Reviews, probably incoherent in their rambling. You've been warned.

[lenora_rose]

I reread what I wrote so far of Labyrinth (Which needs a new name for a variety of reasons, starting with the fact that it has nothing to do with David Bowie's Area, but continuing with the fact that Labyrinth and Maze are not really synonyms), and, well, yeah. I'd currently rather have some fun with these people than with The Serpent Prince, reading about 16th C. diplomats notwithstanding. Thomas and Kevin's plotline is pretty vague, but that's okay, as it only has to run through the first half of the book before they all get together and I know what's going on again.

Anyhow:

________________________________



You'd think a Folk Festival Regular of as long standing as I would ahve seen Billy Bragg just once. If you're talking about strong socialist singer-songwriters in the folk movement (Which is one of the standard tropes of any folk music festival), he's kind of ubiquitous. People who tend not to push hard on their politics record his songs because by god they stick in the head. he's got a way with words, and deceptively simple tunes, and an almost punk attitude in spite of being alone with a guitar.

But you don't go to see him life just to hear him sing. I'd vaguely heard that he had a tendency to rant a lot from the stage, in a vastly entertaining way, and I expected the political bits, and the parts which made us all laugh (There was a lengthy grumble about trying to visit our museum, which closes at 4:00, and somehow had everyone highly entertained -- and some bits about how, since the Union Jack would likely cease to exist at Scottish Independance, we should fix the manitoba flag, already afflicted with the Union Jack and the cross of St. George, by making the bison much much bigger.), and the Woddy Guthrie/Leadbelly history and tribute just seemed to make sense... but I wasn't quite expecting to hear an extended bit on watching videos of pets on YouTube with his 12-year-old-son in the hotel room. (To the stunned giggling: "Would you rather I did drugs?") His hamster imitation was to die for, and he managed to insert a bit about a flying cat into several songs as well as several rants. I think he spent as much time talking as singing, and I can say for sure this wasn't a waste, but part of what we paid for. (forodwaith was extraordinarily nice. She'd have let me not pay at all due to the job thing, but I gave her half the cost of the ticket now, and I will probably buy her a dinner when I'm working again.) He did comment that American audiences tend to shout a lot more "Shut up and sing!" when he goes off.

I was also deeply gratified when he apologised, on behalf of singer-songwriters in general, for the existance of James Blunt.

Weirdly, the Marlborough theatre had taken out most of the seats in the front centre area. I say weirdly, because this wasn't exactly a concert to dance to (People swayed or bounced a bit, but it never came to dancing.) it meant a lot of people just gravitatied to standign at the front of this dance area, so we three (forodwaith had been invited in ehr turn by another friend, D. whom I was pleased to meet but didn't get to talk to much) ended up standing, too, to see over and around them. As the short one, I ended up moving around a bit, but I could always keep him just in sight. My cone complaint was slightly tired feet.

Anyhow, it was decidedly a good night out.


________________________________________

I'm not quite done A.J. Hall's Lust Over Pendle (Done to the end of CHapter nine of 11 and an Epilogue), but... why do people who can write that well spend their energy on the Harry Potter Universe of all Universes? I'm not as much of a fan as pegkerr, by any means, but I am Fond of Rowling's books, which are definitely in my personal category of "Like them despite seeing every one of their flaws" along with The 10th Kingdom TV miniseries and Cadbury Creme Eggs.

Howver, Lust Over Pendle is decidedly written by someone with more of an idea how a secret war of Wizards would have worked, and what kind of scars it would leave. You can almost pardon Rowling's overly simple Evil Plotting and melodrama by saying it's war filtered through Harry Potter's still somewhat naive eyes, but the hadnful of scenes written without Harry's point of view, and the things adults are overheard to say have the same feel. Hall -- who's also writing, as described in theintroduction, a part of the detective thriller genre, and thus has to capture that tone As Well As Rowlling's, and blend them -- seems to catch some of Rowling's sense of things, but takes it places Rowling never even seems to think of. For a not-too-spoilery example, the description of what Hall's Neville was doing in the ongoing war (using his affinity for magical botany to collect the supplies of healing potion components even as the Dark Lord's troops try to cut off supply - not so easy when an herb only grows in one spot in Scotland and must be harvested at midnight with a silver knife, and the enemy is camped on the spot because they know this too.) That's almost real strategy; it certainly makes sense -- but I can't imagine Rowling ever imagining it. Ditto the bit about combat reflexes in an early chapter -- and the umpteen things that Neville's grandmother says to Rita Skeeter. And oh, that last one was funny. (As was the encounter much later between Certain Characters and Mad Eye Moody. And the almost Pratchettian comment about Morris dancing).

The thing is, these are the same characters, but not only older and more mature, as I said. They're *damaged*. They're knowledgeable (Okay, Draco is still a mite lost on the muggle world bits, and too nice about them.) Yet they're still true. You can see how the Books' Neville could become this young man. Narcissa loses the shrill she displays in Half-Blood Prince, but is as savvy and clever and gorgeous and all as she's claimed to be when described earlier (And yes, almost as much a bitch, although she's painted here as part of the side we want to sympathize with.) Hermione is still a know-it-all, the only difference being she really does seem to know it all. And Harry - I mentioned in my last post that Harry seemed to be cause doing exactly what he does in the books *all the time*, which is leaping to conclusions and acting on them before he has all the facts. But now it's seen from outside, and, well, the consequences are just right. He's obviously seen with affection by Hall (and within scene by Hermione), he's obviously a good guy, just not at all logical. (And both Rowling and Hall seem to have got to the same place with The Ministry for Magic. That's the one villain Rowling has that still frightens me.)

Alas, as it goes, there are more slivers of backstory as you go that work less well with HBP adn the war Rowling is setting up for, so it's definitely turning, by the general process of time working against all fanfic, into an Alternate Universe Harry Potter.

The thing is, there was dialogue in The Philosopher's Stone, The Chamber of Secrets, and the Prisoner of Azkaban that was as emotionally affecting as this book tends to be; jokes that are actually funny, things not stated quite so bluntly. There were several bits as recently as Order of the Phoenix (The chapter called "The Woes of Mrs. Weasely", for instance) which recall this.

But I think reading Hall's take on the characters as mature while reading Half-Blood Prince put Rowling rather too much to shame. I could still read it through, i could still get sad at one particular spot, but I can't see Hall messing up as badly as Rowling did with two things at the end of HBP (I've mentioned before the fact that Harry tries, and *really means to* do the Unforgiveable -- and the fact that he's still counted a good guy because he doesn't succeed rankles. But Ginny's last scene in the book really makes me itch - the worse because of Ron and Hermoine's scene shortly after, where the sauce for the goose is not the sauce for the gander, even though it plainly should be. it's the one place I actually agree with the accusations of her being too perfect and too much a wish-fulfillment character - The rest, before then, seemed within the bounds. But for crying out loud, has Rowling not seen Spiderman 2?)

If you're getting frustrated with Rowling's HP, or want to see what soemone with a more practical bent can do with the same universe, you could do worse than looking at Lust Over Pendle


_______________________________


On the other hand, Lust is a nice light book for when I've read enough on Sir Thomas Wyatt or extedned forways into the culture of the late 1970's (when I picked 1979 as the year for one Labyrinth character to come from, I was aware Star Wars was still big but Empire Strikes Back wasn't out. But I hadn't realised the Star Wars Holiday Special was already done. It's going to be hard to keep that one out of the dialogue.) It was "Let go of all the frustration" reading.

Blood and Iron was by no means a light book (um. Title. Clue.)

I didn't find it hard going (There's dense and dense, and one I can read and enjoy, and one I get mazed in. This is the first.) but I can see why people get frustrated. I know already it will benefit from a rereading, as there are things I understood only chapters after they happened. This seems to be a common reaction. more later.

What I was noticing about the prose was how very strange and sharp are Elizabeth Bear's descriptions. She is sparse with the visual images outside the characters -- I sometimes had a hard time envisioning the setting as a whole -- but she makes up for it by choosing the ones she chooses precisely, and virtually never resorting to cliche. She talks about how she's personally very kinesthetic, and how it effects what she describes, and I see exactly how it comes through. Characters -- clothing, stance, gesture, expression, exactly where they stand and how they move in relation to one another, these are all vivid to the point of bright, while sometimes the locale itself is murky.

It's a little like watching a play versus watching a movie. The whole hall is implied by the dragon pattern across the floor, rather than created by elaborate set design and CGI -- but we know where each actor stands, we see them precisely, head to foot at all times, withut the protection of an ill-timed close-up to hide a careless gesture.

Oh, and the smells. Bear uses scent more than most, and describes it as precisely as she describes hand gestures. She's good with sound, but not to as astonishing a level. I found myself reading ehr descriptions of character movement, of sudden awareness of scents, and felt myself growing ragingly envious.

Plot? Oh, yes. This is a complicated book. The first big obvious quest for human and fae characters alike is the hunt for the Merlin, a figure who could tip the balance of the secret war between the two sides. But the Merlin's choice is only one of multiple threads that bring us to the first real battle in a while. (Hint; there's a reason one of the first major events is Seeker's capture and binding of Whiskey. Besides that he's *teh* cool, if by cool you mean character I would never want to meet but still like to read about.)

I'm a little bemused by having read some reviews ahead of time, more than I suaully would (most of the oens Bear has marked as not too spoilery, especially the bad ones. Don't ask why, but I like reading bad reviews of works I like, so long as the bad review is articulate bad and not some teenaged "Boooooring!") The reason I'm bemused is when people say that this book is a retread of old ground, a middle-of-the-road example of urban fantasy and Faerie in modern cities. It echoes Tam Lin (The song, not the book) a great deal. There are certainly flickers and tributes and nods to all kind of sources. But this isn't standard, usual Faerie, or even standard, usual modern city (modern might be a nudge off. It's pointed that this takes place around 1997 -- if nothing else, much of the setting is New York City, which, well, changed a mite between then and now.) She looks at the relationship between Faerie and Hell rather more closely than I've seen anyone else do, except to acknowledge the Teind (as per Tam lin but not, I think, that alone). She makes it central to the plot, to the themes, to the motivations of everyone, even those fighting agaisnt Faerie.

I've also read people describing the figures as "cardboard characters", which makes me say "WhAAA?" Reticent, yes. Many of them emotionally cold in one way or another, yes. (It's part of the prices of faerie, which are not one but several). I sometimes wonder if some people were taking "emotionally cold" and assuming this was a lack of characterization, rather than a particular, and difficult, kind of character - or, I suppose, kinds, since the characters who were restrained in their feeling were so for as many different reasons as there were characters. The presence of the few people who weren't that way should have hinted that this was not accidental, or careless, or cardboard. (Matthew, for instance, while he'd probably resent having it pointed out, is pretty plain about what he feels and how strongly. Er, so is Whiskey, in a way... which brings me to)

"Unsympathetic." A lot of them are, indeed. These are people who sometimes try (Or succeed!) in doing very nasty things for their beliefs. Who sometimes *like* doing nasty things. This is a war where you're meant to sympathize with both sides, and it's hard to do that without losing some of the veneer of niceness off everyone on every side, and starting to wonder who you should root for. Some of the characters who first have our sympathy also do some of the most appalling things.

The hardest thing is what some people have described as the distancing effect. This is, as mentioned, a dense book, verbally and plotwise. Much happens, the word count is surprisingly short for it to happen in, but the language, especially at the start, is a bit Byzantine in spite of containing so much happening. But also, we're told people do things, and say things (especially say things), and we see their meotional reaction, but we won't always get shown *why* right away. This leaves us outside the character, standing at their shoulder, as it were, trying to decide whether offering a hankie or a sympathetic pat - or running away fast in terror - is appropriate.

This is exacerbated by the fact that the plot happens the same way - we're told things, but not always what and how much they will signify, until later.

It's like this. Every book anyone ever reads will introduice some questions int he mind of the reader. As the book progresses, those questions are answered and new ones pop up - preferably before, or because, the last question was answered. Readers don't mind waiting to have these questions answered, in fact, that's what they're reading for. However, what Bear does is take the usual number of querstions a smart writer will leave in the mind of a smart reader... and double it. (Which is about six times the questions in the average dumb summer book?) Also, Bear doesn't remind her reader, as many writers do, just what all the questions were (Rowling does this a Lot). She assumes the reader who is smart enough to keep these things in mind in the first place will be smart enough to keep track of them hirself.

Oh, and the pay-off on each one is worth it. If you stop halfway, as some have done, you'll be missing about 3/4 of the story. It's not going to go where you think it's going after chapter 3. Or after chapter 10. She surprises you with some parts right to the end.

It's also a book that rewards trying to read the language closely, and rewards the reader who cares about the small character details. In fact, I think that reading very closely, very carefully, with the intellect fully on, is the one and only way to get your heart broken by this book. I didn't, quite, but I think I will on the reread, when I can connect the action and the consequences better.

But, alas, the critics are right. Considering how much she talks about it, she's surprisingly short on the elf-smut. {g}