Book update: Jenna Starborn, Thorn Birds, City of Bones
Wed, Oct. 8th, 2003 03:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oyceterJenna Starborn -- just finished reading it a few hours ago. It's a scifi retelling of Jane Eyre by Sharon Shinn, who is rapidly becoming a comfort author. I really need to read Jane Eyre now to see how the parallels work, to see if the things like a year of suspended animation equates with a coma or something. Plus, it's interesting seeing these referrals backwards. The novel, despite being sf, has a distinctively old-fashioned voice and a class-ridden society that I enjoy. Somehow, Shinn makes everyone sound Victorian without it being false. Plus, Jenna is a wonderful heroine, one of the few who I can actually say are down to the bone good people. And not good like most heroes, who are moved to save their friends, no matter what, or cling to a romance, no matter what (ex. Buffy, Sydney, etc.), but good in a way that she cannot possibly be herself without her morals and her ethics. I admire her. I cheered her on when she left Mr. Ravensbeck (Mr. Rochester, yes?). The problem, though, was that I thought Mr. Ravensbeck was skeevy and really not good enough for her at all. Ok, I feel bad for him and his wife and all, but really, shouldn't he have said something? The whole "oh, yeah, we're at the altar, and thanks to this man bringing it to my attention, I forgot I'm already married. Oops. Be my mistress?" schtick was highly unattractive, and though Jenna's forgiven him by the end of the book, I really haven't. Plus, I didn't like things like how he wanted her to be useless and a society wife, how he didn't want her to be self-sufficient. He also just felt.. flighty? Too passionate. I distrust people who go about proclaiming they are irrecovably in love and will invariably die without their object of affection, because honestly, they really won't! I'm so not a romantic for someone who reads so much romance. I think I would have been happier if Jenna had married Sinclair, or if those two had fallen in love, or if she'd just continued living in Appalachia or something.
Thorn Birds -- picked it up at a library sale just because I've heard so much about it. I feel it's supposed to be like Gone with the Wind, except I read about a chapter into the book and threw it down in disgust. Don't think I'll be finishing it anytime soon unless there are reassurances that it gets better. Because right now, I hate little Meggie's guts and she's just 6 years old or something. It just seems so transparent that she's a Mary Sue and that the author wants us to love the adorable widdle child (who actually says "widdle" and things like "my duh-duh-duh-doll!!" when crying. ick). And of course the nuns are horrible people and pick on her and can't understand her adorable specialness. I think the genius of Gone with the Wind, to bring in another of these giant, overwraught saga things, is that Scarlett is awful. No one can really accuse Mitchell of making her a Mary Sue (not so much for Melanie...), and the thing that caught me about the book when I first read it was that Scarlett was so horrible, so selfish, and so utterly pragmatic, that it was hard not to read because she was so different from all the other heroines I've read. I think the problem with all the other Civil War type romances is that the heroine is invariably virtuous and opposed to slavery and for women's rights, blah blah, or the hero is, and one converts the other. Honestly.
City of Bones -- ambivalent... couldn't somehow get myself into the world or the characters. I did, however, like the ending (spoilers........................................) in which Khat knows they aren't going to fall into some romantic thing despite their differences because they have differences and it wouldn't work out. Refreshing change from the unspoken rule that the two characters of the opposite sex working together must invariably fall in love, no matter how ludicrous it is (*ahem* Angels and Demons, Dan Brown, you listening?)
Thorn Birds -- picked it up at a library sale just because I've heard so much about it. I feel it's supposed to be like Gone with the Wind, except I read about a chapter into the book and threw it down in disgust. Don't think I'll be finishing it anytime soon unless there are reassurances that it gets better. Because right now, I hate little Meggie's guts and she's just 6 years old or something. It just seems so transparent that she's a Mary Sue and that the author wants us to love the adorable widdle child (who actually says "widdle" and things like "my duh-duh-duh-doll!!" when crying. ick). And of course the nuns are horrible people and pick on her and can't understand her adorable specialness. I think the genius of Gone with the Wind, to bring in another of these giant, overwraught saga things, is that Scarlett is awful. No one can really accuse Mitchell of making her a Mary Sue (not so much for Melanie...), and the thing that caught me about the book when I first read it was that Scarlett was so horrible, so selfish, and so utterly pragmatic, that it was hard not to read because she was so different from all the other heroines I've read. I think the problem with all the other Civil War type romances is that the heroine is invariably virtuous and opposed to slavery and for women's rights, blah blah, or the hero is, and one converts the other. Honestly.
City of Bones -- ambivalent... couldn't somehow get myself into the world or the characters. I did, however, like the ending (spoilers........................................) in which Khat knows they aren't going to fall into some romantic thing despite their differences because they have differences and it wouldn't work out. Refreshing change from the unspoken rule that the two characters of the opposite sex working together must invariably fall in love, no matter how ludicrous it is (*ahem* Angels and Demons, Dan Brown, you listening?)
Re: The unbearable Janeness of being
Fri, Oct. 10th, 2003 11:32 pm (UTC)As to Rochester, well, that's part of what I find interesting. That he isn't ready to yet understand why being with the person he loves is so wrong. After all, it'd be like they were married. Except, Jane's right and it wouldn't and if she compromised on her principles, she wouldn't be herself any more. Beyond the whole job prospects, life sort of thing. And children. And old age. And, she's seeing the whole spectrum and Rochester is only seeing the now.
Course, later he gets literally whupped by life and is forced to spend some time to reflect and it becomes her choice. She gets to have what she wants. Not the crumbs, but the feast.
That's why I see it as an extreme example of the romance novel type. (Heavy emphasis on the type) Because it has one of the most extreme examples of the humbling of the hero that I have ever seen. She may be small and little, but she has full as much heart.
Re: The unbearable Janeness of being
Tue, Oct. 14th, 2003 02:48 am (UTC)Hrm, I see what you mean when it comes to the archetype. I hadn't really thought about Rochester as the reformed rake, although really, it makes perfect sense. He's not quite as rakish as lots of the romances (as in, not as scandalous instead of not as dashing), but I suspect for the time having an insane wife in the closet and coming close to bigamy was pretty scandalous! I also like Jane/Jenna because she doesn't do what happens in most romance novels.. she doesn't slowly succumb to the rake figure and redeem him almost by accident. She makes very sure he is redeemed first before she gives in.