oyceter: Stack of books with text "mmm... books!" (mmm books)
I'm blogging books and manga separately this year, just because I read so much manga. I feel like I've read remarkably few books this year; last year my reading had gone down in total, but I didn't separate the books and manga out, so I'm not sure if I read more books this year or last year. I definitely read way more manga this year, which is why the book count is only at 90. It's really weird; not reading many actual books makes me feel like a slacker, particularly since much of what I did read was YA.

Thoughts about the year in books )

I've blogged nearly all of these previously; the ones that haven't been written up yet are asterisked. You should be able to find everything via tags or LJ memories, and if you're curious about one of the unblogged ones, leave a comment and I shall expound upon it.

And now, without further ado, my top ten books of 2006:

  1. Gillian Bradshaw, assorted novels )


  2. Sarah Dessen, Just Listen )


  3. Scott McCloud, Making Comics )


  4. Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua, eds., This Bridge Called My Back )


  5. Joanna Russ, How to Suppress Women's Writing )


  6. Dorothy L. Sayers, Gaudy Night )


  7. Beverley Daniel Tatum, Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? and Other Conversations about Race )

  8. Megan Whalen Turner, The Queen of Attolia and The King of Attolia )


  9. Jo Walton, Farthing )


  10. Scott Westerfeld, Succession )


Also recommended: Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre; Christina Chiu, Troublemaker and Other Saints; Sarah Dessen, Dreamland; Emma Donoghue, Life Mask; Mary Roach, Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers; Susan Vaught, Stormwitch; Cornel West, Race Matters; Frank H. Wu, Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White; Gene Luen Yang, American Born Chinese

Total read: 90 (3 rereads)

All books read in 2007 )
oyceter: Stack of books with text "mmm... books!" (mmm books)
I liked this much better than all the other Sayers I've read, possibly because it's so different from all the others. It didn't hit the "OMG SQUEE" button in me, but I love it in a more quiet way. It's a surprisingly quiet book, and an extremely satisfying read.

I'm usually not that big on stories set at an academic institution and focus on the academics, possibly because I'm jealous, or really, who knows. But I really loved how big a role Oxford played in Gaudy Night and how much the book was about the intellectual versus the emotional, the different choices you can make with your life.

Harriet ends up celebrating a reunion in Shrewsbury, the all-female college at Oxford (made up by Sayers), and gets caught up in a round of increasingly malevolent pranks intended to publically embarrass the college. Despite this being touted as the big Harriet/Peter book, there is relatively little Harriet/Peter interaction. In fact, most of the book is on Harriet, on her attempts to figure out what is most important to her, where her values lie, and what she'll end up doing about them. Peter is, of course, a large part of these decisions, but I really appreciate that Harriet's attempts to decide if Peter will fit in her life are only part of the decision. He's affected by her choices, but he's not necessarily the sole driving factor of them.

This is probably a stupid thing to say, but GN is a remarkably feminist book. Obviously, I do realize that feminism existed back in the 1930s, but the commentary on women's career choices and how said choices affect husbands and children and what society thinks of women who don't go for motherhood are sadly contemporary. Yes, progress has been made, but on the other hand, recent articles on how feminism has ruined the nuclear family would fit right in Harriet's world and Harriet's dilemma.

And, oh, I liked Harriet before because she is stubborn and grumpy and not bowled over by Peter's charm, but I adore her now. I had a problem with Have His Carcase because of the imbalance in Peter and Harriet's relationship. It wasn't just that Harriet was resentful of how much she owed Peter, it was that she thought he was so far above her in terms of class, charm, intelligence, and everything. I still wish there were more in Peter's point of view as to why he fell for Harriet so quickly (maybe I need to reread Strong Poison), but I like that Peter loves her for her integrity and honesty.

One of my favorite scenes in the book isn't the final one on the bridge (though that's a good one). Rather, it's the one in which Peter directs the discussion of the various dons and scholars to that of professional integrity, and how they would choose if they had to sacrifice the personal or the professional. I especially like that the question isn't phrased in a way to make it a choice between a family life and a career; instead, the professional realm consists of one's values and one's notion of integrity. And I love that Harriet can't put the personal over what she thinks is right, and that that is why Peter trusts her so much. It actually reminds me a great deal of Freedom & Necessity (that probably should be the other way around, given the publication dates), in which James says that he couldn't love Susan if she put him over her own beliefs.

I had a problem with the mysteries in other Sayers, mostly because I could honestly care less who killed whom and for what reason. Thankfully, there's a wonderful thematic resonance in this one; the culprit literally attacks the world of Shrewsbury and the female, non-nuclear-family space there. And while I had problems with Peter always being the one to solve the mystery in prior books, his solving the mystery here works because it is too close to Harriet and she can't conceive of someone making the choices that the culprit does.

Hrm. It looks like I have actually descended into incoherent squee ;). But oh, I loved the layers in this book, I loved all the things it talked about and had to say, I loved watching Harriet grow and choose, and I loved watching a romance between two people who needed an equal relationship and would fight for one.

Links:
- [livejournal.com profile] sophia_helix's review
oyceter: Stack of books with text "mmm... books!" (mmm books)
Oops! I was reading some of [livejournal.com profile] truepenny's very good posts on the book and realized in my great fear of having a mob of Sayers fans, uh, mob me, I forgot to note the meta aspects of the book, which I did enjoy to some degree.

I'm probably going to just end up repeating what [livejournal.com profile] truepenny has already written, but I haven't actually read all hers yet and wanted to make observations.

It's perpetually interesting having Harriet involved in a mystery, given that she is a mystery writer. [livejournal.com profile] truepenny makes the point that Harriet approaches the body on the beach much as she would in a hypothetical book; she constantly asks herself what Robert Templeton (her fictional detective) would do. I did very much like that in the beginning, particularly the bits in which Harriet thinks that really, investigating a corpse on the beach isn't half as much fun as it seems in the books.

I also thought it was interesting that many of the breakthroughs in the book happened because Harriet would say something like, "Well, if this were in a detective story, such-and-such would happen." Same with Wimsey debating how truthful some alibis were, simply because they were so perfect. Sadly, I would probably have more to say about this had I read more mysteries in general.

There was also the fact that the murderer seemed to be working off what he thought a proper mystery should be; vague threats, impractical suggestions and all, which highlighted the artificiality of mysteries.

Unfortunately, I got rather irritated because Harriet would say something reminded her of such-and-such, and then Peter would end up having the epiphany. I should probably stop grinding this axe, but it kept bothering me. I like Harriet. I like that she is grumpy and fumbles and is cruel to Peter and doesn't always think things through. I would like Peter much more, except he seems entirely too perfect and too clever; he solves the ciphers while Harriet spends days substituting words, he figures out all the twists and turns of the mystery while Harriet only realizes after he mentions a few things, he is also hopelessly in love. It felt incredibly unfair, and I ended up taking Harriet's side.

Er, I do realize that this is probably a highly atypical reaction to the book, but I seem hard-wired to first sympathize with the female character no matter what.

Also, in the end, despite all the meta-narrative about detective novels and the inherent artificialities of a murder mystery, particularly one with an amateur sleuth, Peter and Harriet still end up solving the mystery. There would be moments in which the deciphered letter would prove to be a comment on how a mystery should work, which I liked, but right before that, there would be a long, drawn-out scene in which Peter and Harriet would go carefully through the cipher, which I had a difficult time suspending disbelief for.

I suspect much of this is unfamiliarity with the genre.

ETA: First reaction
oyceter: Stack of books with text "mmm... books!" (mmm books)
I didn't like it.

Harriet Vane wants to take a nice vacation after the rather unsettling events of Strong Poison (where she first meets Lord Peter Wimsey, amateur detective extraordinaire). Unfortunately for her, she ends up finding a body on the beach. Peter drops by to help with the investigation, and ensuing mystery gets resolved.

I suspect I'm not much of a mystery person, because every time Harriet or Peter started to question witnesses or untangle alibis or the like, I had an extremely difficult time continuing with the book. Unfortunately, this was about 90% of the book.

The strange thing is that the only part of the mystery-solving that I enjoyed was when they were deciphering a letter. I didn't understand any of it, but I liked codes and ciphers.

I also reverted to grade-school reading techniques. I.e., every time Harriet and Peter were working on the case together, I mentally awarded each one points on how far they were getting, and got perpetually irritated because Peter would almost always come out on top. I get that he's the hero of the series, and I do know that it's a horrible grade-school thing. But it still annoys me. (does not put in horribly over-generalized rant about why the woman is never the expert in these things)

On the other hand, I really liked all the Peter-Harriet interactions that had more to do with the emotional side and didn't have to do with questioning witnesses or the like. I think this happened with Strong Poison as well. Alas, there was very little of this and very much mystery. I especially liked the heart-mind conversation that the two had (I'm pretty sure that's this book, right?).

Fear not, loyal Sayers readers! I am still reading Gaudy Night, and I am actually enjoying it a lot. This is quite likely because there isn't all that much mystery in it.

ETA: Further notes
oyceter: teruterubouzu default icon (Calvin and Hobbes comics)
I ended up liking this much better than Strong Poison, mostly because I found the mystery more engaging.

Wimsey's brother, the Duke of Denver, has been accused of murdering his sister's fiancee. Despite the fact that the mystery is centered around the Wimsey family, Lord Peter doesn't make that much of an impression on me in this book, even when compared to the not-so-character-based Strong Poison. I didn't mind so much, though, because the supporting characters were for some reason more appealing to me. Also, as mentioned before, I was more interested in the mystery itself and so the resolution of it was more satisfying for me.

There seemed to be much more hidden passions and secrets in this book than in Strong Poison (this is going to get compared to SP very often, because I have no other Sayers benchmark), and because of that, the backstory geek in me was much happier about the revelations concerning Denis Cathcart (the murdered man), Mary Wimsey and Gerald Wimsey.

I also grew rather fond of the Wimsey family as the book progressed. Come to think of it, I grew rather fond of Peter as well, so nix the bit about him not making that big of an impression. I was quite possibly won over by his affection for his brother and his rather dashing last minute... er... dash to save Gerald.

Have now bought Murder Must Advertise and am trying to save it for the flight back.
oyceter: teruterubouzu default icon (Default)
(cross-posted to [livejournal.com profile] inklings_lj)

I feel rather blasphemous, but I didn't like it all that much. I can sort of see why people would like the series -- I liked what little I saw of Lord Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane, but for some reason, I was expecting more character interaction and got a rather mundane mystery instead.

Of course, I say this because I'm not as big of a fan of the mystery genre as a whole, and so I don't care all that much to find out who did it and how. I think because of this, I had a very difficult time following the plot.

The few other mysteries I've read have been a handful of Mary Higgins Clark one summer (not that interesting), an Agatha Christie (scared me to death), and eight of the Stephanie Plum books, which I thought were hilarious but which got a little old after reading one every day. When I binge, I binge.

So I'm sort of wondering -- is this book rather characteristic of the Wimsey books? I do mean to read the rest of them anyway, just because everyone loves Gaudy Night so very much, but I sort of want to know what I'm getting into. I think I was expecting something with a little more character development. I loved the scenes with Peter (Lord Peter? Wimsey? How does one refer to him?) and Harriet, and particularly his nonchalant-seeming proposals and Harriet's hesitant, sad answers. Wimsey was actually a surprise for me -- I've almost been expecting someone like Lymond. I think part of it is because both authors are named Dorothy and another part is because both men have this sort of aura around them when readers talk about them. But he seemed rather sweet and rambled on a lot, and there was this small, quiet moment at the end of a chapter which totally stole my heart.

And I think I would have liked Harriet had I more time to get to know her, or so to speak. I found it rather strange that Dunnett didn't spend very much time with her, considering that she was the prime suspect and was probably going through some mental trauma, to say the least. I wanted to see more of her and Wimsey interacting. I did very much like the bits with Miss Climpson and her very enthusiastic letters, along with her struggles with her conscience.

It's a bit silly of me to resent the fact that the mystery plot takes over the book, given that it is a mystery, but I just wanted more characters to spend time with.

Spoilers )

Links:
- [livejournal.com profile] inklings_lj's review roundup

Profile

oyceter: teruterubouzu default icon (Default)
Oyceter

March 2021

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910 111213
1415 1617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags