Nebula Award Nominees

I was very excited to see the Nebula award nominees this year—for the best novel, 5 out of 6 authors are women! Three of the books (Who Fears Death, Shades of Milk and Honey, and The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms) are books that I was already excited about reading. I am reading Who Fears Death now actually, and it is amazing. I am also happy to see Ted Chiang, Paolo Bacigalupi, and Rachel Swirsky nominated in the novella category and Adam-Troy Castro in the short story category, because I like them a lot. Of the remaining writers, many of whom I don’t recognize, there seems to be a fair amount of gender and cultural diversity, which I love to see. And I am particularly happy that there are a lot of links to the nominated stories!


I want to read as many of these stories and books as I can before the awards banquet on May 21. Some, I surely won’t get to. For instance, I probably won’t read Echo, by Jack McDevitt, because I haven’t read the earlier books in the series, and I hate to start in the middle. I think I may have the first book somewhere, though, so maybe I will hunt that down. The same is true for Mockingjay, the third book in the Hunger Games trilogy, and a nominee in the Young Adult category. And, chances are good I won’t get to the Connie Willis books, because I really didn’t like To Say Nothing of the Dog, the only Willis book I have read. I liked some things about it, and I thought Willis was a good writer, but the plot was needlessly convoluted and her characters were SO STUPID, in my opinion, so I just am not that excited about reading her books. I may give them a try if I can get them from the library, though.

I think I will get most, if not all, of the Young Adult category nominees. My daughter likes science fiction and fantasy, which I like to encourage, and I can read them after she does, which would be fun. We can have a mini Nebula nominee book club! Maybe we could even do some read alouds, and include my 8 year old son; he would probably like that, too.

What I have been reading

In no particular order, what I have been reading since Christmas (when I got another gift card from my awesome brother):

1. The Magicians and Mrs. Quent, by Galen Beckett

A very cool combination of fantasy and classic literature. The idea is to take a heroine from Austen or the Bronte sisters, and put them in a society where magic is real, and the restrictions faced by women are based on this sort of real danger. I really enjoyed this book. Several other reviews mentioned that Beckett was perhaps a bit too constrained by imitation, and that the later books may be a bit more in his voice; I am looking forward to seeing if this is true.

2. The Unincorporated Man, by Dani Kollin and Eytan Kollin

There are a couple of interesting themes in this book. First, the idea that incorporation would spread to individuals and what that would do to the concepts of freedom and interpersonal relationships. And, more interestingly to me, the idea that a society can seem utopic, but really be setting the majority of people up for slavery. The way the incorporation of individuals is set up, everyone thinks that it is a great idea, and they defend it vigorously when the main character is found to have been cryogenically frozen from a previous time, and he refuses to incorporate. Most of the characters think incorporation is a great idea, and they articulate well-thought-out, humane reasons why it works better than previous social structures. They are so convincing, you almost start to think it really is a great idea. Of course, things turn out to be more complicated than that, but it is an interesting thought experiment.

3. Gateway, by Frederick Pohl

Great book about space exploration, artificial intelligence, and guilt. Plus, the thing I really love in a book, the last sentence is breath-taking.

4. Shadowman, by Melissa Scott

On a world where 20% of people are born with some characteristics of both males and females, but only male and female are recognized legal genders, there is bound to be unrest. Requiring a large minority of your population to deny who they are is never a stable social environment. Very interesting, well-written book.

5. Moxyland, by Lauren Beukes

I heard of this author from William Gibson’s twitter feed, and I am so glad that I did. The near-future world in this book is pretty grim, with some sort of plague affecting many people in Africa, and the general populace controlled by their phones, which allow cops to send a powerful electric volt through someone’s phone to control their behavior right away. An even bigger punishment is to render their phone inoperative for a period of time determined by the crime, since all economic transactions are done through mobiles, as well as identification for things like entering your apartment. An interesting world and an interesting story.

6. The Gate to Women’s Country, by Sheri S. Tepper

I love this book so much, and it gets better every time I read it.

7. Our Kind of Traitor, by John Le Carre
This was the first book I got from the library for my new Nook Color. Checking out books for the Nook is so much better than checking out real books, because you don’t have to make sure to get back to the library before they expire! The book was great, as expected (it is a Le Carre, after all.) I did not really like the end, but it was an interesting take on the spy novel, with two people on vacation, completely outside the spy game, being drawn in by a charismatic Russian criminal. This was a fairly dark vision of British government, I have to say, not least because there is no reason to think it isn’t realistic.

8.The God Engines, by John Scalzi

My reading this year has been a bit more grim than I might have expected, and nowhere is that more true than here. I just don’t expect dark and grim from Scalzi. Not that he doesn’t write about serious stuff, what with all the war and potential species annhilation, but the general tone of his books is a bit more positive. This was a very interesting take on religion, though.

9. I’d Know You Anywhere, by Laura Lippman

Lippman writes a detective series, which I will actually get to next, but up until recently, I had only read her standalone stories. These are still crime stories, but usually more in the aftermath. This one is like that--a woman who had been kidnapped by a serial killer when she was 15 is contacted by him again, from where he sits on Death Row. She is the only one of his victims that he did not kill, actually, and she is still afraid of his manipulation, not least because she has not told her children or any of her acquaintances about her past. I like the way these books look at the aftermath of crimes, and how keeping secrets harms people for a very long time.

10. Baltimore Blues, by Laura Lippman

This is the first book in Lippman’s Tess Monaghan series. On my Nook homepage, they were selling this for $0.99 as the featured book of February, which is smart, because now I am thinking I will need to buy the rest of the series. Fun characters, interesting puzzles, nice setting. I like series like this, because you can feel safe picking out a book from the series. I look forward to seeing how she grows her characters.

11 and 12. Analog Science Fiction and Fact, April issue, Asimov’s Science Fiction, March issue

One of the reasons I love the Nook is that I can get this type of literary magazine and keep it around for future reference without having flimsy magazines cluttering up my house. I particularly like to read science fiction short story magazines for two reasons--science fiction has rich history with the short form, where ideas can be investigated that wouldn’t necessarily support a whole novel, or worlds can be tested and fleshed out for use in a larger work. Plus, I like that it makes it easier to find new authors. I am somewhat discouraged by the lack of women writing in this issue (only one story in each mag), but maybe this is unusual. I hope so. I don’t want to read only women writers, but I know that a lack of women writers means that the editors aren’t really choosing the best stories. So, if there are many missing stories, I need to find where they are. On the other hand, the stories themselves show a lot of interesting, strong female characters, and some investigation into gender issues, so that is good.

13. Venus Plus X, by Theodore Sturgeon
Theodore Sturgeon is a great, great writer, and definitely ahead of his time on gender issues. I;ve said it before, but I’ll say it again--I can’t believe he was writing at the same time as Alfred Bester, who was a brilliant but deeply misogynistic writer. This book, about a man who finds himself in a future society without gender, and the contrast between that society and the very gendered and commercial society of the 50’s, was quite an interesting though experiment and a very quick read. At least, it was fast and easy to read the actual words, but I did spend a lot of time thinking about what I read, which is what makes a really good book for me.

I have started a few other things, but this seems to sum up what I have been reading, unless I am forgetting something (definitely a possibility!). In the meantime, if anyone is still reading this despite my long absence from regular posting, does anyone have a recommendation for a good general interest science magazine? I want something that has good science, but not an academic journal. Thanks!

Feminist Science Fiction

I went on a book buying spree last weekend, with a focus on Feminist Science Fiction. I went to my favorite used bookstore (right around the corner from my favorite brunch place, hooray!), pulled up the basic recommended list on feministsf.org, and started looking through the shelves. I was thrilled to find many books that were either on the list or by authors on the list. I know this is not a definitive list, but it is a good place to start, and I do love me some lists! Here is what I got:

Shore of Women, by Pamela Sargent

Inventing Memory, by Anne Harris

Dreaming Metal, by Melissa Scott

Black Wine, by Candas Jane Dorsey

Double Feature, by Emma Bull and Will Shetterly

Kin of Ata Are Waiting for You, by Dorothy Bryant

Daughters of Earth, by Judith Merrill

Venus Plus X, by Theodore Sturgeon

Sister Light, Sister Dark, by Jane Yolen

Doomsday Morning, by C.L. Moore

Other books on the list that I have or have read:

The Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood

Parable of the Sower, by Octavia Butler

The Furies, by Suzy McKee Charnas

Dhalgren, by Samuel Delaney

“The Yellow Wallpaper” and Herland, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Always Coming Home, The Left Hand of Darkness, Tehanu, by Ursula K. Le Guin (plus a lot of other things she has written)

Dreamsnake, by Vonda McIntyre

The Female Man, by Joanna Russ

Shadowman, by Melissa Scott

Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley

A Door Into Ocean, by Joan Slonczewski

Beauty, The Gate to Women’s Country, by Sheri S. Tepper (plus most of her remaining sf titles)

I just read Shadowman on my new Nook Color last week, and it was very interesting. The idea of intersexed people as a relatively common minority in humanity does make some of the issues around our current views of sexuality and gender differences both more complex and more strikingly obvious. I read Venus Plus X and found it particularly interesting to read such a femeinst work coming from a man writing in the 1950's and '60's. I am reading Black Wine now, and really enjoying it, even though I am not yet entirely sure what is going on. I am looking forward to finding out!

I will be writing a separate post about what I have been reading so far this year, but I did want to get this list out here. I was very excited to find so many books on the list when I went looking last weekend. I have been reading science fiction for nearly 30 years, and it never fails to surprise me how much I haven't read, even as I think I have read a lot. It is helpful to have a focus for the kind of books I am looking to read. I am already interested in dystopias, post-humanity, and what might be called "hard science fiction," which can many things, but in my case, it tends to mean dealing with the harder, more objective sciences. But a feminist viewpoint is another helpful lens that can encompass all of these.

Book review: Buzz: A Year of Paying Attention by Katherine Ellison

I have mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, I am currently investigating the possibility that my son might have ADHD, and I am newly diagnosed with the condition myself, so I have a lot of identification with this situation. Many things that Ellison describes in this book seemed right on target. I recognized many situations, which was validating. Also, she has some very good suggestions and does a fairly thorough review of the treatment philosphies and options out there for this condition.




On the other hand, she seems a bit overly antagonistic toward her son at times. I understand that there are two things going on here, probably: her need to make people understand that this really is outside the normal high-spiritedness of kids, and does deserve a diagnosis and support (because there is a lot of bias toward this diagnosis, and a widespread belief that the condition doesn't really exist), and the fact that she is focusing on the difficult behaviors because that is what the book is about. However, it seems she could have done that in the context of a more well-rounded view of her son and their relationship. For the first third of the book or so, this kid sounds terrible. She talks so much about how he hurts his brother, I started to wonder why she didn't consider institutionalizing him. Once she established the severity of the problem, she did seem to back off that a bit and he sounded like a not bad kid who happens to have some difficulties, but geez, it was a bit much. Also, it seemed farily clear that the biggest thing that she did during this year of working on her son's problem was to stop seeing him as the enemy and start working with him rather than against him, which I found a bit frustrating. Parenting 101: you never win a power struggle with your kids. Never. This has nothing to do with ADHD.



That said, I read the book in less than 2 days after it came in the mail, and I feel that I learned a lot from it. I particularly liked seeing this Pulitzer prize winning journalist struggle with the same day to day tasks that trouble me. It makes me feel better about my potential and the accuracy of my own diagnosis. I appreciated Ellison's bravery and honesty in detailing both her son's and her own behaviors that were, at times, (far) less than perfect. All parents have an ideal that they strive toward as a parent, and they all fall short at times. Showing her own failures opens her up to negative feedback that must be difficult to hear. Despite my criticisms above, I could clearly tell from this book that Ellison loves her sons and is a good parent to them. Overall, definitely recommended, despite my annoyances with a few points.

What I am reading now

About a year ago, I suddenly lost interest in my spreadsheet of books. I got behind on updating it, and I never got back to it. I am still reading, though!

Mostly, I am re-reading lately. I have re-read most of my Sheri S. Tepper books, which I always enjoy. I got a set of the Galactic Mileau series by Julian May, and that was a lot of fun to revisit. Now I need to get the Intervention and Pliocene Exile books. It has probably been 15 years since I read those books, long enough that I can re-read and be surprised by a few things. And, right now I am reading the Harry Potter books, 4 through 7. We seem to have lost the first 3, or I would be reading them, too.

I am re-reading for a couple of different reasons. First, obviously, is the economic reason--it doesn't cost anything to read books that I already own! My children have reached ages where they seem to be outgoing all of their clothes all the time, no doubt because they eat all. the. time. So, it is nice to have a large library of books that I can go to for entertainment at no extra expense.

But, I also find it a bit comforting to re-read. I love picking up a book that I already know I will like. A lot of the books I re-read, I may not remember the details before I read them, but I remember what it was like to read them. I can revisit what it was like when the ideas were new, or I can remember things that were happening in my life when I read the books the first time around. This can lead to expense, though--sometimes I have to go out and buy a book that I remember but can no longer lay my hands upon. But I can usually find something on my shelves that meets my needs, which makes me feel good about keeping all these books. Yes, there was a point to keeping them!

Musing on TV

I really like the new USA show, Covert Affairs. The cast is appealing, the action quotient is high, but not so high that it actually overshadows character development and actual thought about what is going on. I love that they have a strong female lead who is both feminine and aggressively competent at her (dangerous, exciting, difficult) job. I love that they don’t spend a lot of time explaining things, even though the show just started. They show you what is going on with action in the story rather than a lot of exposition. I also love that they show the vast amount of background support that a good spy would need.

Good lord, though, I hope the writing improves as the show goes on.

In last night show, Annie realizes that the MI6 guy is actually a closet Catholic working with the IRA because he knows how long Lent is and he is quitting smoking. “His file says he is Anglican,” she says, doubtfully. I hate to break it to her, but as followers of a Christian religion, Anglicans know how long Lent is. And referring to his nicotine patch is both a bit obscure and an enormous leap to Catholicism. I was raised Catholic, so I know that Catholics give up something for Lent, but surely they are not the only Christian sect to do so. If they are though, the lack of explanation about Lenten sacrifices would leave the vast majority of viewers confused about what the patch has to do with being part of the IRA.

Also, cigarettes are not the kind of thing people I know gave up for Lent; something like chocolate or fast food or desserts was much more common. Sure, someone might give up smoking for Lent, but there are a LOT of other reasons why someone might be giving up cancer sticks. Being Catholic and it being Lent might explain why someone was quitting smoking at that particular time, but giving up smoking is far from evidence that you are Catholic, Lent or no.

Overall, the writing has many strengths. The problem with something like this is that it is just lazy. They want to get to the part where they know he is the bad guy, and I guess they want to throw in the Catholic thing, so they just sort of glide over this. And it was so unnecessary! The fact that the witness went to the British Intelligence and yet he claims to have never heard of her is enough reason to doubt him already! Although, now that I think about it, that is bad, too—why would an American citizen go to British Intelligence first (or, for that matter, at all) when reporting a coded radio transmission that was sent by an unknown someone on an American radio station?

On another note, I really hope that next episode does not feature a subplot wherein Annie’s sister thinks she is a selfish jerk, but then they make up and show their super-close relationship by eating dessert together. How close can their relationship be if her sister thinks she is an insensitive bitch all the time? You can tell that the sister is just there as a foil and is not a real character because I haven’t the slightest idea what her name is. Has Annie ever called her by name? I would think she must have, but I can’t recall it.

Hopefully, these things will be fixed as the show progresses and the writers are more comfortable in the environment. I am still watching, it is just that this type of thing threatens the willing suspension of disbelief that is so important for a show to work. It’s why I don’t watch Chuck, even though I love that cast and there are lots of good points to that show as well—it’s just such an incredibly ridiculous scenario I cannot believe in it. I am crossing my fingers that Covert Affairs writers will get better and avoid this problem.

I sometimes wish...

...that we as a culture had a much more liberal definition of what constitutes acceptable make-up. Like, the kind of makeup you see on models in art photographs or runways, or men wearing more make-up. I'd like to see it be more about the statement and the personality than just conventional prettiness.

Summer movies

The title of this article drives me crazy. Boys of summer: Manly movies muscle into the multiplex? The intro goes on to say that that the only must-see chick flick is Julie and Julia, and maybe the new Harry Potter movie. I have so many objections to this article, it is difficult to know where to start (common with my experiences with this particular reviewer).

But, diving in, I hate the term chick flick. It’s so dismissive, as if exploring human relationships is silly and lightweight. You know, I have met actual male people who want to fall in love and have happy relationships, so I find it hard to believe that there are no men who enjoy romantic comedies, even if they don’t want to tell their buddies that they do.

Next, anyone who implies that a movie with Hugh Jackman in it won’t appeal to women just as much as men must be smoking crack. Has this guy never heard of People magazine? I would happily watch Jackman read from the phone book for two hours; two hours of him rippling his muscles in various stages of undress sounds pretty appealing to me!

….

Sorry, I had to take a break there. Mmmm, Hugh Jackman…

Moving on, the list of movies that are due out on the right sidebar of this article shows that there are actually several movies made to appeal to a large number of women. There are two adaptations of immensely popular books (My Sister’s Keeper and The Time Traveler’s Wife), a French romance (Shall We Kiss?), a movie about a couple starting a family (Away We Go—bonus: Dave Eggers is one of the writers on this one), and a new Nia Vardalos romance (anyone remember My Big Fat Greek Wedding? No? I think a few women saw that.) I could go on, there are more, but these are the ones that jumped out at me as I looked down the list.

And I’d really like to know where this guy gets the idea that “grown women don’t go to summer movies.” Does he not know any women? Does he only go to the movie theater during the daytime when not many people are there? Because most women I know enjoy movies and escapism, especially in the summer, when they are looking to relax more.

But my biggest problem with this article is that the premise that things have changed this year makes no sense. Even if there really were less summer movies directed at women, how would that prove that women don’t like to go to movies? The fact that movie-makers won’t be convinced to market to women even with mega-blockbusters as proof that women spend money on movies hardly shows a lack of interest on women’s part. The evidence says that women flock to movies that have appeal to them. If movie makers choose not to capitalize on this and make movies that do appeal to women, that proves that their misogyny is making them bad business people, not that women don’t like movies.

Fortunately, that doesn’t appear to be the actual case. There are several movies that were made to appeal directly to women, and some of the movies he lists as guy movies seem to me to have a much wider audience than Joe Williams thinks they do. Sure, more guys go to Star Trek conventions than girls, but just as many women actually watch the movies and tv shows. And although Matthew McConaughey’s Ghosts of Girlfriends Past doesn’t particularly appeal to me, it seems obvious to me that it is being marketed to women. Sure, there are some movies that definitely seem targeted to men (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra stand out here), but that hardly translates to a summer of pure testosterone. It actually seems like a pretty nice mix of movies, with something for just about everyone. I am looking forward to trying out some of these movies, starting with X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Mmmm, Hugh Jackman…

Behind on the books again

I have failed miserably at my goal of updating this blog with my book reading this year. I am posting about it on LibraryThing, and I run out of energy to do it here.

I have other things I want to talk about, though.

• Last November I talked about starting another blog to talk about some feminist musings, but that never happened. I might as well go ahead and do that here.
• Now that I have U-verse, I have a lot of thoughts about commercials that I see. Many of them are linked to the feminist musings I talk about above, but not always. I find commercials a fascinating microcosm of pop culture and stereotypes, and I love to analyze them. That is hard to do in real time though (because CSI:NY comes back on!), so I am going to take advantage of this forum for that, too.
• I have been doing a lot of grammar nazi stuff, and I may still do some, but that kind of thing tends to make me feel like a crabby old person, so I am going to try to let up on that.

I am sure I will think of others, and there will still be some book stuff, but I thought I would put out a warning about the changing content, in case anyone is still checking here.

Which of these headlines doesn't belong?

From the Lifestyle section of the Reuters page:

Furniture designers braving crisis at Milan fair
UK's top students look to teaching as economy wilts
Cocteau memorabilia up for auction in Paris
Man admits keeping nurse in car boot for 10 days
Damien Hirst says crisis will stimulate artists
Living abroad? Study shows you're likely to be creative

So, what I want to know is, who at Reuters thinks that a story about a women bound and gagged and left in the trunk of her car for ten days in December belongs in the same category as stories about furniture designers, teaching jobs, art auctions and living abroad? Forcibly kidnapping a woman, tying her up, confining her to a small tight space in sub-zero temperatures and failing to give her food or water for ten days (while also using her credit cards to finance shopping trips, vacations, and outings with your girlfriend) is now a lifestyle choice?

Finishing up 2008

I have many excuses about not updating this blog (holidays, parties, my daughter broke the monitor on my laptop, etc.), but let’s just pass over that, shall we? Here are the last 9 books I read last year:

73. Outliers by Malcom Gladwell

I really enjoyed this book that points out how talent and skill have to meet up with luck and demographics for someone like Bill Gates or the Beatles to acheive the success they have. Some very interesting concepts here.

74. Beauty by Sheri S. Tepper

This was the first Tepper book I read many years ago, so when I saw a nice hardcover copy at my local used bookstore, I pounced on it. It was just as good as I remembered it, and I was glad to re-read the story. I had forgotten that she looks at many fairy tales, not just Sleeping Beauty, so that was fun.

75. Twin Study by Stacey Richter

When I first picked this up, I didn't realize it was short stories, so I found the second story deeply disorienting. When I started the third story, and it was again very different from what went before, I figured it out. Once I knew what I was reading, I very much enjoyed these stories. Richter has a very odd imagination, and the stories were really fascinating.

76. A Room With a View by E.M. Forster

I really loved this book. It is nice to see that people were writing about women as real people before modern times, and so well, too. I found Forster's thoughts on family life and getting along in society very interesting, too.

77. A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula K. Le Guin

Le Guin is one of my favorite authors, so I am not surprised I really liked this, even though I am not generally a big fantasy fan. I borrowed this from a friend, and I have at least the next two books in a pile at home.

78. In the Woods by Tana French

Loved this book. The characters are well-realized, the story is fascinating and tragic and tight. This was the kind of book where I actively resented doing other things that meant I couldn't read, like work and sleep and talk to my kids. Well, not the kids as much, but everything else.

One quibble, though--they kept talking about psychopaths when they meant sociopaths. That drove me crazy, especially since the character that introduced the term was a psychology major and should have known the difference. And, they are very different. It was a bit jarring, actually. Still, I wouldn't let that hold you back from reading the book, which was excellent. I am going out to buy French's next book today. (Note—Borders didn’t have it! I still need this book!)

79. The Private Patient by P.D. James

Excellent, tight story. I am going to miss these books. James is what, 82? 84? (Consulting Wikipedia: 88) Anyway, I am not counting on anymore from her. It would be wonderful to have more, but that might be too much to expect. This book clearly wrapped up some threads, with Kate Miskin being settled nicely, and Adam Dalgleish getting married.

81. Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi

This was an LT recommendation, and I am glad I read it. I am not a big graphic novel person, but I thought this was a good way to tell this story. I am going to look for part 2 soon.

82. Halting State by Charles Stross

I really enjoyed this book, too. Not a big surprise, since I liked Glasshouse so much. I like the way Stross creates believable characters that are well-rounded, whether the character in question is male or female. I was a bit thrown by the second person PPOV, especially since the story shifted between POVs of the three main characters, but it quickly became less jarring. I liked the combination of gaming, high-tech coding, business and old-fashioned human relations. I also liked the near-future extrapolation of many current trends, and how that made the world in the book seem both familiar and very foreign. I definitely recommend this one.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

All in all, a pretty good year of reading, especially when you consider the whole house buying thing. Next up: A Look at the Statistics of the last year, and then the start of 2009. I am going to try for 100 again this year, and have already made a dent, with 5 books. I am also participating in Orange January, which is a great idea, and leading me to many wonderful reads.

Today's GN

Hays published three nonfiction books: "G-2: Intelligence for Patton" (1971), "Country Editor" (1974) "State Science in Illinois" (1980) and "A Race at Bay" (1994) and edited another nonfiction book, "Early Stories From the Land."

I am not sure that an inability to count is actually a grammar issue, but it is certainly an appalling editing issue. This in an article where a character in the book being discussed is referred to one time as D. J., and one time as J. D.

Today's grammar nazi

One of the rotating headlines on our local paper's website:

Watching the Looop

I know, it is tempting to just keep pushing that 'o' key once you get started, but really, why doesn't anyone READ these things before posting them? It's a major headline being featured on the website, for pete's sake. How long would it take to just look it over before posting?

Oops, I missed one!

72 (which is really 71, but I forgot it). The Curse of Kings by Victoria Holt

Another one of the comfort reads. This one was pretty sad, with several deaths, but still a wonderful book.

Too much cooking and cleaning these days, I am forgetting entire books....

Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions

71. Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions by Gloria Steinem

This collection of essays and articles by Gloria Steinem was just what I needed to read at this time. It reminded me of many things I already knew, but in a much needed way. I had two big takeaway points from this book:

1. Steinem is a nice, normal person who believes in equality for both women and men.
2. It is frightening to see how easy it is to forget the past and have to fight the same fight over and over again.

The first point in relevant because that is not the image I had of Steinem at all from what I have soaked up from the popular culture. I mean, I didn’t really think she hated all men and thought they should be disposed of, if only we could find a way around that pesky reproduction issue, but I thought she was a lot more strident than she is. I should have been suspicious of this image, because I had never actually read anything she wrote, nor had I seen her speak, but it was one of those things I didn’t much think about. It was background noise. I wasn’t really paying attention, but I remember the huge media coverage when she got married for the first time at 66. It was reported on radio and television news and in newspapers—you didn’t have to be paying that much attention to notice the coverage. I didn’t really understand the point of all that coverage—noticing that marriage as an institution is set up for the benefit of the male partner that treats the female partner as less than a full person is not the same as saying that men are repulsive. But I really didn’t know much about her at the time, and I was too busy with my regular life to do much investigating.

Still, while I certainly agreed with her that women’s rights were/are not what they should be, I did think that she was perhaps a bit strident, and dare I say, shrewish. I thought the conventional wisdom exaggerated her demeanor in degree but not type. I was very surprised then, to read this book and find a woman like many that I know: strong, smart, capable, ambitious, but nice, non-confrontational, wanting to make people around her happy. She just didn’t want to have to sacrifice her sense of self to make those people happy, which seems pretty reasonable to me. She discovered, however, that a very small amount of self-assertion earns you a shrewish label when you are female.

She also points out several times that a strict patriarchal society limits men as much as it limits women. It doesn’t seem as bad, since men have more privileges and rights, but it is still limiting. Men are encouraged to suppress all emotion, and choose manly activities, which is fine if a man is a stoic type who likes sports, hunting and other stereotypically “male” activities, but if he is interested in sewing, flower-arranging or ballet dance, he is swimming upstream, and likely to be smacked back into place. A truly feminist society would allow for the full range of human possibility in both females and males, with no preference to any one style. So you see? It’s not man-hating at all.

The most chilling parts of the book, though, are the sections where she details feminist movements in the past, where significant advances were hard-won, only to be suppressed afterwards with hardly a trace. I had no idea that the suffragist movement was so all-encompassing, going well beyond the right to vote. When these things are not reported in our history books and our popular culture, it is easy to believe that the things that feminists ask are working for have never been rights that women enjoyed or even wanted. When you get female anti-feminists like Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, or Caitlin Flanagan, mainstream media has something to point to when they say that women don’t really want these rights. No one seems to point out that these women have lucrative, busy careers taking advantage of the very rights they claim not to want. If they really thought that women should stay home and take care of their families, leaving the outer world to men, I can’t help but think that they would be housewives who stayed out of the public eye.

Overall this was a fantastic book, although difficult to read at times. I had to skip most of the article on female genital mutilation for instance. I am glad that I read it, and determined to see what else I am missing out there. Also, I think I am going to start yet another blog, so that I can continue to explore these concepts. I will probably invite some friends to join me there. I’ll let you know when I get that going.

Today's grammar nazi

In an article on Lori Drew's MySpace hacking trial:

The circumstances caused significant public outrage. But state and federal prosecutors here said they found no law that had broken.

Why would they be looking for a broken law? Don't they mean they found no law that had been broken?

Grammar Nazi, taking over my blog...

Okay, when I came across the first really bad sentence on my local paper's site today*, I decided to ignore it. I mean, maybe I am being too picky. Sure, these people write for a living and the editors are specifically paid to look over these articles, but I don't intend to be mean about it. I know they have had a lot of layoffs over at the Post-Dispatch, and they clearly got rid of a lot of experienced (some might say qualified) people. So, I was going to just read on and get on with my life. Then I came across this gem:

Police arrested two of his sons -- ages 19 and 21. Police also took away a back of evidence.

What the heck is a back of evidence? Sure, I know they meant bag of evidence, so this may be quibbling, but really, why can't they say what they mean? It is not my job to interpret what the writer means, it is their job to be clear.

* In an article about goalball, a ball sport for blind people: And even though not all students at the Missouri School for the Blind play goalball, or are physically unable to because of other disabilities, the playing field remains even for players and spectators alike. I think it is pretty obvious that not all students at the Missouri School for the Blind are physically unable to (play) because of other disabilities, isn't it? Didn't the writer mean that even though not all students play, including some that have other physical disabilities that mean they are unable to play, the playing field is level? Whatever that means--the playing field is level for players and spectators alike? Except for those that can't play, I guess, and I have no idea what she means about the spectators.

And, in the same article: The kids who play goalball together since seventh grade form tight bonds,... I don't know the name of this problem, but it should be: The kids who have played goalball together since seventh grade have formed tight bonds, or Kids who play together for long times, some since seventh grade, form tight bonds, or something else. It would also help if we knew what grade these kids are in now, or if every team member has been on the team since seventh grade, which is implied but not stated.

67-70

67. The Year's Best Science Fiction: Twelfth Edition, Edited by Gardner Dozois



Always a great collection, this one was particularly good. There was one story I didn't quite get, but many I really loved.



68. Eden Close by Anita Shreve



Short, a bit predictable, but gripping. I mean, I guessed what really happened the fateful night when the titular character was blinded in a tragic scene, but not every detail. I had trouble putting this one down.



69. The Terrorists of Irustan by Louise Marley



I really enjoyed this, in an appalled sort of way. The book was frightening in it's parallels to our world, and in seeing a genuinely good person driven to commit terrible crimes because she really had no other way to affect the course of her own life or the lives of those she loves. I liked the way the end was both tragic and hopeful, although it was probably more hopeful than such a situation would be in real life, sadly. I thought the whole situation was handled very well, with things not being as black and white as they could be. This was definitely a book about male oppression of females, but the men weren't all bad, either. Some were good, some did terrible things without really thinking it through, but were capable of learning. Highly recommended.



70. The Marlow Chronicles by Lawrence Sanders



This was an interesting little book about a dying man and the effect of his death on his friends and family. I was expecting something different from this one, because Sanders generally writes about big conspiracy type things, like corporations or governments, but this was an intimate group. It was a fascinating look at how people get along with each other, how someone knows who he is, really, and what people who are close to each other really mean to each other. I really enjoyed this.



~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*



Let's see, between now and the end of the year, I am having a housewarming party, hosting Thanksgiving dinner, getting ready for Christmas with the kids at my house for the end of the year vacation this year, plus all the normal work, cooking, seeing friends, house-cleaning (and must finish unpacking!). I think that I am not going to read as many books as last year (93) or the year before (83). Still, I think I am doing quite well for someone who bought a house in the year! I will at least get to 73, within shouting distance of 2006, I believe. Sounds good to me.

Again with the Grammar Nazi

Two posts in a row on this! This sort of thing just drives me crazy!

From my local online paper:

The bishops discussed their failure to convincingly impress upon the country's 67 million Catholics the church's teaching that abortion (and, by extension, embryonic stem cell research) is "intrinsically evil" and must be the pre-eminent issue — above even than the economy — Catholics carried with them into the voting booth. [emphasis mine]

With a great amount of effort, I am going to put aside my feelings on the message of the sentence as a whole and focus on the grammar issue here. Above even than the economy? I think they mean 'above even the economy', or 'even more than the economy'. I am not sure if the issue is that the writer's grasp of English is that bad that he doesn't know the phrases, or if it is a editing issue, and I am not sure which is worse. I am guessing, though, that this is a careless editing mistake--switching from 'even more than the economy' to 'above even the economy' and forgetting to erase the 'than'.

Now, I do this sort of thing all the time in conversation. I have both phrases in mind, and I come out with a combination of them. But that's in casual conversation, not in a professional article that I wrote down, read over, and submitted to an editor. And, I wouldn't even care as much about it in the paper if it were a fluke (although I would still notice, because I am that kind of a picky person), but it's not, as evidenced by my second post in a row on this. I could come up with more examples off the top of my head, but I will spare you for now. I am sure there will be more examples to infuriate me soon, ;-).

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Argh! I really don't go looking for errors on my local paper's website. I only read articles that I am interested in, and I am not trying to proofread them as I go. These things jump out at me, because they are so obvious and sometimes they are actually confusing. Here's another one, from a photo caption:

Michael Gerstner comforts Lisa Kaucher, a close friend, of his brother Mark Gerstner, who was remembered during a candle light vigil outside Steak N' Shake Tuesday night.

What is so hard about using commas properly? Putting 'a close friend' in commas makes it seem that Lisa is a close friend of Michael, but the sentence then goes on to say 'of his brother Mark', which means 'a close friend of his brother Mark Gerstner' is actually the phrase that goes together. As you can tell here, I am not an English teacher, and I don't know the technical terms that describe all of these grammar rules, but I know how to use English nonetheless. Why don't the people who get paid to work with words know how to use it?

Grammar Nazi (an occasional feature)

On the front page of my local paper's website:

Joe's Movie Lounge: The guessing game beings on holiday box office winners.

Ah, the perils of spell-check....

Or maybe it's just bad typing skills. Whatever. Doesn't anyone READ these things before posting them on the site?