slightly after when it is set). He admires women who are competent and can "take care of themselves', but still has the chivalrous instinct that makes him leap to a woman's protection. I found it fascinating that, having just arrived in a strange place, with absolutely no knowledge of the situation, he responds to seeing a woman pursued by a group of men in uniform, he immediately attacks the pursuers and aids the fugitive. Why did he not assume she was a criminal being pursued by the police?

There is none of the unconscious sexism common in genre novels written in this era. The society Simon has joined is matriarchal, and on good grounds, as only women are born as witches - the men are not at all resentful of this.

I liked the structure of this book, as each section represents a "venture" in a different country, as they draw nearer and nearer to understanding what the real enemy is.

The different countries have different social structures, and they are all fully realised, with the implications of their cultural attitudes fully though through. And all the nations involved are populated by real people - by which I mean they do not all think alike within a society, but have a range of personal priorities and ambitions. Actual uniformity of thought is treated as being as unnatural, and spooky, as it should be.

But I do have some issues with the logic of the societal set up in the witches' own land, Estcarp. We are told
1. This is a society in decline, because witches lose the ability to be witches when they lose their virginity, and so are reluctant to become wives and mothers;
2. All witches are women, but not all women are witches - the power is rare and therefore revered.
So why the fear of gradual extinction? It seems to be happening for the metaplot reason that the witches are the Old Race, in Celtic terminology, and therefore must be "in decline".

I did like the avoidance of the "outlander as superior being" trope. Simon finds his skill with firearms is transferable to the ranged weapons of his new world, but even after years training,he remains merely adequate in the close quarters weapons all around him have trained in from both. He is accepted into the ranks of the military, but he is starting again, as a common soldier. His commander has noticed that he sometimes displays useful strategic insight, as might be expected from his years as an American officer, and may ask for his opinion, but that is all. His local superior is his superior, both formally, and also in both military prowess and leadership qualities.

The one aspect that I did feel forced was the romantic. Simon and the women he rescues see very little of each other over the years - as would be natural given their differences in status. It is mentioned that his unusual ability gives them a sense of connection. But her power also makes the way she thinks and functions very different, so that she seems aloof and unknowable. The amount of time that they spend actually working together is relatively short - even though it involves lots of risks taken for each other.

It seems improbable that she would be prepared to give up everything for him on that short an acquaintance. What makes it bearable, as a plot twist, is that it is totally her decision. Simon never asks for, nor expects, such a sacrifice.

On the other hand, the romance involving his commanding officer is plausible. I liked the fact that the woman who falls in love with him does not do so "despite his disability". She simply loves him for his positivev qualities, and never considers the issues (that have led to severe discrimination against him, and left him somewhat defensive and bitter) as important. (It is a nice dream, regarding attitudes to disability.)

I left posting this review until after I had finished the trilogy, because I wanted to find out if this point was ever answered:

How the magic works, or is powered, is never explained. I did like some logical corollaries such as the power of naming a person means that the witches abandon their names, do that they cannot be identified by enemies, and the fact that power depends on virginity means that witches are more likely to be raped on capture, rather than less. (No successful attempts are shown in the course of the novel). But why does Simon have some slight natural magical ability, despite not being of the correct gender? The "explanation" is that it is because he is from our world, not this, and that in fact he demonstrated mild capabilities whilst here, which is what has kept him alive somehow.

Much is made at the beginning of his Cornish ancestry, and hence ability to use the Siege Perilous (as explained here) - although it is not claimed that the others who have been assisted to use it were also Cornish. I thought this was going to be the root of the explanation, but neither the Arthurian connection nor the mysterious work of the scientist, Jorge Petronius, at the start, actual lead anywhere.

So I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and the world it created, but there were a few irritating aspects.

This is obviously portal science fiction, rather than fantasy, and gives the sense that what appears to be magic is really some sort of ESP power. The virginity requirement and "power of the name" aspects do not fit well with that.

Helmet Reading Challenge 2021: #14

>122 -pilgrim-: This sounds like an interesting series!

>123 libraryperilous: Three books in, I would say that is a definite "yes".

>102 -pilgrim-: >107 -pilgrim-: Good reviews! I watched the BBC adaptations last year and found your thoughts on them interesting. I think I may reread the books, then listen to the radio plays. Maybe it will get me back into reading.

>125 Storeetllr: I hope it works for you. I started listening to/watching Cadfael in December, when I was finding it very difficult to concentrate on books. (Most of what I read in December were very short works, or short stories.)

>115 -pilgrim-: I have trouble keeping up with new releases these days, but I think, if anything, modern scifi and fantasy is more original than it used to be. However, I think that has nothing to do with whether books are memorable or not. There is some strange conjunction of time, place, writing style and plot, for me at least, that makes a book memorable. Some books just come along at the right time, when I'm in the right mood and I never forget them. Other books that are otherwise excellent, or at least very good, I remember little of a year later. Then, of course, there are true classics, which are books that just can't be forgotten.

-pilgrim- Re: the book bullet you fired at the end of last year - my copy of Moonsinger arrived yesterday!

>128 Sakerfalcon: I hope it works for you also.

Web of the Witch World: Book 2 of the Witch World Saga by Andre Norton - 4 stars
13/1/2021

Although the previous novel came to a satisfying conclusion, it left certain questions unresolved. So this sequel continues the story, to find out what was behind the events of Witch World.

The unstable political situation arising from the events of Witch World means that years have passed since the previous book. Simon now has a significant military command (which he earned through his actions then).

The fact that this is science fiction, rather than fantasy, is more evident here - although a lot is still unexplained.

The great sacrifice made by a character, Jaelithe, in giving her name and giving up her status as a witchat the end of the previous book, is shown to have consequences.

I felt that Simon assumed that he had been rejected and that the relationship was over rather easily. But at least he does not go seeking "solace in the arms of another" route.

Why I like these novels so much is that it takes the consequences of its premises seriously. This story explores what the ability for mind-to-mind communication really means, and how it automatically brings a closeness such that those who have to rely on words will always feel shut out.

This does not have quite the taut structure of the previous book, but it does resolve a lot of plot threads.

One aspect that makes me a little uncomfortable is this:
It is a given of modern American warfare that you are entitled to invade and conquer a country if its actions are deleterious you your own interests, and that, if its ruler is evil, you are in fact benefitting the locals. But you must not colonise; afterwards you expect to walk away.

The mediaeval concept of warfare spent a lot less time discussing the morality of invasion; "because we want its territory and wealth, and/or are afraid of its ruler" was generally considered adequate grounds. But it was generally accepted that, having destroyed the local power structure, you then replaced it with your own. The corollary of conquest was the duty of rule, to provide your own stability for its population to replace that which you had destroyed. Whether you were viewed as a tyrant or a benefactor depended on whether your rule was harsher, or more prosperous, than what the population has experienced before.

Yet Estcarp and its allies has now been repeatedly shown as invading, destabilising, and departing from its neighbours, leaving chaos and rival warlords struggling for control, in its wake. Simon is an American, and the point-of-view character, so naturally he never questions this. But why is this quasi-mediaeval society functioning according to modern norms of warfare?

Andre Norton usually excels at giving her characters values appropriate to their culture, not hers. This seems a jarring departure from that practice.



Helmet Reading Challenge 2021: #14

I'm enjoying your reviews of the Witch World books, which I read a few decades ago. I don't remember mulling these issues when I read them but, in retrospect, I agree with you on all that I remember of the books.

>127 Karlstar: Interesting that we disagree here. My reaction to most 21st century SFF that I have been reading is that it may have interesting premises, but they are rarely fully thought through, so the end results are rather similar.

And particularly, there is not enough diversity in mindset of the characters (unless they are being set up as "the enemy"). They all seem to share a viewpoint (which I am guessing is also that of the author). So we don't really get a new culture, just a sort of revamp of the author's milieu.

For example, consider the lordling who is interested in Krip, in Moon of Three Rings. By our standards, his behaviour is completely immoral. In certain versions of feudal society, it would be completely normal, and a sign of competence. He is not being set up as evil, this is just a culture clash. That is the sort of characterisation that seems to be missing - people who are not 'cackle, cackle, I enjoy torture" evil, but just operating to a very different set of norms.

And it is this sameness of characterisation that makes so many books blur into one another.

Incidentally, that is one reason why I write these reviews. If I take the time to work out why I liked or disliked a book, then I am identifying what is original, and therefore memorable, about it.

>132 -pilgrim-: I interpret what you are saying as you like three dimensional characters instead of comic book style "All evil guy" vs "All good guy".

I like my characters to behave more like real people, with agendas that aren't necessarily evil or purely good, but self-serving and selfless.

Morgaine in CJ Cherryh's gate series isn't a shining beacon of morality, nor is she immoral, she's who she is because if what she is and her environmental upbringing, and a need to do a job no matter who gets hurt. And a character who appears to be evil in the first book has more layers within, and is developed more fully as the series continues.

See what I'm sayen? :D

>133 fuzzi:
Yes, that is not a book that I have read, but you are describing the sort of characterisation that I approve of.

I do not mind characters who are either extremely selfless, or extremely evil (by which I mean "doing harm", not "offending against a particular moral code", but which may not be for selfish motives) - as long as their reasons are made clear.

And three- dimensional characters do not need to be introspectively inclined; their actions may seem "obvious" to them. But the reader should be given some idea of the "why" too.

>134 -pilgrim-: the first book is The Gate of Ivrel, in case you ever want to read it.

>135 fuzzi: Thank you, yes. I have added it to my "wanted, but hard to find" list!

January #8:

Year of the Unicorn: Book 3 of The Witch World Saga by Andre Norton - 4.5 stars
13/1/2021-17/1/2021

This is the third Witch World novel written by Andre Norton, but it is set in a different continent to the first two, with different protagonists. Apart from being able to guess Gillan's racial origins much earlier than she does, there is no reason to have read the other two books first.

I found this book very moving. Despite being fantasy/science fiction (depending on how you view the portals between the worlds) its portrayal of human beings, even though it might be stretching the definition to call all the characters such, is actually far more realistic than a lot of fiction that I have read recently.

The protagonist, Gillan, was rescued from raiders, and has since been sheltered by an abbey. She remembers nothing from before she was transported over the seas, although an elderly nun is obviously able to make some guesses. But there is no easy way back, even if those guesses were correct. Although no one is treating her with anything other than kindness, Gillan does not find happiness in the thought of continuing to live as they do.

It is a perfect portrayal of someone who is raised in a culture that is alien to them, and whose values they do not entirely share, but who cannot access their own heritage either.

Another character, Herrel experiences the pain of being the offspring of two different races, with different cultures. Both reject him for being "contaminated" by other blood, and he spends his life being told that he is less than everyone around him, his father included.

There are two common tropes in fantasy, which I find equally annoying. One is where only the men have agency, and the female characters simply hang around to provide motivation, support and encouragement - and wait to be rescued. The other is so determined to give the female characters agency that it makes them implausible - they miraculously acquire all the attributes of a male character who had trained as a warrior, without the tedious necessity of putting the work in. Such unearned superiority is boring.

This book does neither.

Gillan trained as a healer. She is rather skilled with her herbs, but at no point does she ever pick up a weapon, except in flailing desperation. Yet she is extremely brave. This is manifested in what she dares, not in who she kills. (I am reminded of G. K. Chesterton's comments, in The Barbarism of Berlin, about the fallacy of thinking that there can be any honour in pointing a weapon at someone - the glory and honour comes from how well you behave when a weapon is pointed at you.)

The men of High Hallack have been fighting a long war against the Hounds of Alizon, who have been raiding them. In desperation they asked their northern neighbours for assistance and struck the Great Bargain. Now the war is finally over and the payment is due.

On the first day of the Year of the Unicorn, "twelve and one" brides are to be delivered to them, of the correct age range, never married, of noble blood, not ugly or deformed.

The first few chapters deal with discussion of the political manoeuvrings possible in the choosing of the brides - as a way of buying credit with neighbours whose help one will need in rebuilding, in disposing of an inconvenient witnesses to personal dalliances, or appeasing one's family by sending away a rival.

And the men of High Hallack are honourable; they do not stint on the bargain.

The young women so chosen have no alternative. The men do not expect them to object. But neither are they passive ciphers; they have different reactions to their fate. There are terrible rumours that their husbands-to-be are sorcerors, and maybe not even men at all. They are going into the unknown, and expect never to see their families again - since by the terms of the treaty, their husbands will be leaving these lands.

But although some panic, some were volunteers. Not for "adventure", like Gillan, but to help their family and their people.

The rumours are terrifying; but this is not really any different from the fate of any noble bride, who would expect to marry into an unknown land and household, to a spouse whom she has never met, for the sake of an alliance. This too takes courage.

The men do not sympathise, because they see it as the women's duty, just as their duty is to risk their lives regularly to protect them. One may say a sad farewell, and mourn a parting of a son to war or a daughter to marriage, but the weakness of being too frightened to face one's obligations cannot be countenanced if the people are to survive.

I loved the way this very harsh, gender role-differentiated society was not portrayed as being deliberately oppressive, but just people doing what they thought had to be done, and expecting others to do likewise.

And among the northerners too we see the pain of failure to live up to expectations.

Most of the book consists of what Karlstar would call "slogging through the mud"; it is one long journey, both physical and spiritual. Sometimes Gillan has company, and sometimes she is alone.

And the book eschews the trite (and improbable) solution for a more realistic one. Gillan and Herrel do not either (i) suddenly become good at what they hitherto could not do or (ii) resolve matters by each fulfilling the other's traditional gender roles. Instead they draw strength from mutual support and understanding - and the acceptance that being different from who one was expected to be is not necessarily a bad thing.


This is not a book where X is saved by Y - or Y saving X. They save each other, repeatedly, because they are both strong and good people, who are facing a lot of challenges. Herrel is the more insecure, but then he has known nothing but put-downs all his life, whilst Gillan had a supportive, if somewhat uncomprehending, environment.

In the portrayal of who the northerners really are, a lot is left undefined. Both their magic and their nature is never specified - but then we are only seeing it through the eyes of two protagonists who have never had it explained to them either.

Even when the terminology sounds familiar, that should not lead to expectations as to what is meant. (The nuns serve a religion that is neither a simulacrum of Christianity not a parody of it. Their religion is simply different. And what are the "Werewolves" really?) This is not writing to a genre convention; the novel has a real sense of creating a different world.

There is little explanation, but a real sense of being somewhere different. (And without the need to mediate the plot through the eyes of a character who is presumed to share the reader's outlook.)

I want to read more.



Helmet Reading Challenge 2021: #14

>137 -pilgrim-: You make me want to reread Year of the Unicorn.

>138 NorthernStar: She has made me buy Norton's Moonsinger omnibus, and now is tempting me towards Gates to Witch World! -pilgrim- is shooting very dangerously at the moment!

>139 Sakerfalcon: I am glad to hear this ;-)

>138 NorthernStar: When was your last visit to High Hallack?

>132 -pilgrim-: I agree with you completely on characters. Books with such shallow characters tend to get poor reviews from me. I was thinking more of the variety of settings, technology and diversity of characters that is more common now.

>137 -pilgrim-: I'm glad you are enjoying the Witch World books again. I may add them to my re-read list for this year.

>141 Karlstar: This is actually my first time of reading the Witch World. Which book would you recommend next? Publication order? Or should I follow, say, the Estcarp cycle before reading more of High Hallack?

I grew up in a town where the local bookshop's idea of Science Fiction was the world of John Norman! (And the town library was tiny and did not cover speculative fiction at all.) There was a copy of Moon of Three Rings in my school library for some reason, but otherwise I did not get much introduction to American SF at all until university.

But I disagree that modern novels have more diversity of characters. They often seem to fall into the fallacy of "all members of this society think like this". That was my problem with the characterisation in Old Man's War - John Parry by himself was a plausible character. But Scalzi wrote that Parry's outlook and behaviour patterns were shared by his entire cohort of recruits: there was no diversity.

>140 -pilgrim-: I'm not sure, but it might be about 20 years ago.

>142 -pilgrim-: Unfortunately, I think you've reached the point where I can't offer good advice. Looking at my books, I either skipped around or borrowed the books from the library and don't remember them. I have the first 4, of which you've read 3, then one of the later High Hallack books. I actually started my Andre Norton reading with Quag Keep, then went to The Crystal Gryphon, then circled back to start the Witch World books. All very long ago.

>144 Karlstar: I read The Crystal Gryphon eons ago, actually read the entire trilogy, but have no recollection about anything in it, except I liked it.

>144 Karlstar: Does reading out of sequence cause any problems?

January #1:


False Value: Book 8 of the Rivers of London by Ben Aaronovitch -3.5 stars

I am getting the slightly creepy feeling that Ben Aaronovitch is reading my reviews! This latest book attempts to address two points that I have been bitching about his complete disregard for the victims of glamour(except Lesley, of course)..

In my review of King of the Rats I pointed out that the injuries done to Melvin were treated as amusing, without any sympathy; here he gets a cameo which shows him as having reached a far happier situation.

I have repeatedly complained about Peter Grant's casual acceptance of his girlfriend's enslavement of Maksim, and the way her family do likewise e.g. Uncle Bailiff. Here Beverley tells Peter she has sat down with her servitor and discussed whether he is happy about feeling "obligated to" her, and he has replied "something in Russian" about accepting one's fate (which he attributes to the Russian Romantic poet, Vasily Zhukovsky). There is also a recap (for those who have not read the relevant graphic novel) of the circumstances under which she acquired him, with a reminder that it was only on him that the effect lasted - apparently he was one of a group of Russian "mobsters" who broke into Beverley's house. Since she was irritated at being interrupted in her bath, she glamoured them all into spending the day cleaning her house. On the others it wore off, and they simply "vowed never to speak of it again", but that evening Maksim returned, and sat outside her house until she had to take him in- and the implication that this was because he was unhappy with his current life and wanted this.
She then proceeds to remind Peter that she is a literal goddess and thus Maksim's behaviour is perfectly normal for a worshipper.

The "explanation" here reeks of 'cop-out', but Beverley here did provide a justification of her behaviour in earlier books: she IS a goddess
(i) and cannot completely control the effect that she has on mortals. If she does not exercise her aura reoeatedly in minor ways, it would burst out in a major way that would be much more disruptive;
(ii) every service performed for her, even the minor ones such as buying her drinks, elicits a blessing from her.

The plot here concerns Peter working as a security guard for a high tech computer company, whose faux whimsical terminology for employees and communal amusements are designed to disguise an intimidating working environment. A satire on Google seems intended.

The books structure itself indulges in whimsy for the first section, jumping backwards and forwards between two timelines without explanation, simply in order to withhold information from the reader for a while.

It is an irritating device, but does not really detract from the fact that this is the best Rivers of London novel that I have read so far.

Peter appears to be growing up and thinking about the consequences of his actions -such as the betrayals inevitably involved regarding the friendships made during undercover work- and this seems to be arising from increased maturity in the thinking of the author. Moreover, Beverley is actually providing him with some moral compass here.

Minor characters seem to be less caricatures and more actual people, with feelings, now. They still tend to be described in glib vignettes, by way of introduction, but that is probably an accurate consequence of Peter's police training.

There is one painfully awkward section however. One of the computer specialists is described as "a woman", whose colleague introduces as "Victor", using the masculine pronoun, whilst Victor glares at Peter, apparently daring Peter to "make something of it". Peter thereafter usually refers to Victor as "he" but sometimes uses "her".

Now it seems to me that when describing a transgender person, you can either do them the courtesy of using the gender that they identify as, or you can arrogantly decide that you are the better arbiter, and use the pronoun that appears appropriate to you. What you definitely cannot do is switch between the two randomly, like Peter. (The initial description of Victor as a woman is simply the visual description of someone seen across a room, it is the later pronoun use that is problematic.)

I am not sure what the point is of making this character transgender. Is it a form of tokenism, to demonstrate the author's political correctness credentials? Or is it a rather nasty assumptions that only people who are in some way different are effective geeks - a characterisation that is offensive to both transgender people and computer experts! Victor's friend and colleague has an odd, abrasive, self-obsessed personality, which I suspect is meant to be a portrayal of autism. The only other worker we are introduced to is homosexually obsessed with his work partner to such an extent that he is willing to do so that guy's work for him. There seems to be "computer experts can't simply be regular people who are very good at what they do" subtext that makes me uncomfortable.

But it might be intended simply as implying that only people who have issues that might engender hostility, and cause them to have problems finding employment with other companies, would submit to this company's corporate culture. However, since they all appear happy in their work, and no mention is made of their having encountered prejudice, I fear this is just a very clumsy attempt at "inclusiveness".

That said, none of the above characters are treated in a patronising manner by the plot (or by Peter in his behaviour), and they are portrayed as nice people - there is no "odd=evil" here. So it did not spoil my enjoyment of the book.

This novel is an interesting dilemma story, which only tangentially contributes to the main arc. It is a pity that Ben Aaronovitch seems to have stopped writing Peter Grant stories, just as he sits to have 'ironed out' the major kinks.

Helmet Reading Challenge 2021: #37

January Summary

Average rating: 2.77
Weighted average rating: 3.24
Audio (weighted) average rating: 1

10 fiction:
Novels: 3 fantasy, 2 science fiction, 1 urban fantasy, 1 satire
Novella: 1 children's science fiction
Novelette:
Short stories:
Abridged audiobook: 1 urban fantasy
Graphic novelette: 1 fantasy

3 non-fiction:
1 espionage, 1 religion, 1 moral philosophy

Original language: 13 English

Earliest date of first publication: 1938 (Scoop)
Latest: December 2020 (The Midnight Library) (abridged audiobook)/(The Quantum Curators and the Enemy Within)

11 Kindle, 1 paperback, 1 audiobook

Authors: 6 male, 4 female
Author nationality: 6 British, 3 American, 1 Japanese
New (to me) authors: 7 (3 familiar)

Most popular book on LT: Scoop (3,252)
Least popular: In Search of Holy Russia (2)/The Midnight Library(abridged audiobook) (only me)

No. of books read: 13
From Mount TBR (books owned before 2021): 2
Books owned before joining Green Dragon: 0
No. of books acquired: 15 (14 eBooks, 1 paperback)
No. of books disposed of: 1
Expenditure on books: £21.82

Best Book of January: Year of the Unicorn
Worst Book of January: Monstress #1

>147 -pilgrim-: Ben Aaronovitch could do worse than read your reviews for advice. :)

I sort of stopped reading that series, but I suppose I shall pick it up again. Still not going to read the graphic novels though.

>150 MrsLee: Thank you, Lee.

Given that you appear to have enjoyed the earlier books more than I did, I would certainly recommend that you include this one.

>146 -pilgrim-: Definitely! It explains why I kind of stopped, I think picking up random books when they were on the bookstore shelf caused confusion, so I lost interest.

>152 Karlstar: So I need to wait until Three Against the Witch World comes into eBook, of back into print?

Or can I follow the High Hallack cycle without waiting for the rest of the Estcarp?

I notice writes books later that insert back earlier into the timeline. Is chronological or publication order best?

>148 -pilgrim-: January reading:

I was very aware of the disproportionate effect that short, sometimes extremely short, books that I read in December were having on that month's average rating.

So for this year, I decided to calculate a weighted averaged based on the number of pages on each book. (Of course, this will mean that audiobooks will have to be calculated separately, and books that only appear on author's websites omitted altogether.)

Books awaiting review

From 2020:
From January: 1
From February: 1
From March: 1
From April: 1
From June: 4
From October: 3
From December: 7

From 2021:

Books awaiting review from January: 2

>155 -pilgrim-: oops...

Just from a purely "curiosity" standpoint, how do you type when you're exclusively using a phone? Index finger to henpeck one letter at a time or holding the device in both hands and 2 thumbing it? Or something else all together?

>157 BookstoogeLT:
My phone has a feature where one can link letters cursively, and it then attempts to interpret which word you meant. Unfortunately it can get a bit too clever, and "correct" a word that it has previously spelt out as what I wanted, into something else.

My eyesight playing up, and the very small text window that I have to work with when actually pudding, so that I fail to spot these AutoCorrections, is why I frequently have to edit posts later, v to restore what I actually wrote.

If I am actually changing the content of a post, I mark it "ETA", most of the "edited" labels are actually me fixing this mode of text entry.

But trying to "peck" on a phone that does not have this feature is even worse for accuracy.

February #1:


Star Ka'at World: Book 2 of Star Ka'ats by Andre Norton - 1.5 stars
31/1/2021-2/2/2021

Since I had a lot of sitting in phone queues and wanted something simple to read while doing so, and was curious as to where Andre Norton was going with this, I borrowed the anthology and continued with this series.

It was extremely disappointing.

The majority of it is about what life is like for Jim and Elly Mae on the Ka'ats home planet.

Elly Mae finds it wonderful, compared with how her life has been before, but actually the children are experiencing quite a bit of species discrimination. And their "kin" are behaving like mediocre foster parents - kindly and affectionate when around, but with long unexplained absences, and little interest in how the children are experiencing life on a new planet. The point when Jim realises they are being treated like pets, when he has expected to be treated as a friend, is well made. But really, I cannot see why Jim is supposed to prefer being with Tiro, rather than with the Dales. They cared for him unconditionally, whilst Tiro only shows the boy any affection once he has proven himself a hero.

And when the adventure kicks in, in the last few chapters, it is Jim now who shows all the positive characteristics. He is the braver, the more resourceful, the better at interpreting the situation. Elly Mae, who took the lead in the first book, is now more timid, more passive - this time, whenever she "takes charge" it is in order to stubbornly insist on the irrational, emotional and foolish courses of action. Also, the frequency with which she now addresses Jim as "boy" is bordering on caricature.

As for the solutions to the problem, they consist of
1. Speaking in a deep, manly voice, &
2. Smashing what you don't understand (using a valuable tool to do the smashing with).
Yes, really!

There were some flaws in Star Ka'at, and a rather preachy lecture on the evil, violent ways of humanity. But the compensatory factor was the balanced nature of the child duo, and the lack of discrimination between them.

Here all the good aspects are undone, with irrational violence being shown as the appropriate solution, and Elly Mae relegated to the annoying, irrational burden for the hero to cope with and try to protect.

But at least the story shows that Ka'at society is not as perfect as they believe it to be - although Elly Mae happily swallows their viewpoint. ("What do you expect from a silly, credulous, little black girl?" - I hope that is not what the author meant, but it felt very like it.) Maybe the intended point is that the treatment that the both experience here is the same - and better than Elly Mae's past experience, but worse than Jim's. But the portrayal of Elly Mae seemed patronising here, in a way that it was not in the first book.

>158 -pilgrim-: So you are literally "writing on your phone"? That sounds pretty cool. I'm assuming one fingered or do you have to use some sort of stylus?

As for >159 -pilgrim-:, the only good collab between Norton and "X" was with Mercedes Lackey. Every other one I've tried ended in disaster :-(

>160 BookstoogeLT: Yes, that is one-fingered. I can do this one-handed.

And thanks for the warning re the collaborations.

ETA: To be clear: I am not shaping each letter individually. I have a keypad, and as long as I do not lift my finger between letters, the software treats the swirl as all one word, and attempts to identify it accordingly.

>160 BookstoogeLT:, >161 -pilgrim-: I’ve used that sort of keyboard app with some success. My first encounter with it was as an app called “Swype”. Considering the impreciseness of it, it’s pretty good at figuring out what word you’re trying to type. I still had a good number of errors when I used it though, especially if I was typing a word in which several letters were all on the same row of the keyboard. It’s difficult for it to recognize what you’re trying to do if you’re swiping along a straight line.

I used that for a few months but eventually switched back to the two-thumbs method. I felt like it was faster with two digits involved in the process rather than one, and slightly less error-prone. I’m not sure if it’s actually faster for me or if it just feels faster because there’s more physical movement involved. Both methods feel glacially slow and imprecise to me compared to typing on a proper keyboard.

I think voice dictation is the mobile text entry method that would work best for me. When I’ve used it, it was faster and less error-prone. However, I typically only bother to send text on mobile devices when I absolutely have to, which typically means I’m away from home without a computer and need to answer an e-mail for work. In such a case, there are often other people around me and I would never use voice dictation in public, so I never really got in the habit of using it.

>162 YouKneeK: The two thumbs method requires two working hands! So the current method is useful for me, even though the failures in its predictions account for dinner rather creative English whenever I fail to detect them (and given the small text entry window, that is quite often)!

I miss using a computer. I initially found being stranded without one disastrous. But using one requires the ability to sit up at a desk - an activity I find incompatible with receiving chemotherapy. So, if I tried on that, I would be absent from here for 75% of the time; probably much more, since my non-chemo weeks after usually a frantic rush to catch up with all the chores that I have not been able to carry out during them.

I have tried voice dictation, but it does tend not to like my accent, which is an unholy amalgam of all the places that I have lived, plus ancestral contributions. The technology is improving all the time, but my voice is deteriorating. Although, thankfully, the lung metastases no longer appear on my latest CT scans, they have left scarring on the lungs. My breathing struggles at times, and I am more susceptible to losing my voice if I over use it.

The imperfections of the "swipe" method can be seen in my posts. But it remains the best method for me on a phone.

Tablets have advantages and disadvantages. Their display is a lot clearer, but they require two-handed use, and the weight is an issue when I am at my weakest.

I am not even sure that a regular , keyboard would be fastest any more. (I can no longer touch type, because that assumes equal function for all digits of both hands.) It would certainly be highly dependent on the particular action of the keys of the actual device.

I have replied with my own thoughts on the relative method of various methods in doing detail, in case they are of use to anyone else contemplating a set up for someone with health issues.

>163 -pilgrim-: I’m glad that you're at least able to manage with a phone and the swiping method! I don’t believe I would have sufficient patience to type out reviews and other posts on a phone, even if it was the only method available to me, so I’m impressed that you can manage to do so.

Regarding the two-handed use of a tablet, would something like this work for you? If the advantage of being able to see the screen better would even be worth the trouble of using an alternate device in the first place, that is. I don’t know if this specific product would be available in the UK, but I saw other similar products on the US site when I ran across this so I imagine there are similar options on the UK site. I couldn’t begin to guess how it might (or might not) work for you, but the product by itself is very light and lets you choose from one of three angles to hold the tablet so that you only have to touch the device with one finger to operate it. It sits pretty stably on my stomach when I’m in a recliner or laying on the bed, but I don't really use it on top of me that much. I mostly use it sitting on the bed to keep my device propped stably on its side when I’m lying on my own side in bed at night. Before getting this, I had a tendency to knock whichever device I was using over a lot and finally sought out something like this in exasperation.

>164 YouKneeK: That does look interesting. I have seen stands like that, but much smaller, aimed at the phone/6" Kindle market.
I don't like reading things on me, but if you say that this works for you when lying on your side, then yes, that is very tempting.

Thank you for the suggestion.

February #4:

Nervous People (short story) by Mikhail Zoshchenko (trans. by Dean Moore) - 2.5 stars

This is an example of how the vagaries of translation affect the impression.
"Nervous People" send to be the standard translation for "Нервные Люди", but it is rather misleading. The Leningrad inhabitants described in this story are not timid at all; they are highly-strung, stressed out by their cramped living conditions.

Zoshchenko is described as a satirist, but this less comedy than an exposé of the tensions in ordinary, everyday life, in the years immediately following the Civil War.

The joke, such as it is, comes in the final line.

February #2:


Compulsory (short story prequel to The Murderbot Diaries) by Martha Wells - 2.5 stars

So many people here have enthused about Murderbot that I thought that I would use the link that fuzzi supplied as a taster.

Set in the mines of ruthless corporation, the story does not stand very well on its own. But it introduces an interesting narrator as its protagonist.

So yes, I am tempted.

>165 -pilgrim-: I posted a couple pictures of how I use it in my bed, over on my thread. I didn't want to clutter up your thread with unwanted pictures!

>167 -pilgrim-: I'm interested in trying that series someday myself, although I doubt I'll get to it soon.

>167 -pilgrim-: The first four murderbot books are all pretty short, clocking in somewhere around 150 pages each. All Systems Red, being the first book, is the best introduction to murderbot, IMHO. I read Compulsory the other day and agree it's not a great introduction to the sec unit. It is, however, a decent little short-story for those already grounded in the back-story.

>164 YouKneeK: I have one of those little 'flippy' things and I find it very useful for holding my tablet or kindle while librocubicularating, (thanks to Jim53 for the cool word).

>169 ScoLgo: Ha, that is a great word, and one I can fully identify with now that I’ve Googled it to grasp its full meaning. :)

>168 YouKneeK: Thank you for the pictures; that does look promising.

February #3:


The Fatal Eggs and Other Soviet Satire by various authors (ed. & trans. by Mirra Ginsburg)
9/7/2019-7/2/2021

Panteleymon Romanov (1884-1938)
5 short sketches from 1918-1925.
The first two demonstrate the logical consequences of find of the rulings of the revolutionary governments. The next mocks the need to join any queue you see, and the fourth, atheist propaganda. But the last is simply brutal, regarding the desperation of the starving peasants.

Valentin Katayev (1897-1986)
4 short stories from 1922-1925
The first ostensibly mocks intellectuals, but is actually a devastating description of his hungry erodes all moral values.
The Suicide is actually brilliant: a description of how finding driven to despair by the miserable quality of his life is prevented from ending it all by the miserable quality of the tools available to him.
The third mocks the anti-alcohol campaign, and the fourth, bureaucracy.

Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940)
The Fatal Eggs: Science fiction novella, written in 1925, set in 1928.
It is quite strange seeing the future-Moscow of 1928, bedecked with decadent neon light, and the GPU with their electric revolvers that chamber 50 rounds.
Professor Persikov is a genius, who just wants to be left to research amphibians in peace. But the side effect of one of his experiments makes the news, and in the resulting chaos of greed, stupidity, and orders that cannot be disobeyed, a disaster is created that destroys Smolensk, and nearly the capital itself. The innocent and loyal die horribly, of course, amongst thousands, as well as the not entirely innocent genius (he happily vivisects frogs). Properly used, his discovery could have been of great benefit to mankind - instead the result is near disaster and a howling, terrified mob.
Its real target are the elites of communism, their disregard for the welfare of those they ruled, and the hurriedly promoted type of ignoramus that resulted from the revolution.

Alas, all stations leading north and east were cordoned off by the heaviest line of infantry. Huge trucks, with swaying, clanging chains, loaded to the top with crates surmounted by soldiers in peaked helmets, with bayonets bristling in all directions, were carting off the gold reserves from the cellars of the People's Commissariat of Finance and enormous boxes marked "Careful -Tretyakov Art Gallery."

It was publishable then because bureaucratic incompetence was an acceptable target.

But since scientists blind to the implications of their research, greed, bureaucracy and stupidity are still with us, much of this satire still resonates today.

Leonid Leonov (1899-1994)
Excerpt from his novel, The Badgers, written in 1925.
"My grandfather heard this story from his grandfather, who heard an Old Believer read it from a book." So begins A Tale About the Furious Calaphat, which is ostensibly a fable about the far-off past, but which satirises pointless bureaucracy.

Vyacheslav Shishkov (1873-1945)
The Divorce, 1925
Another satire on the ease with which the Soviet authorities allowed divorce. But it is really another skit on the old theme of the old couple where the man thinks himself so clever - and in this case, "socially conscious" - and his wife really is.

Boris Lavrenyov (1891-1962)
The Heavenly Cap, 1925
A novella with bizarre, implausible events. Another absent-minded (and vivisecting) physiologist.

Yevgeniy Zamyatin (1884-1937)
Comrade Churygin Takes the Floor, 1927
Supposedly a lecture given by a peasant revolutionary, this is a tale of how the revolution reached a rural village and the neighbouring estate. Misunderstanding abounds, and is fatal for the well-intentioned.

Mikhail Zoshchenko (1895-1958)
4 short stories, 1925-1931.
Bitter takes on poverty, lack of housing, ease of marriage, and drunkenness.

Ilya Ilf (Ilya Fainzilberg) (1897-1937)
& Yevgeniy Petrov (Yevgeniy Katayev) (1903-1942)
How the SovietRobinson was Written, 1933
In Consider Her Ways and Other Stories John Wyndham published Oh where, now, is Peggy McRafferty?, which satirises the penchant of the Hollywood glamour machine for forcing its stars to confirm to its norms.
This is a satire on the Soviet version of the same problem, except here it is censorship that enforced uniformity.

To be continued.

>169 ScoLgo: I'm going to agree with you about Murderbot. I might have enjoyed that prequel more because I was more familiar with the character in the books.

The Fatal Eggs and Other Soviet Satire by various authors (ed. & trans. Mirra Ginsburg) - 4 stars

(Part 2 of review)

Mikhail Koltsov (1898-1940)
Stupidity, 1936
Koltsov was a committed Communist, who probably used his role as a journalist for Pravda, covering the Spanish Civil War, was probably a cover for his work for the NKVD. However in December 1937, he published an article critical of the others, claiming that a lot of innocent people were being smeared.

He was close to Yevgenia Yezhova, the wife of the head of the NKVD, Nikolai Yezhov. He was arrested on 14 December 1938, four weeks after Yezhova had committed suicide, and nine days after Yezhov was removed from the chairmanship of the NKVD and replaced by Lavrentiy Beria. After Yezhov's arrest in 1939, he told his interrogators that Koltsov and Yezhova had been lovers and that "Yezhova was connected with Koltsov with respect to espionage work on behalf of England". Koltsov was executed by shooting in 1940.

This short story mocks the terrified obedience of peasants to misunderstood orders, with particular obloquy targeted at the officials who dared not intervene and simply acquiesced.

Given the author's colourful history, it is clear that he was not short of pluck. It leaves me uncertain as to whether the concluding sentence is sincere, or an even more profound attack on the Terror from above.

Evgeny Bermont (1906-1948)
A Timid Soul, 1939.
This is a short story about an editor, determined not to put a for wrong, from the point of view of a frustrated journalist.

Arkady Vasiliev (1907-1972)
The Crystal Vase, 1947.
A short story about an attempt at sycophantism that did not go a planned.

L. Lagin (1903-1979)
Grandmother's Cake: A Cautionary Fairy Tale, 1954.
Timidity, and a desire to do nothing that can possibly be held against one, produces ridiculous results.
A Glass of Water, 1955-1960.
A sad little short story, satirising how three atmosphere of so paranoid that people try to read the "hidden significance" behind everything.

N. Vorobyov
For the birds, 1954
A short story attacking academic competitiveness and research for its own sake. (An Ig Nobel Prize should have been awarded here.)

Boris Laskin
Festival in the Town of N., 1954
A very funny reductio as absurdum short story about the results of corruption in the field of employment.
Childhood Friend
As discussed in the previous story, in the USSR of this period, patronage was a surer route to promotion than merit. A ministry official gets home from a stroll to find a visitor, who claims to be a childhood friend, is waiting for him, but his wife, who is in a hurry to get to the theatre, had forgotten the name. This is how he deals with such clients...
It has been said that the natural behaviour of a Russian is servile towards his superiors and a tyrant to his inferiors; in such an atmosphere it is important to ascertain relative ranks, so that one can behave appropriately. This story has fun with with that trope. It is really rather sad.

E. Vesenin
On the Left Foot, 1955
Another short story about meaningless research and academic cronyism. (Or what is otherwise known as "Blogg's turn" - see Yes, Minister for further details!)

Yuri Kazakov (1927-1982)
Goblins, 1960.
A little story in which it is demonstrated to a director of the village club, mourning that his atheist propaganda programme is not being well received, that perhaps he needs to supply it a little closer to home. A walk in Russian woods can change one's views, it seems.

V. Livshits (ed.)
These purport to be a trio of letters from a provincial to his aunt, back "in the village", and published in the magazine Oktyabr in 1963, with the consent of both parties.
One of the novelties of Moscow for our provincial lad is the self-service buses, without a conductor, where you put your money in a box instead. (I remember encountering those myself.) But I can't help thinking that the system adopted by the Muscovites, as mocked here, of not paying your money actually into the box until you have enabled you fellow travellers to retrieve their change from your payment, is a community-spirited endeavour that is a great improvement on our own stark "Exact fare only please" labels.
Accommodation shortages, shortages on the shelves and so on, are still targeted here, but this is tempered by the sender that Muscovites are a generous people who help each other overcome such misfortunes.

How can the suffering shown in the early stories be considered "funny"? Is it appropriate material for humour? Well yes, because by making the "simple, ignorant peasantry" the butt of these jokes, the author is able to publish a description of the very real suffering of his fellow citizens.

The evolution is marked. The early stories were publishable because they ostensibly mocked "greedy peasants", lack of "social consciousness", and "class enemies". Later stories target academics, bureaucrats, social climbers - elites who abuse their power.

But the later stories are kindlier. There is sympathy even for the culpable.

I think it was Shalamov who said "if you believe in friendship in adversity, you have never known real hardship".

Although the same themes of poverty, abusive elites, and mindless bureaucracy persist, as conditions become less harsh, people can aid to have synopsis for one another.

Why can Russians laugh at suffering - at things that are really not funny? Well, these things exist, and you have to deal with them, so his better to diminish their power over your life than by laughing at them?

Some of these stories are genuinely very funny. Most are both funny and grim. Some are completely dark. But taken together they are an inspiring picture of the ordinary Soviet citizen's determination to keep going, to keep on living, no matter what the system threw at them.

Helmet Reading Challenge 2021: #11, #22, #38

I'm glad the Norton trilogy didn't fail you!

>175 libraryperilous: Unfortunately the next in the series doesn't seem to be in print out on Kindle...

January #11:


Deutschland 83 (2016, German)
Dir.: Edward Berger and Samira Radsi
Created by: Anna Winger and Joerg Winger

This German TV serial brought back a lot of memories for me. It is extremely accurate in portraying what it was like to live in the early eighties, the sense that a nuclear war - and the end of our world - might start at any time, through the belligerent attitudes of the USA and the USSR, and that we, in Europe would be the battleground. Whoever "won", we would be utterly destroyed.

The programme shows the variety of responses that the young people of that generation had, in the light of this knowledge: from wholehearted belief in the "nuclear deterrence" principle, to a slightly frantic pacifism the started with the outright rejection of all military forces - the Armed Forces were banned from parenting stands on Careers Day in many schools in my own town, and this was not a minority viewpoint - to a belief that non-violent resistance we not enough and the situation demanded extreme measures. (In the current War on Terror or seems to be forgotten that bombings and other terrorist acts, in many European countries, were a consistent background to my generation's growing up.)

The range of views in the DDR is also portrayed: from the uncritical acceptance of a state that "wants the best for its citizens, and knows what that is", to trying to "harmlessly" buck the system, to using it as an opportunity for personal benefit.

When I was young, I was told that Soviet citizens were ready to wage aggressive war, indoctrinated with a burning desire to spread their Communist beliefs; talking to people of my own age, I find that what they were actually being taught was the necessity of being ready to defend their country, in case America and its allies should attack again, "like in 1918".

The paranoia of both sides in the Cold War, regarding both the military capabilities and the goals of their opponents, is the theme of this drama, together with the fear of all Germans that they would be annihilated as their country became a nuclear battleground, regardless of who started it, or who won. (A fear shared by much of Europe, but particularly in Germany.)

For this reason, the HVA decide to take advantage of the appointment of a young West German 1st lieutenant, with no living family, as aide-de-camp to a general closely involved with NATO. Replacing him with an agent would be ideal, but "we don't have anyone that young", so they decide to send a family member of one of their high ranking members. The brutality of the HVA is demonstrated in the way that the lad is recruited.

Many of the aspects of spy drama are far-fetched. Would the HVA really have no male agent in their early twenties available? Would a boy with a few week's training be competent enough to survive at all? Would a NATO meeting that has suffered a security breach continue, rather than go into lockdown with interrogation of all present? How can our hero be fit for strenuous action a couple of weeks after being a kidney donor? His finger is sprained to explain why he cannot play the piano on arrival, but why is he never asked to do so subsequently? (Surgery seems to heal faster than a sprain!) Why does a good guy, framed by the HVA, shoot himself without leaving a suicide not explaining his innocence thereby apparently admitting his guilt, and bringing the shame on his family that he is supposedly avoiding by this action? Why, when an American general is seized at gunpoint in a brothel by a GDR soldier, and forced to make an incriminating video, does the fact that he shoots a brothel while attempting to escape mean that he tells no one about what happened - not even the soldier's father, who has accompanied him on brothel visits before? Why does he not wonder how our hero knew to turn up - our hero is relying on him assuming that he was sent by aforementioned colleague, but if that were the case, why was he not exposed by a "thanks for the help" remark? When a deep cover HVA agent is presented with a GDR soldier ready to do "anything", why did he tell him to present himself at the East German embassy, thereby burning his usefulness to his own organisation? When a spy deliberately blows his own cover, in order to warn the general about impending Armageddon, why does the general focus solely on "you're a spy?!" and ignore the content that is so important the guy is willing to voluntarily destroy his own life over? And how does our hero get away with simply phoning the DDR from a remote phonebox whenever things get urgent? (Rainer Rupp, the spy on whose activities the plot seems to be extremely loosely based, was sending messages encoded as short electronic bursts, over a phone line.) But then inferiority of East German technology (and their use of intense man-hours to compensate) is one of the running themes of the plot.

The mechanics of the espionage part of the plot has holes wider than a barn door. But it was nice to see a spy portrayed not as a super-cool superman, but a frightened, but determined, boy. A lot of running is involved.

I watched because its evocation of the atmosphere of the time was perfect - even if there were a few inaccuracies, such as gay men warning each other to get tested, a year before AIDS tests were available. I remember the Korean airliner being shot down...

I usually have little time for implausible plotting, but I gave this series a pass because of its perfect evocation of the mood of the era. And the soundtrack was music from the period too.

And it is not thatthe characterisation of the hero that is implausible: he is simply out of his depth, but trying to do his best for the people he cares about; occasionally heroic, often making stupid mistakes.

But it is worth it for this moment alone: floppy-haired Peacenik son of West German general, ranting at him that "you are a Nazi, just like your father". As he does so, he stabs the air with his finger, his dark hair flops into his eyes, whilst the pitch of his voice gets higher and higher... The irony is delicious.

Helmet Film Challenge 2021: #13, #26

I have just finished Bear Head, by Adrian Tchaikovsky, and it was excellent, but to explain that, I am going to have to enthuse a little about the book that this is a sequel to:

Dogs of War
which I read in 2017 or 2018, before I joined LT. It was a good candidate for "Best Book of the Year" for me, a definite 5 star read.

Rex is a Good Dog.

Rex is also 8 feet tall, a genetically engineered and cybernetically modified Bioform, designed for war.
He knows he is a Good Dog because the neutral circuitry that conveys his Master's commands gives him pleasurable feedback when he obeys.

Rex leads the Dogs, but he is not the only model produced by the company that created him. There is Honey, a bear, Dragon (designed for covert operations) and Bees (a destributed intelligence).

The book starts as if it is going to be a fairly brutal military SF, as we follow these characters into combat.

But the Bioforms are not subhuman in intelligence. Rex understands what the humans around him consider the norms of right and wrong. And he becomes more and more worried that what he has to do to be a Good Dog makes him a bad person.

The resolution of Rex's dilemma would be where another book would finish, but this goes a lot further. If Bioforms are accepted as "people" too, that does not necessarily mean humans feel comfortable living with them amongst them. So there is a ghetto created; Bioforms can go to work amongst humans, but that is where they live.

It takes another major event to win them a normal place in society..

Rex is a fully realised character. He is not a human in a dog's body, nor simply a talking dog. Just because his emotional priorities are canine does not mean he is stupid.

The story is taking a look at military ethics and the dangers inherent in subcontracting to private companies with minimal oversight.

It is also taking an outsider's view of human nature, from a character whose instincts are different. And Rex is a wonderful character.

February #5:


Bear Head (sequel to Dogs of War) by Adrian Tchaikovsky - 4.5 stars
26/1/2021-11/2021

Jimmy is an ordinary working guy. Only the job he is working on is building a city on Mars, so he has had to undergo some genetic modification and cybernetic enhancement to work there. But the company has promised that they will engineer him back, once the job is complete. There are Bioforms on Mars too, who do specialised tasks that they are suited for (including law enforcement).

However Jimmy also has a drug habit, and he takes some illegal work on the side to fund it. As the story opens, Jimmy finds himself short of funds, and so agrees to store something in the extra data space in his head - and gets a lot more than he bargained for. He gets Honey, uploaded into his head as a fully realised AI personality. Only she is rather more intelligent than he is, with multiple university degrees, and she can hack his headware. There remains the question of why she was uploaded, and the answer to this is something which she gradually pieces together from her memories, which are initially fragmented. She has to review the various chunks of data, whilst also kept rather busy by external events.

This story is set about 40 years after Dogs of War and the political situation has changed. Bioforms are now accepted as having equal rights with humans, but there is a backlash of public opinion against this. Laws have been passed now saying that Collaring Bioforms is again legal, providing that they submit voluntarily. And there is a new religion amongst the Dogs: the Sons of Adam. In admiration of Rex, they want nothing more than to be Good Dogs. They submit to the Collar as it gives up responsibility for their actions; they are freed from the need to decide what is right, what is moral. Their secret doctrine is one of the most wonderful twists in the book.

We follow three characters: Jimmy, a famous Bioform Honey (now a well known welfare rights activist) and Carole Springer. Carole is the PA to Warner S. Thompson, and it is her job to make sure that he gets whatever he wants. Legality and illegality cease to have any real meaning if you have enough money and pay for good enough lawyers. And Carole really, really wants to keep her boss happy, because there was a rather special clause in her contract. Thompson is manipulative and untrustworthy himself, and therefore trusts no one. And he wanted to ensure that his PA stays completely loyal...

He is monstrous, but he is a logical conclusion to the thesis that

“...there are people who play the game, and there are people who play the metagame,”

and that those who play the metagame will always appear to be better at their job than the people who actually work the hardest, because they are putting all their effort into that appearance, rather than into doing the actual job.

And so

just as metagamers could hack organisational structures and procedures to promote themselves without needing to be good at the primary task of the organisation, so there were people out there who could do it to human society./blockquote>

The reason that this book does not get 5 stars is that the author makes what I felt was a mistake; in a move for topicality he gives his villain some of the physical mannerisms of a current American political figure. In doing so, he is likely to alienate American readers who support this person, or at least feel that this portrayal does not fit his personality. (ETA: On reflection, this may not be intended by the author as a direct reference/attack. All politicians have developed a distinct rhetorical style, honed to their message to a greater or lesser extent, depending on to what degree public speaking of their forté. The modelling on a particular politician's style may simply arise from the fact that he is a populist in his approach, and therefore his style is suited to the method of the character in the novel.)

And this story is really nothing to do with US party politics. It is about the unfettered behaviour of big business, about how hard-won advances can be gradually eroded. It is about how there are more ways to take away freedom than by force, and about the possibilities and dangers that new technological developments bring.

But if Dogs of War was about the ethical implications of technological advances, Bear Head is about the human aspect, a form of what the hackers call social engineering. Ultimately it is about how people can be manipulated, and that although technology can assist in this, fundamental psychological techniques are effective too - more effective than reasoned arguments.

The Bears in this book are wonderful characters too.

Just to prove that Adrian Tchaikovsky does have a sense of humour, all the section headings are puns on the bear theme.

Helmet Reading Challenge 2021: #4, #8, #27?, #40?, #49.

>178 -pilgrim-: ow ow ow! You got me again...

>180 fuzzi: Touché. :)

Caveat: this starts in the style of pretty brutal milSF (which is misleading). And it does not shrink from the brutality of war, which is after all, the point.

I do think you would like this book, but it is definitely not in the "comfort read" category you were talking about seeking recently.

>178 -pilgrim-: >179 -pilgrim-: Those do sound interesting. My TBR pile is growing though, so it will be a while before I get to them.

>181 -pilgrim-: thanks for the "heads up". I'm hoping to get back to regular reading as soon as I can.

In the meanwhile I'm working on whittling down my YA tomes, many of which have been around for a while.

Welp, adding these to the tbr....

I have been trying Jim Butcher's Dresden Files: Downtown recently, and I discovered two things from this:
(i) reading a graphic novel on an actual Kindle Fire is fairly quick and easy;
(ii) this is too far though the sequence for me; there are too many established characters, relationships and situations that I don't know about.

As regards the novel sequence, I had been minded to continue, but rather off-put by the fact that even the Dragoneers who love Harry Dresden have been warning me that the second book has to be "got through", before the author finds his voice and the series gets into its stride.

So as, a solution, I decided to read this next book in graphic novel form courtesy of Kindle Unlimited).

February #6&7:


Jim Butcher's Dresden Files: Fool Moon Volume 1 by Jim Butcher and Mark Powers (drawn by Chase Conley) - 2.5 stars


Jim Butcher's Dresden Files: Fool Moon Volume 2 by Jim Butcher and Mark Powers (drawn by Chase Conley) - 2 stars

Any subtlety of plotting that there may have been in the original novel is lost here: as soon as Bob lists the different types of werewolves, it is obvious that we are going to meet all of them.

I felt completely neutral to Harry in this graphic novel; he neither irritated me, nor did I feel at all involved in what happened to him.

He still seems to have inconsistent principles in odd places: given that he will use black magic if desperate, he is "the end justifies the means" type when he considers it appropriate. So why not accept the mob boss' retainer and use it to fund appropriate amounts of conscience-easing do-gooding?

As I understand it, he is motivated by
(i) the thrill of what he is able to do;
(ii) guilt over how he has used magic in the past;
(iii) the sense that he has to stand up for "what is right", because no one else who is capable of it, will.

That being the case, and having consciously decided not to get involved in going after criminals unless magic is involved, then why not use the proffered funding to be more effective at tackling the really nasty stuff? If he has to waste his time on weight-loss potions in order to pay the rent, he is not being as effective as he could be. Of course, there are risks involved in developing ANY links with the underworld, but frankly, he needs that source of information, so he cannot actually avoid contact.

I could accept a character who takes the moral high ground, and feels that any dubious alliances cost too much. But if Harry really feels that way, his can he justify working with Bob? Harry is fond of claiming a moral position, but gets his hands dirty happily enough, whenever it suits him.

The artwork:
I was shocked that the attention to detail was so poor - a broken cuff keeps disappearing, then reappearing, on Harry's left wrist, through one sequence of panels.

And the style was just as bad as I remember from the comics that I saw when I was little: contorted faces, super-sexualised women, all the clichés were present. Particularly I in the second volume, when the fighting really got under way, it was just as "Splat! Pow!!" as I remember from my childhood. And I am as bored by that now as I was then.

I think that why I particularly dislike this is the trivialisation of violence effect. The textmay describe a really severe beating, but the artist can only draw what it is acceptable to portray - which is nowhere nearly as horrific as the results of such a bearing would be.

I have had this problem with the text before: Harry gets worked over thoroughly, but does not spend the next few months in hospital (or heal with magical assistance). But the graphic novel format only exacerbates the issue.

I am not getting won over by the medium at all. I can't get used to how drastically a character's appearance can change within a volume - it even within one. But I think this was a successful choice for getting past the second book in a long novel sequence, which is generally felt to not be very good, in a rapid and painless manner.

Helmet Reading Challenge 2021: #10?, #14, #47 & #48?

>186 -pilgrim-: Those do not sound like good examples of graphic novels.

>187 Karlstar: I think there is something significant in the introduction Jim Butcher writes to these. He says that, when he was writing the Dresden novels, he always saw them as comics in his mind's eye. And he uses the term "comic" quite deliberately; that is what he read in his childhood, and that is how he is thinking now.

So, if he wanted a "comic", I suppose we cannot be surprised that that is what he got.

But how would you differentiate a "graphic novel"?

>186 -pilgrim-: I admire your persistence with graphic novels. I read the book version of that one. I need to go look up my review. I remember it being gorey.

Edit: Reread my review. I didn't mention the gore at all though I did write that it is action packed. Ha! It was also a step up for me from book 1 at 3.5 stars. I enjoyed Book 3 even more. Your review reminds me I really need to continue where I'm at in the series.

>178 -pilgrim-: I think I took a couple of bullets here as well. Looks like I'm in good company. (Rats, not available as an eBook.)

>190 clamairy: That is odd. Both are available on Kindle Unlimited in the UK.

The Bathhouse (short story) by Mikhail Zoshchenko - 3 stars

This is another sketch on Soviet bureaucratic procedures, designed to benefit systems, do not, being foiled by the selfishness of actual Soviet citizens.

Its implications that Americans behave better was surely rather unpopular with the authorities, one would have thought.

>191 -pilgrim-: Searching Amazon US, I too am only seeing it in hardcover and paperback. The Amazon US site also does not provide series links; one can search for either book but, at first glance, they both appear to be stand-alones.

A google search does turn up an Audible link for Dogs of War: Dogs of War on Audible. Again, there is no series link but a separate google search also finds Bear Head on Audible.

Very mysterious.

>193 ScoLgo: I checked bookfinder.com, and a new paperback of Dogs of War is about $15 USD, not bad. I didn't see an ebook of it available, either.

>194 fuzzi: Yeah, Dogs of War is relatively affordable but Bear Head is a lot more expensive. Price with shipping & tax ends up being nearly $35 for a trade paperback. If I really, really like an author or a particular book, I might pay that much for a hardcover.

It's too bad because the descriptions and reviews lead me to think I would like these books. Having not yet read anything by Tchaikovsky, I'm hesitant to make a purchase. My usual (evil ;) plan is to borrow via Overdrive before buying. There are plenty of other books to loan out by this author - but not these two. Maybe I'll try his Children of Time. That one seems popular too and, if I like the writing style, I'll be more inclined to buy one of these.

>195 ScoLgo: These are the only books that I have read by Tchaikovsky, so I cannot make any comparison with his other work.

You might be finding Bear Head so expensive because it was only published this year.

Don't worry about reading Dogs of War on its own. There is no sense within it that it "needs" a sequel. You just lose out if you start with Bear Head, without having read Dogs of War.

>195 ScoLgo: I'd go with his Shadows of the Apt decalogy. It was his debut work, but man, so far nothing else he's written has been as good in my opinion.

>196 -pilgrim-: That might be true but I still think $35 US is a lot of money for a trade paperback. I could understand if it was a collector's item or limited release or some such, but that does not seem to be the case. Nevertheless, I do prefer to read in published order for the very reason you mention so I'll keep an eye out for a reasonably priced copy of Dogs of War.

>197 BookstoogeLT: Decalogy? Ummm... thanks for the rec but I'm not likely to dive into the deep end of that pool! ;)  So where does Tchaikovsky fall on the genre scale? I'm more of a Robert Jackson Bennett or Tim Powers type of fantasy reader. The Divine Cities or The Broken Earth trilogies are more in my wheelhouse than, say The Night Angel trilogy, for example.

>198 ScoLgo: I am intrigued by the fact that you are trying to determine fantasy style by comparing authors, none of whom I have read.

My curiosity is piqued. Could you tell me a little more about them please?

ETA: Bear Head is being released in paperback here in July. That said, the hardback is available on Amazon currently for under £14, so you are still getting squeezed at 35$.

>199 -pilgrim-: Good question. The authors I mentioned, (Robert Jackson Bennett, Tim Powers, and N.K. Jemisin), typically don't write 'Hero Quest' high fantasy and that is the type of fantasy that I tend to avoid because so much of it is derivative of Tolkien. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing for those readers that like it -- but having read my fill of them in my youth, I tend to steer clear these days. I mentioned The Night Angel trilogy by Brent Weeks because it is one that I read back when those books were first published. While I thought it was okay, I also found it rather derivative of the 'Poor young orphan protagonist that rises up in the world because they are special' trope. More recently, I read the Realm of the Elderlings series and found more of the same. I liked both the Hobb and the Weeks well enough but neither represents my usual go to type of fantasy. Anyway, authors and their sandboxes...

Let's start with Tim Powers. He likes to play around with secret histories that are set in contemporary and/or historical periods. He will read about someone or something from history, think about that person or event, and then he dreams up a fantastical narrative that helps 'explain' what really happened. In Declare, for instance, he creates a story around the mysterious double-agent, Kim Philby. In the afterword, Powers writes:

"In my experience, stories never write themselves -- but they do often suggest or even strongly indicate themselves. Being a John le Carré fan, I happened one day to read his introduction to The Philby Conspiracy, by Page, Leitch, and Knightley, and I was so struck by the mysteries surrounding Kim Philby and his father that I read that book, and then Boyle's The Fourth Man -- and it soon became evident to me that a novel could be woven around these characters and events."

"...I found that the incidents that intrigued me were the apparently peripheral ones. I kept being nagged by a feeling that the central element of the story had been almost completely omitted, to be derived now only by finding and tracing its fugitive outlines."

"In a way, I arrived at the plot for this book by the same method that astronomers use in looking for a new planet -- they look for "perturbations," wobbles, in the orbits of the planets they're aware of, and they calculate the mass and position of an unseen planet whose gravitational field could have caused the observed perturbations -- and then they turn their telescopes on that part of the sky and search for a gleam."

"... I made it an ironclad rule that I could not change or disregard any of the recorded facts, nor rearrange any days of the calendar -- and then I tried to figure out what momentous but unrecorded fact could explain them all."

Now, none of that sounds very much like fantasy - until you read the book and find that the 'perturbations' are caused by elemental beings that predate humanity on this planet and that intelligence agencies are using them to try and get a leg up on the competition.

In The Stress of Her Regard, it's vampires (that are not exactly vampires...) and poets of the Romantic Period. In Three Days to Never, Einsteinian physics, Egyptian occultists, and Mossad agents, oh my! On Stranger Tides is all about the pirates, and Ed Teach, and Ponce de León's fountain. The Fault Lines trilogy plays around with The Fisher King legends. Alternate Routes explores the Labyrinth of Deadalus via a portal on the Los Angeles freeway. And then there is The Anubis Gates; a remarkable time-travel romp that should be a fun read for anyone familiar with English and Egyptian history. Powers also likes to write ghosts and occult magic into his stories. Creepy, disturbing ghosts that inhabit the same world as the rest of us. And that is the appeal of Tim Powers for me; at the end of the day, it can be dark stuff but it is also fun to read.

Jemisin's The Broken Earth trilogy starts off as a fantasy hero-quest type of tale but it's far from typical of the genre. The 'hero' is a middle-aged woman and not some poor young orphaned soon-to-be magical queen. Part of the narrative is told in second person, the reason for which only becomes fully clear at the end of The Stone Sky. Across the trilogy, the narrative moves away from fantasy to land firmly in the realm of science-fiction. This is a truly remarkable series and I can't recommend it highly enough. It fully deserves the three-peat Hugo wins.

Bennett's The Divine Cities trilogy is best categorized as alternate reality. It is contemporary fantasy set in a world similar to, but different from ours. It also appears to be during a different time in history, technologically speaking. Again, it's not our history. There is magic that is based on gods that lived amongst the humans. But the gods are dead and magic is fading. Or are they, and is it? Each book features a different main character - but all three protagonists play a significant part in each book. Many trilogies suffer from 'middle book syndrome'. In this instance, the 2nd book was my favorite. This is another series I can only recommend that people read for themselves. Each book contains an individual narrative so it's possible to read them out of order - but I don't recommend it. Seeing significant side characters from the first book return as protagonists in the sequels is part of what makes the overall story arc special, IMHO. That being said, you won't be left hanging at the end of City of Stairs if you find that it's not for you. But the conclusion at the end of City of Miracles is satisfying and well worth the 3-book journey, in my opinion.

I don't know if any of this really answers your question...?

Bear Head in hardcover on Amazon.us is currently $32.09 with free shipping, which works out to less than the trade paperback. Book pricing is weird...

>200 ScoLgo: No, that was the sort of tour that is very helpful.

Given the impression that you have given me of what you like, how do you feel about Hugh Cook (apparent fantasy that is really SF)? Or Charles Stross? Or Philip Purser-Hallard? Or Barbara Hambly?

I will now be looking for some of the authors whom you have just described.

ETA: I asked because I can see that you have some of those authors, but I couldn't find any reviews from you if them.

>201 -pilgrim-: Of the four authors you listed, I have only read two so far...

Hambly: I have read the first three James Asher novels and liked the opening volume the most. Blood Maidens didn't really work too well for me but I do intend to continue with The Magistrates of Hell at some point. After reading a bunch of Anne Rice back in the 20th century, I became rather burned out on vampire novels - but Hambly turned a neat trick with Those Who Hunt the Night.

Stross... I have only read Singularity Sky and it didn't work for me at all. I have full intent to try other titles by him but that first attempt really put me off. I'm hopeful that I was just in the wrong mood for that book at that time. It's happened before where I have not liked a book or author at first blush only to have them become favorites when given another go.

I have not heard of Hugh Cook and I just bought The Pendragon Protocol for kindle last week, (a BB from you, actually), so have not cracked the digital covers of that one yet.

And that is the extent of my experience with those particular authors! ;)

>200 ScoLgo: I think our tastes in fantasy are quite similar. I too thought the Broken Earth and Divine Cities trilogies were terrific, really interesting twists on the genre. I was subsequently very disappointed by Bennett's follow-up project, Foundryside, which seemed to revert to 'Poor young orphan protagonist that rises up in the world because they are special' tropes. One of my favourite recent series is Max Gladstone's Craft sequence, which mixes magic, divinity, law and SF in a way that's totally unique. If you haven't read it yet then I highly recommend it.

>203 Sakerfalcon: That's disappointing to hear about Foundryside. Haven't read it yet but had been planning to for a while now. I still might try it sometime just because I like his writing style. You never know, going into it with lowered expectations might improve the experience! Haha! Have you read the stand-alone American Elsewhere? That was my first RJB and it reminded me a bit of Tim Powers, which led me to read City of Stairs, which blew me away.

I haven't read Gladstone yet but I have been meaning to for quite some time. Hmmm... I might just re-arrange some of my WWE scheduled reading to make room for Three Parts Dead this year.

I am enjoying this discussion (and making notes).

pgmcc was noting on his thread his little things can throw you out of enjoying a book.
In my case, it was a character saying: Скажи мне сейчас, или буду убирать вас.

Prizes to Peter for listing how many problems I have with that sentence...

>206 -pilgrim-:

It is very intolerant, threatening and leaves no wiggle room. I suppose there are opportunities for interpretation. It could mean, “Tell me now what you want me to make you for dinner or else I am taking you out to the most expensive restaurant in town.” Or it could mean what my first take on it was, “Tell me what I want to know or I will kill you.”
It is not clear what is to be told or what “taking out” means.
Of course, my Google translation could be totally wrong and my words are missing the point entirely.
The interpretation of the sentence out of context leads to many different meanings and depends on many assumptions.
Am I anywhere near the mark?

>207 pgmcc: Your first take on it was correct. However, future imperfective sounds to me rather me like "I will be killing you" - which could, I suppose, be a particularly gruesome sort of threat, except that the speaker is holding a gun to the head of the addressee, which rather precludes a slow death.
Most obviously, Скажи is the imperative singular, whilst вас is either plural or formal, and formal does not exactly fit the situation...

For context, the novel I was reading was Lovecraftian, in the style of John Le Carré..

>208 -pilgrim-: Lovecraftian, in the style of John Le Carré..

This will take me some time to process.

Скажи is the imperative singular, whilst вас is either plural or formal, and formal does not exactly fit the situation...

I will not claim to have spotted that bit...whether I did or not. One must maintain one's cover.

>209 pgmcc: The basic premise of The Laundry Files is that there is a sub-department of SOE still operating, that deals with occult threats to national security. Naturally, the UK is not the only country to have such a government department.

>204 ScoLgo: American Elsewhere was my first Bennett too and I loved it! I have a thing about books set in weird small towns, and this is one of the best on my list. I'll be interested to see if you enjoy Foundryside better than I did; I seem to be in a minority.

>210 -pilgrim-: I need to catch up on the Laundry files. I think I've only read the first 4 and the novella Equoid.

>211 Sakerfalcon: You are still ahead of me, though. I have just finished the third.

February #10:


The Fuller Memorandum: Book 3 of The Laundry Files by Charles Stross - 3 stars
19/2/2021-21/2/2021

This was the third book in The Laundry Files, and it was disappointing. The first was overtly Lovecraftian, the second a beautiful pastiche on James Bond, but now we are firmly back in Lovecraft territory, in the guise of a Le Carré style thriller.

There is a mole in the Laundry. And Angleton is missing.

The mimicking of a Cold War thriller was adequately done, and the author gets plus points for a plausible interpretation of the mindset of the current Russian intelligence services.

The idea of explaining the White commander, Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg's penchant for atrocity via childhood exposure to fossils of the Elder Gods via his father (who was, genuinely both a geologist and clinically insane) was the most original part of the book.

Otherwise, it felt too similar to the first book, with an increase in atrocity detail - unfortunately partly genuine - as a lazy way of upping the odds.

I share pgmcc's distaste for fictional histories based around real people. However, in this case von Ungern-Sternberg (with whose career I was already somewhat familiar) possibly came out of the novel as a nicer person than he was in real life since in the novel there was at least an ulterior "greater good" motive for his impaling people.

But the same cannot be said of referencing the death of Jean Charles de Menezes (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-53513110), for the sake of a cheap jibe at the Metropolitan armed response units.

The author unfortunately has not grown out of the hypocrisy that I mentioned in my review of The Atrocity Archives - he still expects the readership to both feel horror and revulsion at atrocities committed by the opposition, and find amusing the turning of his former colleagues into zombies to serve the department after death. He is even willing to be inconsistent for the sake of this cheap laugh: for he explains elsewhere that Bob's own contract ensures that his death will be final, without possibility of beginning a revenant, "to avoid interrogation".

When the first pages contain a systematic insulting of religious faiths, from Judaism to neo-pagainism, and all points in between, purely to make the point that as far as the protagonist, Bob, is concerned, the only gods that exist are the evil entities of the Ch'thulu mythos, I felt the writer was indulging a rather childish desire to offend everyone with whom he does not agree.

I try not to assume that offensive attitudes in a first person narration are necessarily those of the author, but the casual dismissal of the elderly under the derogative term "cotton tops" was unpleasant, and did not seem to fit particularly with a middle management rank civil servant who is also in awe of an aged, but extremely dangerous, superior.

There has always been this slightly nasty undercurrent in Stross' writing. Until now it has always been counterbalanced by the inventiveness of his writing. I did not feel that this time.

The writing was also lazy. I have been carping at his Russian - Stross does live in a city whose university houses one of the foremost Russian language departments in the UK - but also his background research was weak. I was very surprised to learn that von Ungern-Sternberg's batman was Ensign Evgenie Burdokovsky, although this does appear to have been taken from the index of his primary source The Bloody White Baron, by James Palmer.

This felt too much like the response for "another one, please" by a man who has run out of ideas. The attempt at a darker, apocalyptic tone did not sit well with the cheap jibes, and the few genuinely funny jokes were rather laboured in the lead up.

I probably will try another in this series giving up on it. This book never reached the point of losing my interest; but it was of far lower calibre than its predecessors.

However -
I was initially puzzled by the American spellings in what are purportedly the memoirs of a British civil servant, but since the pricing on the cover was in dollars it seems that I have the American edition. Stray thought - how much editing is done between editions? I have commented before that the humour references a lot of British pop culture. If someone has removed all the references that they thought a foreign audience would not "get", does that explain the difference in tone?

For Harry Dresden fans: there is a reference to him here also.

Helmet Reading Challenge 2021: #14

February #11:


Overtime (A short story from The Laundry Files) by Charles Stross - 2.5 stars
21/2/2021-22/2/2021

This is a Christmas short story. It definitely takes place after The Fuller Memorandum (and contradicts part of its conclusion, regarding whether Dr. Ford's calculations are correct).

Bob is Night Duty Officer over Christmas. (His office only shuts down for four days - unusually for a Civil Service department, it does appear to open between the Christmas and New Year public holidays.)

The logic is weak in this one: Why has Dr Kringle, who Bob decides is a time echo of a human employee, an insectoid form? Why does Bob, and only Bob, remember Dr. Kringle's lecture?

But it is reasonably amusing.

February #9:


The Crypto Mindset - The Beginners Guide to a Simple Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Investment Approach called HODL by Ivica Milaric -3 stars
16/2/2021-18/2/2021

At 24 pages, this is really just an extended essay. I like it because its explanation of cryptocurrencies was somewhat superficial, but extremely clear.

Over half the book is devoted to the author's preferred investment strategy for cryptocurrencies. But this is not what one might expect: instead of some idiosyncratic "get rich quick" recipe of the author's own devising - and whenever I read an author with an "infallible" route to riches I always wonder why they are eating time writing that book instead of applying their "foolproof" method - this author is explaining why speculating in volatile commodities is a bad idea, and why one should not try to outperform a trader as a hobby.

Instead he provides a common sense investment plan. It is not original; many people will be using it already, it a variant thereof.

Because this author is approaching the issue from a slightly unusual angle. As an enthusiastic "techie", he invests in cryptocurrencies himself. But as a trained clinical psychologist, he understands the underlying motivations behind these sort of investments. The strategy he is promulgating is a method for counteracting FOMO impulses (Fear Of Missing Out) without risking doing oneself severe financial harm.

And his background in marketing means that he is good at clear, non-technical explanation.

I was not particularly interested in the latter part of the book, but consider it sound. I felt this was written by someone with an interest in the subject, who wanted to convey their reasons for being interested, rather than as a "profit off the suckers" exercise. And I thought his initial explanations, which were what interested me and why I borrowed this from Kindle Unlimited, were adequately clear.

February #12:


Comet Weather by Liz Williams - 3 stars
13/2/2021-22/2/2021

This book is beautifully written, and slow moving, with an emphasis on relationships and landscapes. However it did not really work for me.

The characters of the four sisters were clearly drawn. I have no experience of siblings, but the dynamics of the relationships between them seemed plausible.

It is a very female-dominated book, and not just because the narrative switches between the points of view of the various sisters, but never to that of any of the men in their lives. Some of the men are good men, some are not, but the sense is always that they are peripheral and fundamentally unimportant, no matter how understanding they are, or how vital their actions. This sense is exacerbated by their mother's refusal to tell any of her daughters anything about their fathers. It is more usual to see women in fiction thus relegated to an automatically subsidiary rôle, but I did not feel any more comfortable with it because the genders are here reversed.

There is magic in the book right from the start, with talking trees and visiting stars, but for most of the book it is normal, for the protagonists, has no clear rôle to play; events only really start to occur about 80% of the way through. Maybe it was intended as an emotional climax, but as the build-up never quite worried for me, it just felt rather rushed.

The spirit of the book is rooted in the landscape, and that is where they problem lay for me. I am familiar with the areas described; they are part of my growing up. It has been a long time since I have been there, but the descriptions did not gel with my memories. I found this particularly true in the descriptions of the barrow mounds - her evocation of entering it presumes a much larger space than what I found on entering Wayland's Smithy, for example. The white horses, the stone circles the barrows - the landscape of that part of England has a real sense of the numinous, of ancient ways, of continuity with the past. But the author's vision of this was so far removed from my own that they clashed rather than reinforced.

The presence of the Behenian stars seemed an odd factor. I had to look them up, and found that they play a rôle in astrological theory.

And I think this is a problem for me, where it might not be for another reader. For me, the two "magical" traditions, as it were, are completely separate. There is the folklore tradition, which encompasses elements of ancient beliefs, and blurs the boundaries between Nature and magic. And then there are the ritual magic traditions of the astrologers and alchemists, who work by calculation and theory.

In the context of the story, it makes sense, since the grandfather of the sisters was an astrologer.

It just jarred for me. I am familiar with the traditions of "the Old Ways". They are part of my heritage, and rooted in the landscape around me. The calculations of ritual magicians are alien to that. As a scientist, I find their theories fascinating, but this is something completely separate.

Note: I am not intending this comment as criticism of anyone who does mix both traditions in their own beliefs and practices.My comment is personal: the one is part of my background, the other is completely alien to me.

This syncretism brought in the unfamiliar amidst the invocation of a world I know (and love). So the juxtaposition did not draw me into the landscape and the picture being painted.

There were other uses of language that also "threw me out of the story". I have never heard of a "rainslicker" before - why would an Englishwoman pick an American term for her coat? Or use the metaphors of baseball - "throw a curveball" - rather than usual "throw a googly"? And why would a young woman who is familiar with traveller culture, and anxious to use vocabulary correctly and not offend, refer to herself as a gorgio - a non-Romany man?

None of the above are totally implausible. But in a story so dependent on evoking a mood, these little jolts of "Eh - what?" prevented my ever being fully drawn in.

There was also the oddity of the visiting American cousin. She did nothing for the entire book, she never really said anything, she was never a point of view character so we never learnt that she thought, and then at the end of the book she went home.

That said, the observant, lyrical style of the writing is such that I would consider reading further. Note that I have some idea of the author's world-view for her setting, I may feel more comfortable with another story set within it.

I much preferred The Green Man's Heir series, by Juliet E. McKenna, as recommended by pgmcc, for dealing with this ambiance.

Helmet Reading Challenge 2021: #14, #21, #41

>216 -pilgrim-: strange that she'd pick US English terminology over UK...her bio says she's from the UK.

>216 -pilgrim-: >217 fuzzi: Maybe her editor was American? Or maybe someone thought a baseball image would be more globally familiar than one from cricket?

>217 fuzzi:, >218 Jim53:
I am wondering if she is consciously pitching to an American readership.

The pointless American cousin might also be explained by that, if she believes that a proportion of Americans are unable to feel involved in a book unless there is an American character. (That is a statement that I have heard; like "boys aren't interested in books with female protagonists", I suspect that this is a proposition that carries more weight in the publishing industry than in real life.)

My impression is that paganism has a greater visibility in the US than in the UK, in terms of shops specifically catering to that demographic. So, if she is thinking in terms of marketing outlets that might carry her book, that attitude would make sense. (As the owner of a witchcraft shop, she will know the market.)

However it is a bit strange for a narrative so rooted in the English landscape.

N.B.: I do know Glastonbury; it does have a rather unique ambience.

>219 -pilgrim-: I've never put down a book that was written by/for someone in the UK. I've had to look up cricket terms while reading some of them ;) but never let different language/terminology barriers keep me from reading.

>220 fuzzi: I have noticed that a lot of US publishers "translate" books to American English when buying the publication rights. This is particularly true with children's books, of course. The notorious substitution of "Sorceror's Stone" for "Philosopher's Stone" is an obvious example, but apparently JKR has to fight very hard to keep the ambience of a British public school, with crumpets etc., against publishers who wanted to turn Hogwarts into something more familiar to American schoolchildren.

British publishers seem to have more respect for ability to cope with a foreign culture. I occasionally get frustrated when an American author is assuming that I have more familiarity with US life than I do (e.g. what is the range of various legal remits, or minutiae of the judicial process), but like you, I simply resort to a dictionary.

I think the xenophobic reader tends to be a bogeyman invented to terrify authors, rarely encountered in the wild.

(See my review of The Fuller Memorandum (above), the first time that I have read the U.S. edition of a book in a UK-set series by a British author. The other books were packed with British pop culture references, on which much of the humour is based. There was far less this time, so either the tone has changed, or an American editor has removed all the references that they did not think an American readership would understand.)

My personal opinion is that such "babying" insults most of the readership.

Agreed on the "babying", which is probably done to promote sales, at least in their opinions.

I remember reading the Narnia books and wondering what a "torch" was. I figured it out by context.

>222 fuzzi: What would you call one?

ETA: for me, a flashlight is something slightly different.

>223 -pilgrim-: a torch is a stick of some sort that can be lit on fire. It could be wood or perhaps metal such as a tiki torch.

>216 -pilgrim-: As an American, I've not heard the term rainslicker.

>225 jjwilson61: I have, probably mainly from reading Westerns. Oh, and a slicker is also a reference to a fisherman's gear, aka sou'ester.

>224 fuzzi: No, I agree with that definition of a torch - a stick-shaped object that provides illumination when lit.
But you said you had to look it up, when you encountered it in the Narnia books. So what would you call a torch?

>227 -pilgrim-: the battery-powered light that Edmund had in Prince Caspian was a flashlight:

>228 fuzzi:
No, that is a torch.

A flashlight is free-standing, although it may be portable, usually halogen, and may have a shutter for rapid Morse code signalling. Basically, the modern upgrade of a lantern.

:)
It's wonderful how we seem to mean the same things when we don't.

>229 -pilgrim-: In the US, what >228 fuzzi: posted is called a flashlight. I have run across this numerous times in reading where I have to translate the British 'torch' to the USian 'flashlight'. Same with 'garden' and 'yard', and numerous other terms. For instance, what I call my back yard, people in the UK call their garden. My understanding is that, in the US, a garden is generally a growing patch, (vegetables, flowers, etc), that is an area portioned off within the yard.

UK vs US

Bonnet = hood

Boot = trunk

Holiday = vacation

:D

>231 fuzzi:
tap = faucet
pavement = sidewalk

...and so on.

But it is things like yard, flashlight, bathroom, faculty, professor and the infamous pants that are the really fascinating bits - the times when we use the same words but actually mean different things.

Yep. I like seeing the differences.

Except...you Brits drive on the wrong side of the road... :D

>232 -pilgrim-: Agreed! I find that stuff fascinating as well. Being of Scandinavian descent, and having some (limited vocabulary) of the language at my disposal, it's interesting to see similarities between languages that, at first glance, appear completely different. It's equally interesting to see differences between languages that are very, very similar, especially where the same word has completely different usages.

>233 fuzzi: Yeah, that freaked me out when we visited London. I was ultra-conscious of using crosswalks - and I still almost forgot to look to the right a couple of times! It's the 'sameness' of the road appearance that makes it a surprise when the traffic comes at you from the opposite direction of where we are accustomed. People die every year because of that. When my family emigrated from Sweden, their roads were the same as England. When I went back for a visit four years later, everything had been switched over to driving on the right side of the road. All of that was before I was old enough to drive though so I don't recall it having a very big personal impact. But I clearly remember my sister and her new American husband coming to live in Sweden for about a year before returning to the states. He had his brand new Ford Thunderbird shipped in - with the steering wheel on the 'wrong' side for the local roads...

>234 ScoLgo: I remember when Sweden changed the side of the road for driving.

When Ireland joined the EU there was some talk of switching here. There was one paper that joked about the plan for the switch over. The plan, a phased approach, said that on a particular day the cars driving on the left side of the road would move to driving on the right and if, after two weeks, that was going well then the cars driving on the right would switch over to the left.

Although I’ve been familiar with the UK term of “torch” for a long time, the first thing I see in my head when I read the word “torch” is something with an open flame. If somebody writes that they read in bed under the covers with a torch, I can’t help but picture a serious flaming bed issue even while I know what they meant. ;)

In the UK, do you use the word “torch” as a verb meaning to set something on fire?

>223 -pilgrim-:, >234 ScoLgo: When I visited London in 2009, I saw a lot of curbs with the words “look right” printed on them. I laughed a little the first time I saw it, but it did help a lot. I always saw the reminder before I reached the curb, so I looked in the correct direction as I approached it.

In my area we have a “reversible lane” on one of our high-traffic roads. I think there are a few roads like that still around in the US, but this was the first one I’d encountered.

There are 3 lanes. The far left and far right lanes always go in the direction you would expect, while the middle lane varies. In the morning when everybody is heading South toward the city, the middle lane traffic goes south. In the evening when everybody is heading back North toward their homes, the middle lane traffic goes north. There are lights above the lane to indicate whether you’re allowed to drive in it, but it has definitely caused confusion and accidents. I believe I read something a while back about plans to get rid of it, but it sounded like a pretty major construction project that would make the traffic even worse than it already is for quite a while.

>235 pgmcc: I'm glad they didn't implement that particular plan!

>236 YouKneeK: We visited in 2000 and I don't recall seeing those markings. Either I was not paying attention, (likely), or they were added during the intervening 9 years.

I have the same mental image of 'torch' as you have.

EtA: >237 YouKneeK: Here in the Seattle area, we have the infamous I-5 "Express Lanes". It's an 8-mile long, multi-lane section of the freeway that is southbound in the AM and northbound in the PM. Luckily, there is a crew that fully closes off all access in one direction before opening the on-ramps in the other direction. Otherwise, we would have a daily scenario such as Peter describes in >235 pgmcc:!

>233 fuzzi:

That is because we, like the Swedes (see >234 ScoLgo:), were never conquered by Napoleon. So we have stuck with the traditional side.

It's far more sensible; how else can you keep your sword ready to make a cut at the rum blighter charging in the opposite direction? (You are right-handed, one presumes.) :)

>238 ScoLgo: That sounds like it would be quite a production! The reversible lane out my way doesn’t have any way of being blocked off. You either pay attention to the lighted signs above the lane and do what you’re supposed to do… or you don’t. I assume the accidents I hear about are during times when there's less traffic, maybe from people traveling at a different time of day than they usually do.

A personal favorite in terms: pot plants, and potted shrimp. Also knocking someone up.

I really do think publishers miss the mark in trying to change out the differences in terms. How else are we to know we are in another fantastical land, than if they speak a foreign language?

>237 YouKneeK: There used to be a 3-lane bridge in Sydney where the middle lane was reversible. There was a flexible strip divider in the road that switched from side to side to prevent you entering the wrong-way lane.

There are still road signs on pedestrian crossings here with "look left" or "look right", as appropriate, on them. After years of living in a country that drives on the other side, I need those signs from time to time.

>241 MrsLee: Also "to pot" as in "to shoot a sitting bird" (most unsporting).

>237 YouKneeK: I've seen roads where the outside lanes go the way you expect, but the third, middle lane is used for overtaking. In both directions. One is supposed to look before using it ...

Actually there is (or was) a rare idea that was even more hazardous. AFAIK it was done as a means of poverty relief in Rhodesia in the early 1930s. Remember that bitumen for tarring roads was all imported and hence expensive. So they laid two strips of tar each 3 feet wide, with a 3 foot gap in between, down the middle of a gravel road. You placed the car's wheels on the tar strips and drove until you saw someone coming the other way, then (if you were Rhodesian, only at the last moment) yielded the right-hand strip to the oncoming traffic, placing your left-hand wheels on the gravel. There was a later adaptation where they tarred the middle strip to give a "narrow-mat" road. Encountering a motor-bike one one such was, ahem, interesting. The bike had the right to use the exact middle of the road, and the car had to go completely on to the gravel on the right to squeeze past. These roads were anything but straight, and most of the vegetation is miombo, woodland about 8 feet tall and solid enough for Snoopy to walk across the top.

ETA: In theory at least (given passports, visas, ICMV, IDP, carnets etc.) one drives on the correct (i.e. left :-P) side of the road all the way to Angola, DR Congo or Ethiopia.

>241 MrsLee: What us different/controversial about pot plants or potted schrimp?

(I am aware that the concept of a designated knocker-upper can raise American eyebrows ;-). )

>242 haydninvienna: A “flexible strip divider” sounds interesting and much safer!

>243 hfglen: The tar strip "roads" sound very precarious! In the US, on a two lane road with one lane going in each direction, the yellow center line is either solid or dashed to indicate where it’s safe to overtake the car in front of you by driving in the opposite lane. If the line is solid, visibility is poor due to upcoming curves or hills, so you should stay where you are no matter how torturously slow the person in front of you is going. If the line isn’t solid, then you're free to be the judge of whether or not you can safely drive the wrong way down the road and get back into the correct lane before having a head-on collision. I drove on a lot of roads like that when I lived in Ohio and was never very comfortable with overtaking people that way. Somebody had to be going very slow before I would overtake them, even if the road appeared clear. I also had people from the opposite direction get uncomfortably close to me while overtaking somebody in their direction.

>244 -pilgrim-: I’m not sure about potted shrimp, but “pot” in the US is another term for marijuana, so a “pot plant” sounds like a marijuana plant. In the US we would call a plant (of any variety) in a pot a “potted plant”. I guess a marijuana plant in a pot would be a potted pot plant…

>245 YouKneeK: I suppose I ought to borrow a gun and pot the potted pot plant...

Your lane markings sound a little different to the British system. On an ordinary road, with one lane in either direction, there are TWO lines down the centre (with the cat's eyes in between, if it is an unlit road). You may cross to overtake if the lane nearest you is broken. This allows for situations such as a hill, where the descending traffic has sufficient acceleration for overtaking, but that climbing does not have visibility over the peak, or a bend, where the vehicles on the outer side have greater visibility.

My pet hate in driving regulations was the German Autobahn lane merge, which (instead of consistently giving priority to one lane or the other) mandated alternating priority: so if the car in front of you in your lane had right of way, then you did not, and so on. Given no speed limit, I found it an interesting manoeuvre to perform...

>246 -pilgrim-: LOL :)

Oh, ours are the same with two lines in the center and the line closest to you is the one you follow in terms of determining whether your lane is permitted to cross over. I forgot to mention that part of it.

>245 YouKneeK: Our centre lines are the same but white, sometimes with solid white lines on both sides of a broken line where it's very dangerous to stray out of lane.

Fortunately "strip" roads were almost extinct "up north" (the only place I've ever heard of them existing) already in 1971; since then there is only one short stretch remaining as a national monument, near Masvingo. They worked when they were made because there were very few cars on the road -- even in 1971 it was unusual to see more than one oncoming vehicle in ten miles or so of "narrow mat".

And in Scotland you have single track roads, where the road is only wide enough for one car, and if you meet someone coming the other way one of you has to back up to the next passing place - a designated wider space where it is safe to pass.

The most hair-raising road-related experience I've had was in India, when being driven on a major highway. Our driver wanted to stop at a particular service area for breakfast, but it was on the other side of the dual carriageway (divided highway). So at the junction prior to the break area, he pulled over onto the opposite carriageway and drove up the hard shoulder, with traffic speeding past us in the other direction! And this was in a monsoon rain shower, to add to the fun! (We made it safely there and the breakfast was excellent! This rest stop is apparently one favoured by the Indian Cricket Team.)

>249 Sakerfalcon: Single track roads are not only in Scotland! I know villages in southwest England that are only reachable by single track roads. And there are even some in the Home Counties as well.

>216 -pilgrim-: I'm about 25 pages in and already feel like DNFing. I may try Blackthorn Winter, since it contains a Wild Hunt motif and NorthernStar feels it can be read as a standalone.

>249 Sakerfalcon: I’ve never driven on single-track roads, but I’ve heard some tales of them and they sounds like something I would want to avoid at all costs! Especially the ones winding up a mountain.

>249 Sakerfalcon: Years ago, working in southern British Columbia, I spent some time around the very small town of Tulameen, one of the few places I've heard of where platinum occurs in placer deposits. The road in to the town was a single lane, along a cliff, with only a few passing places. Even worse, if you looked at the road from the other side of the valley, you could see that it was actually built out from the cliff on a structure of open wooden timbers. I don't know if it is still like that, but at the time it was the only road into town. I was so happy when we finished our work in that area!

>251 libraryperilous: I am currently reading Blackthorn Winter. Certainly more is happening.

I don't wish to put you off, at least until I have read further, but the impression that I am getting is this:
the author has a particular set of beliefs, which affect her daily life. Living and working within that milieu, she is so accustomed to that mindset that she assumes that her readers share it - without her needing to specify what that is.

The traditions that I am familiar with are not the background that she is coming from. FWIW, the concept of a "witchcraft shop" (such as the author makes her living from), is an oxymoron to me. I do know practising pagans, but they share the traditional beliefs that HOW one obtains components and tools are themselves part of the ritual, and that the exchange of money itself has an effect on the result. I have heard that witchcraft shops are "a thing" in the US, so maybe her outlook is more familiar to you.

It is a common flaw of novice fantasy authors to have their imaginary world incredibly detailed inside their head, in which they set their adventures. They then write a novel describing that story, and forget that their readers are not privy to the inside of their heads, and do not know the world in which the story is set, but need to be told about it.

I am unclear whether that is what is happening here (i.e. failure to describe one's fictional world), or whether the disconnect is that her writing is set within a belief system with which the author assumes her readers are familiar, when I am not.

I am not averse to novels that do not explain anything, but simply dump you in a situation and let you slowly work out what is going on, but the "reveal" needs to happen at some point before the end.

>242 haydninvienna: aha! Taking a "pot shot"??

My review of The Life and Death Parade by Eliza Wass is here.

>255 fuzzi: ...ready for the pot.

Who is the author of the particular Blackthorn Winter you're discussing, if I may interrupt? There are at least half a dozen works in Amazon by that title. The touchstone showing up for me has an associated author name of Detweiler. Is that the right one?

>258 jillmwo: Liz Williams Blackthorn Winter.

>259 NorthernStar: That's correct. Thank you.

>258 jillmwo: It is the sequel to the book we had been discussing, Comet Weather.

February Summary

Average rating: 2.83 stars
Weighted average: 3.40

10 fiction:
Novels: 2 science fiction, 1 urban fantasy
Novella: 1 children's science fiction
Short stories: 2 satire, 2 science fiction
2 graphic novels

1 short story and novella anthology

1non-fiction:
1 finance

Original language: 9 English, 3 Russian

Earliest date of first publication: 1978 (Star Ka'at World)/1925 (The Bathhouse (short story))
Latest: 2021 (Bear Head)

6 Kindle, 4 website, 2 paperback

Authors: 27 male, 4 female
Author nationality: 19 Russian, 8 American, 3 British, 1 Serbian
New (to me) authors: 22 (6 familiar)

Most popular book on LT: The Fuller Memorandum (1,284)
Least popular: Nervous People/The Bathhouse (short stories)/The Crypto Mindset (only me)/Bear Head (12)

No. of books read: 12
From Mount TBR (books owned before 2021): 2
Books owned before joining Green Dragon: 1
No. of books acquired: 32 (29 eBooks, 2 paperbacks, 1 hardback)
No. of books disposed of: 1
Expenditure on books: £56.86

Best Book of February: Bear Head
Worst Book of February: Star Ka'at World

Books awaiting review from January: 2

Books still awaiting review from 2020:

Books awaiting review from January: 1
Books awaiting review from February: 1
Books awaiting review from March: 1
Books awaiting review from April: 1
Books awaiting review from October: 3
Books awaiting review from December: 4

January #10:


The Quantum Curators and the Fabergé Egg (Book 1 of The Quantum Curators by Eva St. John - 2.5 stars
23/1/2021

This story has two versions of Earth: Alpha and Beta. The inhabitants of Alpha are aware that the multiverse theory predicts that there should be infinitely many, but so far they have only managed to reach one through the Q-Field. They consider that they are superior to the "Betas", "because they have abolished religion, except as practiced in private, and so have not had any wars". This, according to the narrator, is why they are more technologically advanced than on the parallel Earth. It thus, apparently, entitles them to steal valuable works of art from Beta-Earth, when the Q-Field (somehow) informs them that the objects have a high probability that they are about to be destroyed or completely lost, and take them for their own mouseion.

The dividing point came with the burning of the Library of Alexandria. In the Beta Earth (which seems to be ours) the repository of knowledge was destroyed, and Julius Caesar went on to establish the Roman Empire. In the Alpha version, Caesar was drowned in the return voyage, so that the Roman Empire never happened, and the peoples of Asia and Africa banded together to create a society based on science.

The problem with this set up is that the Alphas are not different enough.

The main protagonist settled disagreements with co-trainees with her fists - if this is her immediate impulse, HOW did her world manage to "never have any wars"? Most wars have been fought to gain economic advantage, or the desire for power (whilst often using religious differences to identify an Other that it is 'acceptable' to attack). Since greed, and the desire for power, are shown to be motivating factors among the leaders in Alpha Earth too, just as in ours.

Either the Alphas should have developed differently, with different values, and lack the desire for wealth and prestige, whilst having a strong taboo against violent expression of emotion - or their history should be more like ours.

It is harder to motivate people to fight, and possibly die, for a cause without positing a reward in "the afterlife" to motivate them. But there have been enough bloody, atheist revolutions in the 20th century alone - in Russia, in China, in Cambodia, ##the Shining Path - to demonstrate that absence of religion does not mean an absence of willingness to die for a cause.

I would also question the author's assumption - or maybe it is just the character's - that technological progress would be greater without wars. Why?

In Alpha Earth, greed seems to be a motivating factor, much as it is (and has usually been) here. So what motivates those who have wealth (however defined), to expend it on supporting the work of those whose researches have no immediate commercial application? The desire of an extremely wealthy individual to spend a portion of his wealth altruistically produces miniscule funding compared to a ruler who is losing an arms race, and needs a new 'big thing'. Leonardo da Vinci's ##patron was funding him because of his ability to improve defences and develop new military technology.

I cannot avoid the impression that this was written by someone who knows nothing about anthroplogical theories of societal development.

And, although Alpha Earth is being described as a utopia, it seems to me to be worryingly fascist in its operating principles.

In terms of style, this book was so obviously written by someone who has been taught "how to write a novel".

There are the two points of view - one in the first person as a narrator, the other in "close third" (i.e. a 3rd person account, but one in which the reader gets to see his thoughts). Chapters are helpfully labelled with the POV character for each - which the author evidently should have paid more attention to herself, as she appears to be 'inside' the wrong person's head at one point.

It feels forced and clumsy.

However, this is a debut novel, and it does have a novel premise. I am aware that the glorification of fascist ideas may be a viewpoint of the characters, rather than the author's own idea of an ideal society. We are seeing Alpha Earth through the eyes of (i) its own citizens, who have been taught from birth to believe that they live in a utopia (they is worth making sacrifices for) and (ii) a visitor, new to the world, who is naturally impressed by its technological superiority, particularly in medicine, and their cultural wealth, which is all the greater for including all that they have "liberated" from his own world.

I decided to continue, to see where the author was going with this.

January #11:

The Quantum Curators and the Enemy Within (Book 2 of the Quantum Curators series) by Eva St. John - 2.5 stars
24/1/2021-25/1/21

I continued with this series because the premise was interesting - although possibly rather derivative of some other modern novels that I have not read -and because I feel one should give some leeway to a debut novel (when I read the books for free on Kindle Unlimited).

This sequel seemed to correct some of the problems that I had noted in the first book; and the degree of difference between the excerpt from this book, as presented at the end of the first one, and as it appears here is so great as to make it evident that this is an author still finding her way.

Julius is the main point of view protagonist here, and his views on the Alpha society point out its fascist overtones. He recognises, and is discomfited by, its indoctrination approach to history, its hiding of its own flaws, and the level of misinformation fed to its populace in the interests of "keeping them call and preventing unrest". The fact that attitude, shared by almost all of the people he meets, to the denizens of Beta Earth, is a racist dogma, is painful to Julius. He is far from welcome. This is made clear by the explicit statement that they only permitted him to enter the training course to become a Curator because they expected him to fail.

The self-indulgent, selfish culture of this world is again emphasised by the fact that Neith, distressed by the events at the end of the first book, goes off to mope alone for six months, leaving Julius isolated on a strange world, without even any instruction in its customs and laws, let alone moral support in a hostile environment. He does point this out to her, but she makes it clear that her self-pity still takes priority in her opinion. Her cruelty to a childhood friend - who seems a really decent guy, and just as traumatised as Neith - falls into the same category.

But having, to a certain extent, addressed the issues that I had with the first book, she has introduced more. In The Quantum Curators and the Fabergé Egg I had the impression that the fact that this version of the Library of Alexandria had been by a combined action of African and Asian peoples explained why the majority of Curators were of those ethnicities.

In Julius' class of trainee Curators, the ethnic mix seems to be more what you might expect in an American university environment. If there are a reasonable pool of Curators with a North European genetic heritage and appearance, why do they keep sending dark-skinned Curators to locations and time periods where they do not resemble the local population, given that it is the duty of a Curator to blend in?

There seems to be an underlying assumption that only Western European culture (on our Earth) produced and treasures worthy of preservation - and so all Curators work in that field, no matter how much their appearance there is problematic.

Much of this story involves Julius and Neith going under cover in 15th century France. Neith's unwillingness to speak devotionally, as would be expected from a Saracen convert on pilgrimage, because of her own atheist beliefs, again demonstrates what a poor agent she actually is. (A narrative that tells me she is "the best" whilstshowing her to be incompetent at every turn, is extremely irritating.)

Once we get back, the story starts dealing with the underlying problems that were identified, but not addressed, in the previous book. The aspect that most irritated me in the last book, that the people of Alpha Earth behaved in the same way as Beta Earth, turns out to be the major plot point here.

However, it still does not answer my original question - if they are as selfish, power-hungry, petty and prone to violence as a means of settling disputes in their personal lives as the people of our Earth, how DID they manage to stay free of war for centuries?

If one treats these first two books as really just one, then the story this time does come to a reasonable conclusion. But the "How?" and the "Who is behind it all?" are still left unanswered.