Sunday, May 16, 2010

Ronnie James Dio

[Note: The following has absolutely nothing to do with books, but it’s something I had to write.]

I just found out that Ronnie James Dio died. It’s strange, in a way. I’ve never met Dio; I’ve never seen him perform; I’ve never heard his normal voice; and I’ve only seen a few pictures of him. And yet, I feel like some of the color has the left the world forever, and it’s not coming back.

I’m listening to Rainbow’s Rising as I type this, and I think it’s the twenty-fifth time that I’ve heard it, but now the real world’s seeped into the album. The music’s the same as it always was: the chorus of Starstruck I can never stop myself from trying to sing along with (The Lady’s starstruck; she’s nothing but bad luck!), the epic journey of Stargazer, where Dio’s voice draws the listener into his own visions and where the listener beautifully bleeds for each laid brick alongside the narrator (Where is your star? Is it far, is it far, is it far? When do we leave? I believe, yes, I believe, I believe!).

Now, though, an extra note has entered the album; it’s a quiet note, inaudible compared to the rest, but it’s there all the same. The album’s highs and lows have something else added to them: the knowledge that the man enveloping us in his world is never going to sing again. That he’s gone, and that something as iconic as Stargazer, or Children of the Sea, Heaven and Hell, Holy Diver, The Bible Black, and so many others, can die.

But can they? No, I don’t think that they can. Dio’s gone, and the man of 67 that stood in front of crowds and sang with Heaven and Hell, the man that had to cancel shows to try and fight his stomach cancer, he will never sing another note. The man that stood in a recording studio in 1976 and sang A Light in the Black, though, he’s still here. The man that jammed with Tony Iomi in 1980 and made up the lyrics to Children of the Sea on the spot, he’s still with us. Just because he’s not there to lead us doesn’t mean we can no longer give him the horns.

In the misty morning, on the edge of time
We've lost the rising sun, a final sign
As the misty morning rolls away to die
Reaching for the stars, we blind the sky

We sailed across the air before we learned to fly
We thought that it could never end
We'd glide above the ground before we learned to run, run
Now it seems our world has come undone

Oh they say that it's over
And it just had to be
Ooh they say that it's over
We're lost children of the sea, oh

We made the mountains shake with laughter as we played
Hiding in our corner of the world
Then we did the demon dance and rushed to nevermore
Threw away the key and locked the door

Dio the man is gone, but his music is still here, and it’s the most incredible legacy that any of us can aspire to leave behind us. As long as his work is still with us, Dio is too.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Reading Habits

For a time, I tried to resist this meme, but, really, what choice did I have? After all, who am I to argue with the collective wisdom of just about the whole blogosphere?

Do you snack while you read? If so, favorite reading snack:

I lack the multitasking ability needed to eat and read. Besides, I'm too terrified that I'll get something on the book.

What is your favorite drink while reading?
While this seems like a very useful skill, it's one I'm having some trouble developing. I've tried reading and drinking seltzer with a huge amount of lemon in it (which is absolutely delicious, refreshing, and unlikely to cause your premature death), but I need to bring the reading to a full halt to summon the concentration needed to bring the glass to my lips without serious mishap occurring.

How do you keep your place while reading a book? Bookmark? Dog-ears? Laying the book flat open?
I'm obsessive about the condition of my books, but I have no problem dog earing mass market paperbacks. It's just too convenient to stop. Hardcovers, though, get either bookmarks or me awkwardly trying to remember what page I was up to (and then finally finding my spot just before I have to stop reading). Trade paperbacks are a case by case basis.

Do you tend to mark your books as you read, or does the idea of writing in books horrify you?

The idea of applying my own ink to the same paper that was graced with the ink of someone like VanderMeer is a thought so blasphemous I'm tempted to dust my entire collection in order to banish it. That being said, I do take note of passages that I either really enjoy (for my Obese Quotation Hell word document) or want to use in a review. If it's a book I'd dog ear anyway, I'll just dog ear the pages. If it's a hardcover, I'll frequently either write page numbers on the book mark (I usually use whatever's at hand - my current book mark, for instance, is the old keycard from a hotel I stayed at two or so years ago that I found in my drawer), or, if that's not a good option, write all the page numbers on a separate sheet of paper.

Fiction, nonfiction, or both?
My pleasure reading is always fiction.

Are you a person who tends to read to the end of a chapter, or can you stop anywhere?
Chapters at the least. I'm the kind of person who will read a short story of less than a hundred pages in a single sitting, no matter what. Stopping in the middle of a page just feels wrong, even if there're forty five more pages in the chapter, I should have been sleeping an hour ago, and I'm not all that into the book in the first place.

Are you the type of person to throw a book across the room or on the floor if the author irritates you?
There are people who do that? Really? I always thought it was a myth, like the bogeyman or something. I propose that anyone who's intentionally injured a book should have their reading privileges revoked for a period of time equivalent to the damage inflicted. Hell, I carefully stack the books I'm planning to give away the next day.

If you come across an unfamiliar word, do you stop and look it up right away?

Nah, that would break the flow far too much. I'll generally try to remember it if it looks interesting, but all but the most fascinating sounding are forgotten by the time I get to a computer or dictionary. Ah well, I guess my perspicacity* must be helpful here, as you can generally tell from the context.

* This may or may not be a word that inspired me to actually go find out what it means earlier today

What are you currently reading?
Wrapping up Stephen King's The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon. Up until page 150, it was unbelievably riveting. I then wondered where he could possibly take it. It seems he was wondering the same thing, because we've just been meandering around since then(, and I'm damn close to the end).

What is the last book you bought?
I have poor self control, and I rarely want just one book, so I usually buy books in bulk. For instance, the last time I bought books I bought:

Steph Swainston - The Year of Our War
Simon Ings - The City of the Iron Fish
Thomas Ligotti - Songs of a Dead Dreamer (Preorder)
Patrick Rothfuss - The Adventures of the Princess and Mr. Whiffle (Preorder)
Neil Gaiman - American Gods (An audiobook present for mother's day...if only she'd realized what I meant when I asked if she could play mp3s. Well, nothing's funner than wasting money...)

This probably wouldn't be so bad if I just bought books every few months, but I purchased six or seven books in the beginning of April (though I'll have mercy and not list them here).

Are you the type of person that reads one book at a time, or can you read more than one?


For novels, I always read one at a time. It's not that I can't concentrate on two so much as I can't see a good reason to. Short story collections can be different, though. I've got to read one for a class fairly soon, and I'll be mixing the stories with Algernon Blackwood's, just in case.

Do you have a favorite time/place to read?
Really, I'll read anywhere. I love to sit at home and read a hundred pages, but I'll also bring a book along and read it during three minute checkout lines. Hell, I've even managed to corrupt exercise; I now read books while I go on the most badass of all workout machines: the exercise bike.

Do you prefer series books or stand alones?


No preference, really. I almost never read two books by the same author in a row, though, so series frequently take me months to complete. I've been gnawing away at Malazan, for instance, for well over half a year by now.

When it comes to reviewing, I much prefer standalones. It feels odd to condense an entire series into a single review (and prevents you from really discussing later books for fear of spoiling the first), but I have a hard time conceiving of a trilogy of reviews that wouldn't involve putting the same words in a different order again and again.

Is there a specific book or author you find yourself recommending over and over?
Not really, but that's because I haven't done very many general recommendation posts on here. On forums, though, I've been known to advocate VanderMeer's City of Saints and Madmen or Veniss Underground to a slightly unhealthy degree at times. When it comes to genre newcomers (or just people who don't hang out on message boards debating the relative qualities of relatively obscure releases), I recommend Martin for fantasy and Reynolds for science fiction day in and day out, by which I mean on the one or two occasions I've ever been asked.

How do you organize your books? (by genre, title, author’s last name, etc.)
I've got a single book case (and another improntu shelf on top of my dresser), and, at a very, very conservative estimate, I've bought two a hundred fifty books in the past year and a half. The books that don't get shelf space join one of the five towering piles of Couch Books that have rendered my couch kinda useless for anything else. As for organization, I keep authors together, and my shelves DO have some kind of general idea, even if it's one only known to me. For instance, my third shelf has: Malazan (Erikson and Esslemont mingling), my two Jim Butcher books on top of Malazan, Wolfe to the right, then Rothfuss, Card, and Herbert, with Vance atop the last three. My dream, however, is something like this.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Songs of a Dead Dreamer Shipped

Subterranean press's edition of Ligotti's Songs of a Dead Dreamer just shipped on amazon, which means that it's pretty much perfectly in sync with its March 31st release date. Oh, wait...

Well, this should be good enough to justify the delay. I haven't read any of Ligotti's work yet, save for his A Soft Voice Whispers Nothing story (in The New Weird anthology). Within a sentence of that, however, I knew that Ligotti was an author I needed to learn more about. His prose bowled me over like a fist; it was the same sheer awe that I'd first felt upon reading Lovecraft. If you, like me, haven't gotten into Ligotti yet, this looks like a great place to start; it's a definitive rerelease of his first collection (and, since it's Subterranean, you know it's gonna be a sight to behold). C'mon May 26th to June second...

Thursday, May 13, 2010

China Miéville Interviewed (Elsewhere)

Alright, alright, I'm aware that I'm not the only person to post this interview. In fact, I'll wager that I'm not in the first hundred. I do, however, want to draw attention to a slightly different part of it (though I won't deny that Miéville doing SF is a mouth watering proposition):

It seems sometimes that monsters are only considered valid if they are supported by some deeper meaning, but they can be enjoyed for what they are too,” he said. “When I was a kid I drew squids and robots because I loved them and I still feel that way now.

“Fantasy and science fiction can be literal as well as allegorical and there’s nothing wrong with enjoying a monster like a giant squid for what it is, as well as searching for metaphor.


I think that dichotomy (between social commentary and holy fuck that moth just owned that guy) is precisely what makes Miéville books such excellent reads, and I think it's the skewing of that dichotomy that made The City and The City less gripping than its predecessors.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Neil Gaiman - Neverwhere

Richard wrote a diary entry in his head.

Dear Diary
, he began. On Friday I had a job, a fiancée, a home, and a life that made sense. (Well, as much as any life makes sense.) Then I found an injured girl bleeding on the pavement, and I tried to be a Good Samaritan. Now I’ve got no fiancée, no home, no job, and I’m walking around a couple of hundred feet under the streets of London with the projected life expectancy of a suicidal fruitfly.

Neverwhere is about the idea that people can slip through the gaps in our modern society and discover a world – still existing in the shadows beneath modern London – that evokes the (literally) magical days of yore. It can easily be read as a condemnation of the modern world. Richard’s fiancée, Jessica, is a vapid woman whose interests include going to art museums (with no hint that she cares at all about the art) and going to fancy dinners (calibrated to charm her boss as much as humanly possible). How Richard escapes dreary reality is by an act of compassion, something that few (if any) of the “real world” characters show in Neverwhere.

London Below is not, however, paradise. After a period of terrifying acclimatization, Richard begins to view it as the vibrant opposite of everything the dreary, callous real world is, but can we really just give into our wishes and vacate reality quite so easily? Gary, Richard’s “real” friend, certainly doesn’t think so:

“I’ve passed the people who fall through the cracks, Richard: they sleep in shop doorways, all down the strand. They don’t go to a special London. They freeze to death in winter.”

Of course, the question of London Below’s reality is not central in the narrative. What is important to note, however, is that London Below is not a simple solution to all of Richard’s problems. The world of the underground is filled with just as much darkness and evil as London Above, and it’s not just of the black and white variety. It’s hard to say that the Lord Rat-speaker’s disregard for his follower’s well being is any better than the emptiness displayed by Richard’s coworkers in the book’s closing scenes.

London Below is the main “character” of Neverwhere. It remains throughout the book more of a style than a known quantity, but that fits with the wondrous, magical feelings that Gaiman is trying to evoke. The reader knows that the market meets every night in a different place, and the reader gets to experience the strangeness of the occasion, but (despite Richard’s questions) we never find out who sets it up.

The characterization of the other characters in Neverwhere is focused first on theme and setting, second on establishing realistic personalities…which is not to say that it doesn’t do both, on occasion. The most interesting character by far is Richard Mayhew, protagonist. He stands in for all of us in the modern age, to a degree, but there is always a slight disconnect between him and the real world scenes, even before his encounter with London Below. His relationship with Jessica consists of absent mindedly doing whatever she says, and his professional life is made remarkable only by the toy trolls that wage war across his desk. When he goes underground, he begins to develop a personality of his own, reacting to both the bizarre stimulus around him and his memories of his life above.

Other characters follow the same general principles, frequently archetypes that are given enough of a twist to appear fresh. Hunter, for instance, is practically obsession personified. She’s settled on a goal, and she’d determined to fulfill it at the expense of all else.

In addition to the forces of good, or close enough to it, Neverwhere also boasts two of the best villains ever conceived. Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar are blacker-than-black, wolflike in their tenacity, and absolutely hilarious:

“Are you bribing me?” [Varney] asked.

Mr. Vandemar had picked up the morning star. He was pulling the chain apart, with his free hand, link by link, and dropping the bits of twisted metal onto the floor. Chink. “No,” said Mr. Vandemar. Chink “We’re intimidating you.” Chink. “And if you don’t do what Mister Croup says, we’re…” chink. “hurting you…” chink “…very badly, before we’re…” chink “killing you.”

“Ah,” said Varney. “Then I’m working for you, aren’t I?”

“Yes, you are,” said Mr. Croup. “I’m afraid we don’t have any redeeming features.”

“That doesn’t bother me,” said Varney.

“Good,” said Mr. Croup. “Welcome aboard.”


The entire journey is held together by Gaiman’s brilliant prose. Gaiman alternates between description and comedic wording, but both are in evidence here. If the above quotes still haven’t convinced you of the greatness of Neverwhere’s prose, allow me and Gaiman to try and sway you once more:

They walked through an impressive lobby. Then they waited while the footman lit each of the candles on the candelabra. They went down some impressive richly carpeted stairs. They went down a flight of less impressive, less richly carpeted stairs. They went down a flight of entirely unimpressive stairs carpeted in a threadbare brown sacking, and, finally, they went down a flight of drab wooden stairs with no carpet on them at all.

Neverwhere is not a particularly original book, but Neverwhere is – cliché notwithstanding – about the journey rather than the destination, the dank feel of the air rather than the exact width of the tunnel. It’s true that you’ve probably read a few books like Neverwhere, but how many of them made you look at the real world when you were done reading and recoil at how empty it all seemed? Neverwhere does just that.

FURTHER READING
Aidan, of A Dribble of Ink, has got a review here. The review, and especially the comments, here are interesting with their comparisons to Gaiman's other works and Alice in Wonderland.

Sunday, May 9, 2010

An Addendum to Up and Coming (and Essential?) in May: Above the Snowline

These lists always turn out to bite me in the ass a bit. By the time the month's over, without fail, I will have discovered at least one thing that is just as necessary as anything on the list. As April rolled around, I saw Shine on a shelf and realized it came out far earlier than I realized. A few days ago I finally got around to looking up some of Ligotti's work, and what do you know, his Songs of a Dead Dreamer was (theoretically) rereleased in March.

This time's a bit different, though. I knew about this book at the time, but I didn't throw it up for the same reason that I didn't put Hobb's new releases up, despite my enjoyment of Hobb: I feel really uncomfortable having a latter book in a series that I haven't read. What happens if I read the series and it turns out to be shit? Now, I haven't read the whole series, here, but I've read the first book, and, from what I can see, this release is (wholly?) absent in the parts of the 'net that I frequent. The author is Steph Swainston, and the book is Above the Snowline:


I can't say much about it, having not read the preceding two volumes, but I will have quite a bit to say about her debut, The Year of Our War, in the coming days, and, if this is anything approaching that novel's quality, this is something to watch out for.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

An Addendum to my The City and The City Review

Over on his blog, Graeme posted the reading group questions from the back of The City and The City. Seeing as I'd done a review the day before, I felt that I had no choice at all but to spew out yet more wordage on the subject. My response can be found in the comments to his post, but I'll repost the main part of it here:

China Mieville says that he considers ‘The City & The City’ “a crime novel above all.” Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not?

Not at all, really. I think that the crime is important in that it's a breach of the social boundaries/rules that govern the novel, but I don't think that it is the defining event by any stretch of the imagination.

Try to think of the novel primarily in science fictional or fantasy terms instead of as a crime novel. Is there any evidence that the novel falls into either of these categories? How would looking at the novel from these perspectives change your perception of the story?

Well...that's exactly how I looked at it, so not much. I simply don't see how The City and The City could be expected to function without at least the guise of its speculative elements. As a crime novel, it's about someone who breaks a tradition that's too ridiculous to ever really believe in. As a fantasy, it's about someone who breaks a rule of nature that we gradually realize is merely arbitrary and man made. You end up at the same place, but only one allows (me) suspension of belief to any degree. Not to mention that, as a pure crime novel, the lackluster resolution to the mystery is even more of a blow.*

Mieville calls the crime novel “a kind of dream fiction masquerading as a logic puzzle.” What do you think he meant by that, and how does ‘The City & The City’ measure up to that definition?

It's an interesting definition, as, no matter how seemingly messy the mystery, there is always an underlying order to the bizarre events around it. I'd say that it could apply to The City and The City quite well, but only if one mangles Mieville's meaning a bit. This is, after all, a novel about what is almost a collective delusion (the unchangeable nature of our own perceptions), which has strict rationalizations underneath it. It is, in a way, showing us the flaws in our overly-neat perceptions of the world (IE, the standard mystery plot that, by nature, has a solution).*

Why do you think that Mieville… calls this novel an ‘anti-fantasy’? What does this term suggest to you? Do you agree that it describes ‘The City & The City’?

As is no doubt obvious by now, I agree completely. The City and The City undermines just about every expectation most go into genre novels armed with, but it does so in a way that relies on them precisely as much as it subverts them.

* Places where I cleaned up my wording or expressed my point better than I did in the comments.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

China Miéville - The City and The City

In the morning trains ran on a raised line meters from my window. They were not in my city. I did not of course, but I could have stared into their carriages – they were quite that close – and caught the eyes of foreign travelers.

[Note: I generally try to avoid spoilers in my reviews, but The City and The City is a novel about shifting perspectives and, as such, I don’t think that it would be possible to do anything more than a shallow overview without them, so be warned.]

China Miéville is no stranger to anticlimaxes. To one degree or another, every one of us his Bas Lag novels have ended in one. The City and The City, however, takes things to a whole new level. The book is, essentially, composed of two massive anticlimaxes.

The novel’s main idea is the overlapping nature of the cities of Beszel and Ul Qoma. The two cities inhabit the same geographic coordinates, yet are actually disparate in location. Despite the fact that their streets overlap, a journey into Ul Qoma consists of passing through strictly guarded borders, rather than crossing to the next block. At first, the whole experience seems delightfully surreal. When the concepts were first introduced, in the opening chapters of the novel, I imagined it as if reality was frayed in the area, with buildings phasing in and out of existence depending on how much crossover there was in the area. At this point in the novel, the reader’s main question is probably along the lines of how the two cities got to be the way they were, and how Breach – a secret police organization, of sorts, that brutally enforces the boundaries – manages to keep the two cities in line.

As the novel progresses, these fantastic layers are stripped away one by one. Near the beginning, we are told that:

I lived east and south a bit of the old town…It is a heavily crosshatched street – clutch by clutch of architecture broken by alterity, even in a few spots house by house. The local buildings are taller by a floor or three than the [Ul Qoma] buildings, so Besz juts up semiregularly and the roofscape is almost a machicolation.

At the time, it seems like this is an exceptional site, the occasion of the worst of the frayed-reality sites that I mentioned earlier (in my terminology, not Miéville’s). As the book continues, however, we come to realize that every part of the city is crosshatched. We come to understand that every Besz building is also, to some degree or other, a part of the Ul Qoma landscape, that every square foot of Ul Qoma also exists in Besz and that there is no fundamental difference between the two. The act of “breaching,” or travelling unauthorized from one to the other, is not one of violating a magical law, but rather the breaking of a social custom. Besz and Ul Qoma are the same city, they just like to pretend otherwise.

It’s commonly accepted that a large part of the allure of fantasy is the ability to deal with real world issues in a new way, analyzing concepts like race without the connotations that something like the Jim Crow Laws immediately drag into play. This is never put to better use than in The City and The City. The novel is about the incorporeal nature of the divides we put on ourselves. It is saying that the man next to us is, no matter what we think, actually not that different at all. By exaggerating our tendencies to stay within our social comfort zone to the point where we try our damndest to pretend any other doesn’t exist, Miéville makes us realize the flaws in our own perceptions.

Of course, such a thing could never work from the beginning of the novel. If The City and The City started with half the population simply ignoring the other half, we would find it ridiculous. Instead, the beginning implies that this all occurred in some fantastic, magical way, and that it is not the will of the individual occupants at all. Because of this, our initial transition into the world is a relatively easy one. As Miéville strips away the trappings of fantasy one by one, we are forced to recognize that he was talking about us all along.

Unfortunately, though the focus shifts from who made it like this, there’s nothing to make the question go away. If there was nothing otherworldly in its schizophrenic creation, why on earth have Beszel and Ul Qoma evolved the way that they have? The obsessive, unanimous, impossible drive that would be needed in the founding generation of such a place is something that I can’t conceive of. The city initially works as a storytelling device and gradually changes over to a thematic one, but the transformation to the latter effectively hamstrings the former.

That is only one of a few similar issues in the novel. In the beginning, Breach seems omnipotent in their ability to enforce the laws. Later, we discover that they have no superpowers at all. This is a necessary realization; a supernatural dividing force would be a bullet to the heart of the novel’s themes. That doesn’t mean that it makes any sense, however. If Breach is a police organization made exceptional only by their ability to traverse the boundaries, how can they appear at the scene of a cross-city accident in seconds?

The second great anticlimax of the novel deals with the plot of the story, and it goes hand in hand with the steady debunking of the city’s wonders. For the novel’s first sections, the mystery grows ever more complex. Eventually, it seems obvious that the force behind the throne, so to speak, is the mythic Orciny, a third city that is believed to be long extinct. Through tantalizing hints and small clues, Miéville builds our expectations of Orciny up to a fever pitch.

And then, in the same way that the fantastical nature of the cities was orchestrated to collapse from the word go, the entire thing turns out to be a very human puzzle, and it is backed by a very human evil. To a degree, this accomplishes the same slow but inevitable shift of perceptions that the change in world building does. At first, we need to feel no responsibility for the increasingly sinister shape that the conspiracy is taking. It is Orciny, a direct product of the bizarre, irreproducible structure of the cities. It turns out, however, that there is no supernatural agency in play at all; in fact, the whole thing is a literal example of the real world’s intrusion into the oddities of Beszel/Ul Qoma.

What is interesting from a thematic point of view, however, is not necessarily interesting form a plot point of view. After having Orciny built up for so long, it turns out to be nothing but the creation of an all but absent side character. Instead of a mind blowing revelation, the book’s climax takes the form of a long speech, in which Inspector Borlu reveals every piece of the puzzle, a scene that serves primarily to emphasize the underlying mundane nature of the whole book. Fascinating? Yes. Rewarding? No.

Any book that shifts our perceptions to such a degree could be hard to relate to, and The City and The City does much to magnify the problem. The book is written, as opposed to Miéville’s Bas Lag novels, in a very cinematic and understated prose style. Events are reported in a matter of fact way, with a minimum of stylistic flourishes. We see the actions of Inspector Borlu from the outside enough to get an idea of who he is, but we never get to see under the hood and learn what really makes him tick. The experience feels like following him from directly over his shoulder. We see what he sees, and we hear what he hears, but we never know what he’s thinking.

There has been much debate over whether The City and The City is a speculative work at all. Now, as I’ve repeated for much of the review, The City and The City has very, very few (if any) speculative elements. That being said, it reads as if it were a speculative novel for the vast majority of its length, and so I think that it should be undoubtedly counted as one. Let’s take one of Miéville’s earlier works. Perdido Street Station is undeniably speculative in nature, but what if, at the very end, someone in New York City had woken up and remarked upon the strange dream that they’d just had? The novel would then contain no speculative elements whatsoever, but would anyone really say that it was not a speculative novel? Though the degree is obviously quite different here, I think that the question of genre is one determined more by form and style than by literal content, and I think that The City and The City dons far more than enough of a genre costume for it to be considered beside Miéville’s other works.

In the end, The City and The City is a novel that is easier to admire than it is to enjoy. It is, at times, a page turner, but visceral pleasure and intellectual interest are in an inverse proportion here. When the novel feels like a fantastic mystery, you find yourself compulsively reading on, but unable to even begin to answer the myriad questions posed by the novel’s setting. When those questions are answered, however, the revelation sucks away much of the book’s thrill. The City and The City is something that I recommend to every genre fan, but it is not something that I can consider Miéville’s best work.

FURTHER READING

Abigail’s review is absolutely essential reading material. For a contrasting opinion, check out James’s take.

The day after I posted the review, Graeme posted the reading group questions from the back of Del Rey's The City and The City. My answers are here.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

A Few Notes on Review Order

As inconsequential as this instance may be, I don’t like lying to my readers, so I figured I’d come out and say that, when I said that Neverwhere would be getting a review this week in Reading in April, I was unaware that the next day I would be seized with a fit of inspiration and would pump out a review of The City and The City. Seeing as the month is over and there’s no longer any real reason to get the Neverwhere review out as soon as possible (I would’ve liked to be able to mention it in the aforementioned Reading in… post, but that wasn’t to happen), I’m going to post the Mieville first so that it will be up before I read (and review?) Kraken.

While I’m doing this, I feel I might as well mention the other two reviews in the queue and the promised article. I have not had writer’s block with regards to the Sanderson short or the King novel (every review up there is already written); they just keep getting pushed back by more newer, more exciting reviews. I guess it’s an unavoidable result of posting a review a week and writing slightly faster than that, but I always have an itch to show off my new work first. The Sanderson/King will both be coming, though I will still give preference to new releases and books that’ll show up in that month’s summary.

As to the Reynolds article, mentioned in my review of Terminal World, it is still planned, though I’ll admit that I’ve yet to do anything more than find the quote I plan to start off with, though that easily took an hour. Redemption Ark is a damn big book, and I read it before I started noting down my favorite passages. I’m aware that I really shouldn’t have mentioned it till it was on the horizon, but rest assured that it will eventually materialize.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Up and Coming (and Essential?) in May


I quite liked The City and the City, but it only felt tangentially like a Mieville novel. The weirdness and interesting themes were there, but everything felt quite muted. Even if it’s not set in Bas Lag, Kraken looks like it’s going to be a lot closer to Mieville’s more colorful works. There’s a decently sized sample floating around I haven’t read the whole thing (I generally prefer to devour something in a few sittings, rather than taunt myself with excerpts), but I couldn’t resist the opening, and I love the writing there. Several reviews of this are out so far, all glowing, including Wert's and The Speculative Scotsman's.


Apartment 16 looks like a dark, claustrophobic horror novel, but what’s got me most excited are the great reviews. James came first, and he convinced me that this was something I had to look into. When the Speculative Scotsman joined him, I knew I needed to read this sooner rather than later. If you’re into horror, this seems like a pretty safe bet from where I’m sitting.


Daniel Abraham’s Long Price Quartet was an excellent read and just the kind of thing that makes me desperate to read more of an author’s work. The prose was both beautiful and precise throughout, the characterization superb. Leviathan Wept is a collection of his short stories (some of which are award winning) that looks perfect for filing that urge. You can get one of the stories, the The Cambist and Lord Iron, here for free.

UPDATE

And, finally: