Back

So, back from Ohio!

The unread FL has reached skipped 300.

My grandparents both seem to be doing ok, although my grandma still can't really talk because of the stroke. My grandpa is recovering rather splendidly, considering the fact that he just had a heart operation a week or so ago. So, that was good. I think things are ok on that front. And it was nice seeing them again. I just found out my grandpa was born in 1912. I mean, I knew he was ninety something, but just knowing the date makes it very scary. He watches the History Channel a lot, especially the WWII stuff, I think because he was in the navy then. And over one dinner, I just got to hear about things like how they fled the Communists in China and moved to Taiwan, things like that. They lived through that, and it's just kind of cool and strange to ponder.

I also met atpolittlebit! Heh, but since I had to get my mom to take me, I had to explain: Uh, so I have this friend there.

What does she do? asks my mom.

Actually, I'm not sure.

Friend from where?

Uhhhh..

Where?

The internet?

Huh?

My aunt was particularly startled. And I guess it does sound kind of nuts especially if one doesn't spend much time online -- I'm meeting someone I've only kind of talked to via text and never seen before! My aunt was all, how will you know who she is if you've never seen her?!

I also read six books in the past four days. Three of them were bought in Ohio because I was desperately running out. My grandparents don't even have a computer, and I don't really watch much TV unless it's a show I like -- no channel surfing for me, so it was just books. My mom, of course, complained when I bought the second one. You already bought one! she says, after having bought ten some sweaters (on sale at least). I keep trying to tell her that moms all over the world are trying to get kids to read, and here she is, encouraging me to buy cashmere sweaters on sale but grudging about the books. Talked with her today, and apparently her viewpoint is that one should only read books for practical application (building vocab, learning stuff), none of this imagination dreamy stuff.

We can all see just how me and my mom can disagree on things.

Nafisi, Azar - Reading Lolita in Tehran

I picked this one up after having several people request it in the bookstore and never being able to find it. It's a memoir, literary criticism, and a look at the Islamic Republic of Iran, and very fascinating.

The author had taught literature at an Iranian university and eventually formed a sort of reading group/class of young women. That's the barest of bare bones, but the book made me think about politics and US interference and when it's good and when it's bad, feminism and my shocked amazement at what the women there had to do, the facts of living under a regime that ruled through fear, and in the end, the threat and the importance of literature.

It's strange. The first chapter is on Nabokov's Lolita, and as I was reading the reading group and the author's thoughts on the book and how essentially the author thought Humbert was raping twelve-year-old Lolita, who had no other choices, and I thought to myself: I will probably never read Lolita now because it is morally squicky to me and I just have no desire to read about it.

And yet, the next chapter, some of the more conservative members of Nafisi's literature class in the university rebel against The Great Gatsby and condemn it as something glorifying adultery and immorality and American consumerism and as such, it was immoral. And I caught myself thinking, does it matter? Does the book have to be moral to be good? It's like watching people argue about Jossverse characters (or all characters), and arguing that a certain character is Good or another is Bad, and in the end, does it make us like the character more or less? Would it be more constructive to argue if the character was dynamic or static? And does art have to take a moral stance? It reminds me a little of the kerfuffle sometime last year about this, if an author had a moral responsibility to portray a certain type of thing (ex: to portray murder as bad). When I think about this, my answer is of course not. Literature doesn't have to be constrained to some sense of morality. In fact, a lot of the best literature is stuff that challenges conventional morality, it's the banned books and the obscene ones. And maybe that's what makes it literature? Maybe having a strong sense of morality takes away some of the terrible beauty in literature.

Pretty things are merely pretty, but I think beauty in some way is always terrible because it is not quite of our world.

So, do I get to say I won't read Lolita because I find the premise morally repugnant? I mean, obviously I do, because no one's going to force me to read the book, especially since it's not assigned for a class or anything. And yet, I'm the person I tend to scoff at in these arguments, the person who won't look past something to read something just a little beyond herself.

Nafisi makes the argument that great literature is in essence revolutionary and threatening, especially to a means of government like that in Iran, which is why they must censor it. It's funny. People, esp. people in the sciences, will deride the humanites and say it's just words. It's just pictures. Literary theory is just futzing around and mental masturbation and the like. But it must be important, or why would governments burn books? Why the Cultural Revolution in China? Why ban books? There must be some import to people having that imaginary room of their own, even, or especially, if it's only through words or moving pictures or brushstrokes.

Other things the book made me think about: how much of the oppression of women was oppression, how much was the author's anger? Not that I am saying it was not oppression, because I cannot imagine living in a place in which I could be caned for not wearing a veil because the sight of my hair might drive a man to unseemly lust and somehow it would be my fault. This makes me angry on a very, very basic level. But it was interesting having some of her other, religious students' views, espeically the women, and their ambivalence to the Islamic government. I don't know. I never know with these things. How much can outside countries interfere? Obviously this has very relevant parallels with Iraq and etc. Can the US be a world police force? Should it? Because just reading about it, it feels so wrong to me on so many levels that I want to yell out that it should be changed, that they should not force people, especially the women, to live like that, but who would change it?

And the government made me so angry, made me remember going to school and how strict the rules were and how stupid they seemed -- girl's hair must be so long. Skirts must be so long. Of course, boy's hair had to be so long as well. Of course, it is nothing like the situation there, but I remember how much those stupid arbitrary rules would piss us off, and I cannot imagine living like that every day. The boy will laugh at me and say I am American to the core, no matter how much I go around yelling that sometimes I do not like the nation (well, present leaders, you know, intl. policy and etc). And yet, is it only people exposed to America who would be angry? I doubt it. Most of all it reminded me of the Cultural Revolution, a completely secular but no less scary totalitarian government.

So. Not much of a book overview, but more of what the book provoked in me.

It is a good book, for those who are wondering ;).

Links:
- tenemet's review
- keilexandra's review

McHugh, Maureen F. - Nekropolis

I didn't like it as much as I liked her China Mountain Zhang.

It's written much in the same style, with the first person present and the change of viewpoints in each chapter. It's about a jessed woman, Hariba, (jessing some how makes the people more loyal as servants) and the harni Akhmin, them falling in love and running away and much trouble ensues. Akhmin is harni and a genetic construct made to look human, but essentially not.

I think mostly I was disappointed in this book -- one should not have blurbs on the back saying books are "unique love stories" and then making them not so. I also probably picked up the book for the wrong reasons -- the AI/human love reminded me of Silver Metal Lover, which I have actually not read (yet) but sounded good, and I thought it would be about exploring the things that make us human, or that make us fall in love even in the most impossible circumstances, or something like that.

But much of the book has to do with how Hariba and Akhmin get out of their states of slavery, with viewpoints contributed by Hariba, Akhmin, Hariba's mother and her best friend. I have to admit, McHugh's character voices sounded a little similar stylistically (I have been spoiled by Freedom and Necessity), and I wasn't quite sure why in the end Hariba's mother and her best friend were included in what seemed to ultimately be Hariba's journey. It worked for me in China Mountain Zhang because I enjoyed watching the different people he influenced and affected and because that book felt more on community and human ties, while this one was preset in my mind to be about a less general relationship with the world. Plus, McHugh lost the gorgeous quiet moments that really made China Mountain Zhang work for me, like the life of colonists on Mars, or an endless night in the Arctic, or Daoist architecture.

Mostly, I think I was annoyed because as soon as the book seemed to be hitting the points that interested me, it stopped. Hariba and Akhmin had finally escaped from Morocco and found sanctuary in Spain, both of them readjusting to life there, Hariba learning things about Akhmin and the harni in general that would have a big impact on their relationship (mostly non-existent in the earlier chapters, as she was completely incapacitated by getting over being jessed). Plus, I liked the parts where Hariba had to adjust, had to learn to live in the new country. And instead of finishing her journey there, the book just stops. No ultimate resolution of the Hariba-Akhmin problem, nothing.

Plus, I dislike books in which the heroine is basically dead weight and utterly useless throughout most of the book.

I will try one more to see how McHugh is and then see...

Lord Dunsany, The King of Elfland's Daughter

Gorgeous language.

This is so where Tokien got Arwen from!

Like Neil Gaiman, I particularly like the child who didn't go to Elfland for want of a jam roll.

I don't know. Maybe I wasn't in the right mood, or something, but it wasn't as haunting as I thought it would be.

Crusie, Jennifer - Manhunting and What the Lady Wants

More Crusie!

Speaking of which, I had Krispy Kreme donuts for the first time, and in Ohio, in honor of Bet Me. I know, I'm a complete geek. Unfortunately, I have decided I am really just not a donut person. And is it spelled donut or doughnut or what?!

Manhunting: Uptight Kate vows to get a husband and as a result goes to the Cabin, a rich resort half run by laid back Jake. We can all see what's coming up from miles ahead, of course, being a romance, but that in no way detracts from the sheer enjoyment of watching Kate go through potential dates in a particularly lethal manner, or having the two be the last people to realize they are emitting giant sexual tension.

What the Lady Wants: Mae Sullivan walks through private investigator Mitch's door and fulfills all his dreams of being Sam Spade. Except she's not really Brigid O'Shaughnessy, and he's not very Sam Spade at all, and she's got an incredibly hilarious, over-protective family. I particularly adore Uncle Gio.

Links:
- minnow1212's review

I don't know why Crusie makes me so happy because I can never quite pin it down, but she's got impeccable comic timing, real people, and is immensely feminist in a non-angry, non-overly-PC type way. Okay, obviously these are things that make me happy.

Mmmm, need more Crusie....

Brockway Connie, and Christina Dodd - Once Upon a Pillow

I could immediately tell the Regency period story was Connie Brockway's.

The other three are kind of meh, and I am sad, but my dislike of Christina Dodd continues to be justified. Mostly I just got this because I was at the airport, realized I only had half of The King of Elfland's Daughter and Crusie category to finish, and that would be maybe four hundred pages total. Definitely not enough for my flight. And this one looked like a surer bet than getting JoAnn Ross or etc.

The book's four short stories framed around the famous Masterson bed, and it begins with Brockway's story set in the medieval period. It's ok, but it doesn't quite hit my buttons, and it suffers from, well, being a short story. I don't know. I've never quite found a good romance short that really worked for me, I think because the characterization and the tension and the love really needs some sort of length to get established for me. Also, there's the problem with medieval dialogue... while I like reading about the period, the whole knights and Saracen prisons thing can get kind of old. But! The knight is a Nice Guy despite Saracen prison, which is more than can be said about most heroes, and I like Nice Guys. They are sorely lacking in most romances. So while it wasn't a stunning short, it was happy and warm and kind of funny. However, points off for the mention of "male nipples."

The next one, set during the Elizabethan period, not so good. It had one of those heroines I really dislike, and while I didn't quite dislike Helwin the way I dislike most of her type (maybe because of length again), I was really not incredibly enthusiastic reading about how she wins over Rion Masterson's household and cooks for them and cleans and makes life wonderful and a domestic paradise! *rolls eyes* I generally do not like wide-eyed innocent heroines who create warmth and happiness wherever they go out of their sheer existence.

The last one finishes up the framing story (a tour guide regaling stories about the bed) with the tour guide's love story, which is frankly, pretty dumb. I feel like I am not really spoiling anything when it turns out her love interest is *gasp* a Masterson (who woulda thunk). Plus, a really weird sideplot on stolen antiques from the Masterson Manor. And the guy falls in love with her and proposes marriage after a night of sex or something. Of course, he highly regrets that he has deflowered possibly the only twenty-three year old virgin in England (here I roll my eyes again -- is virginity that big of a deal these days?) and is a gentleman and offers to marry her. Excuse me? This is supposed to be the present day, yes? I mean, I'm sure people do this, but... uhh... yeah. Plus, the sex scene is really bad. And then they get married! What? I know Crusie characters get married after a week or so in general, but you know, I at least have had two hundred some pages of time to spend with them, as opposed to under a hundred. And then they have sex without protection and it's a giggly funny thing because when a Masterson sleeps with his twu wuv in that bed they inevitably conceieve a son nine months later.

Sorry. But it's supposed to be a contemporary! I read contemporaries so I don't have to deal with this stuff!

Highlight of the book was, as previously mentioned, Brockway's short set in the Regency. I think a lot of this was because we were walking in on a couple with significant backstory (as opposed to the tour guide's "significant backstory" of one night of sex), and hey, angst! I love angst. And it had the hero completely, head over heels in love with the heroine but afraid to let her know (otherwise known as the Rhett Butler syndrome), which is also my kink. Plus, chaining to the bed. Um. Okay, too revealing of my kinks ;). But the characters talked, and there was actual tension! Most romance shorts that I read tend not to have tension because it takes so long to develop and resolve. It worked here because the beginning of the story sounded a lot like an excerpt from a longer novel or something, which I appreciated. Unfortunately, it's all a Big Misunderstanding, and a particularly stupid one to boot, so the resolution left me with a rather sour taste in my mouth. Too bad it wasn't a real excerpt with loads of angst ala All Through the Night.

I have also read about ninety pages of Connie Brockway's new book My Seduction, and am dying to read it now. The hero looks like a genuinely nice and noble guy, plus, there's a completely guh exceprt at the end of this book in which he pledges obedience to the heroine. I like it when heroes are actually protective or something to the heroine instead of hauling her off her feet, or god forbid, spanking her, and otherwise manhandling her. That is not a hero to me.