Review: _Freedom and Necessity_, Brust and Bull
Kate Nepveu
follow-up post.
I've been re-reading _Freedom and Necessity_, by Steven Brust and Emma
Bull, and I've been stuck about forty pages from the end for a week or
two. I knew that I'd want to read the rest all at once, but I didn't
feel able to justify taking even that much time to read fiction.
Monday, though, I promised it to myself as a reward for cleaning the
bathroom, and I assembled most of this post in spare bits of time
since.
_Freedom and Necessity_ is another of those books it's oddly difficult
for me to write about. I know *why* I like it so much, but I also
know that some of those reasons are nearly irrelevant for these
purposes (the extent to which I do or do not identify with certain of
the characters being of no use at all to those of you who are, well,
not me). Other reasons are more objective but hardly universal. If
you'll pardon a slightly silly anecdote as an analogy: I won't let
Chad read A.S. Byatt's _Possession_, because I'm virtually certain he
wouldn't like it, and I don't want him to actively *dislike* a book
that's important to me. (Not that I could actually stop him from
reading it, of course. But he really wouldn't like it.) Similarly, I
hesitate to praise _F&N_ too highly here, in case someone reads it as
a result and doesn't like it (and then complains). So, if I sound
strangely subdued for someone talking about one of her favorite books,
that's why.
_F&N_ opens in England, in 1849, with a letter from James Cobham to
his cousin Richard:
My Dear Cousin,
I wonder how you will greet these words; indeed, I wonder how you
will receive into your hands the paper that bears them, as I think
you cannot be in expectation of correspondence from me. . . .
In short, I have been given to understand that I am believed dead
by all my family and acquaintance--that I was seen to die, in
fact, or at least, was seen to sink beneath the water a last time,
and my corpse never recovered, though long and passionately sought
for. You may imagine the fascination with which I heard this
account, though you will imagine, too, that my fascination is
accompanied by horror, which is far from the case. I cannot tell
how it is, but though I know the thought of myself as a corpse
should by all rights cause me distress, I find it holds only the
interest, raises only the feelings, that such a thing might in
verse or fiction.
What should distress me yet more, and what may, as my
sensibilities recover somewhat from the curious flattened state
they are now in, is that, for all I can recall, I may indeed have
drowned. I have no knowledge of any act, any word, any thing at
all that occurred between the conclusion of that pleasant luncheon
on the lake shore, and my discovery--rediscovery--of my
wits and person at the bottom of the garden behind this
respectable inn at an hour when almost none of the respectable
inhabitants of it were conscious. I have read, I suppose, too
many fables and fairy-tales, for the first thing I asked of the
good landlord, upon gathering my straying thoughts and finding my
voice, was the month, day, and year. How relieved I was to find I
had not been whisked away for seven times seven years, but for a
scant two months! And yet, how and where were those two months
passed? For anything I could tell, I might indeed have spent
them happily in Fairyland, but for sundry signs about my person
that it might not have been an unalloyed happiness. . . .
Finding out what happened to James, and what is going to happen to
James, is the core of the rest of the book.
I tend to think of books as having both a plot and a story (ideally,
that is). There are probably more technical terms for that, but to
me, the plot is what happens in the book, and the story is what the
book's really about. For example, in Lois McMaster Bujold's _Memory_,
the plot is that Miles screws up royally, gets fired, and then finds
himself playing detective when his old boss is disabled. The story is
that Miles grows up (somewhat). I tend to think of story as being
mostly character-based, though in some cases it's mixed with theme; to
me, the story in the Sarantine Mosaic is learning (or not) to live in
the world of time and change, love and loss, intellect and emotion,
and art and history.
Apropos of the Sarantine Mosaic, the plot of _Freedom and Necessity_
is in some regards not far from byzantine. Its form contributes to
its apparent complexity; it's an epistolary novel, and the letters and
diary entries are virtually note-perfect *as* letters and diary
entries, which ought not to surprise readers of Brust's _Agyar_, a
perfectly brilliant novel-as-journal that everyone ought to go out and
read, now. But for quite a while its components are being written by
people who only know part of what's going on, or are keeping things
from each other, or are talking about things that they expect each
other to know about, so they don't bother to explain them to us.
Eventually large chunks of the plot do get revealed, though Brust &
Bull usually give the reader a chance to figure it out for themselves,
which is nice. However, because of the form, a number of smaller
questions stay unanswered, which can be a touch frustrating. (For the
longest time, none of the plot would stay in my head; every time I
would re-read, I would be wondering again who the man with the ginger
moustache is and the like. It appears to have stuck now, but the
characters and the prose have always been more important to me.)
Some of the questions that stay unanswered would help resolve the
perennial question of whether this is a fantasy novel or not. Some
people get very exercised over the whole issue--either they think it's
definitely one thing, and thought they were getting the other, or they
want to know which it's *supposed* to be. The closest thing to a
definite word on the subject is from one of the authors, who said [1]
that it depended on which character you asked. I don't really care;
it's a damn good novel and I'm happy to leave it at that, but if such
things matter to you, be warned.
[1]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5hacb9%24krk%241%40news5.wavefront.com
Really, because of the epistolary form, I feel that saying almost
anything about the plot would be an unfair spoiler. So I shall talk
about the story instead, which is hardly a spoiler because it's right
in the first letter: the book is about the resurrection of James
Cobham. Oh, okay, it's also about means and ends in one's political
and personal life, and there are other characters and other events of
importance, but at core it's about James in the same way that
Dunnett's Lymond books are about, well, Lymond. (Not a comparison
generated at random. Can't you just see Francis Crawford of Lymond,
being asked to pick one word to describe himself, coming up with
"agile"?) I've had James taking up space in my head for nearly a
month now, along with a number of his relatives; it hasn't always been
comfortable, but their taking up so much space for so long should
indicate how vividly complex the characters are.
I appear to have rambled my way to a close, or at least to a point
where the only things I have left to say are spoilers of the worst
sort. (I shall post those to Usenet and put the link in a comment,
for those who've read the book already.) I remember the time I was
re-reading this on D.C.'s Metro on the way home from work; my deep
absorption was apparently so obvious that the stranger sitting next to
me felt moved to comment on it, observing that I was reading very fast
and had not looked up once. I muttered something about re-reading and
put my head back down; he, undeterred, added something about how it
must be really good, huh? I wanted badly to point out that if it was,
did he think I would *thank* him for interrupting me? (I have no idea
what I said--or how I looked--but he did get the hint after that.)
Even during the miserable days of studying for the bar (please don't
ask me how miserable, or I might tell you, and then neither of us
would be happy), _Freedom and Necessity_ can still generate that level
of absorption in me.
--
Kate Nepveu
E-mail: kne...@steelypips.org *new*
Home: http://www.steelypips.org/
Book log: http://www.steelypips.org/weblog/
Kate Nepveu
>From the book log, slightly edited. There will be spoilers in a
>follow-up post.
And here they are.
SPOILERS.
I believe I have heard one or two people say that James should have
died at the end. That would have been throw-the-book-at-the-wall time
for me, as you could probably guess from my opinion as to what the
book's really about--we just spent all that time fixing him, and now
you want to waste that?
Speaking of people dying, this time I realized that I wasn't as moved
by the actual deaths as I feel I ought to have been. I have no idea
if it's my somewhat distracted state these days, or if the form and
the pace conspired to set that at a distance. Things move very
quickly after Coslick dies, for instance, and there's not much time to
dwell on him. As I said, don't know what the cause of this is, but I
found it interesting.
Unanswered questions--I think the one that we ought to have been able
to get an answer to is what happened to Kitty's mother. Susan's last
letter seems a little too much like summing-up to me to really be as
true to the epistolary form as the rest--but if she was going to sum
up the last months like that anyway, couldn't she have tossed in a
line about that?
Umm. There was more, but my brain is really in terrible shape these
days. Anyone else?
Steven Rogers
several years ago, enjoyed it immensely, but damn-all if I could have told you
what it was about without Kate Nepveu's plot summary. It just did not stick in
my memory.
Steve
Yoicks! And Away!
Karen Lofstrom
Kate Nepveu wrote:
> _Freedom and Necessity_ is another of those books it's oddly difficult
> for me to write about. I know *why* I like it so much, but I also
> know that some of those reasons are nearly irrelevant for these
> purposes (the extent to which I do or do not identify with certain of
> the characters being of no use at all to those of you who are, well,
> not me).
Hmmm. I bought the book on the strength of lavish praise here, and hated
it. Never finished it.
1) There was something skew about the way it depicted Victorian society.
It got it wrong -- whereas Byatt's _Possession_ got it exactly right.
2) It attempted to glorify violent revolution and conspiracy. I reject
such things vehemently and I cannot in any way identify with such heroes.
3) I didn't care what happened to any of the characters.
Obviously, YMMV.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspected and found apparently free of sweet potato weevils in accor-
dance with Pt 3 of Chptr 12 of Ttl 3 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes
Kate Nepveu
>In article <7g3shuo4eejfrfhhu...@news.earthlink.net>,
>Kate Nepveu wrote:
>> _Freedom and Necessity_ is another of those books it's oddly difficult
>> for me to write about. I know *why* I like it so much, but I also
>> know that some of those reasons are nearly irrelevant for these
>> purposes (the extent to which I do or do not identify with certain of
>> the characters being of no use at all to those of you who are, well,
>> not me).
>Hmmm. I bought the book on the strength of lavish praise here, and hated
>it. Never finished it.
>1) There was something skew about the way it depicted Victorian society.
>It got it wrong -- whereas Byatt's _Possession_ got it exactly right.
Hmm. Well. I don't know Victorian society, frankly, so I can't say.
I wish Jo Walton weren't having newsreader issues with sf.written, she
really likes both and might be able to comment.
As for the rest, SPOILERS.
>2) It attempted to glorify violent revolution and conspiracy. I reject
>such things vehemently and I cannot in any way identify with such heroes.
Well, I don't know how far you got. Engels (and Marx) do appear as
sympathetic characters, and my history is so shamefully bad that I
don't know what the state of their thinking about violent revolution
was at this point in history. However, there is quite a lot about
means and ends--about 150 pages in, Richard writes to James:
To take an example, if we have a man who, on the one hand, wishes
to improve the world, and, on the other, refuses to trust even
those who are closest to and care most for him, we can see, by
using the Hegelian method, that this man will find himself driven
to the most appalling acts out of kindness or duty, and in the end
will find himself alone, isolated, and bereft even of compassion
from those he has used, all with the highest of motives.
Which hits James rather hard, and quite properly. And Engels gets to
talk quite a lot about methods, a hundred pages later, too.
So this *does* get addressed, though perhaps not enough given your
strength of feeling.
It just occurred to me that I ought to re-read _Teckla_ and _Phoenix_
in light of this.
>3) I didn't care what happened to any of the characters.
>Obviously, YMMV.
Indeed, and fair enough. Though I feel obligated to point out--again,
I don't know how far you got--that the form might not have helped with
that--James in particular is, in the early part of the book, using his
portrayals of himself and others as a way of distancing himself from
them. Anyway.
Kate Nepveu
There are books like that for me--for a great while, Stevermer's
_College of Magics_ was like that. For me, it seems to be something
about not being sure of the plot on the first time through, combined
with liking the characters enough that I don't really care.
D. Gascoyne
"Karen Lofstrom" <lofs...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:afnr3g$a32$1...@mochi.lava.net...
> In article <7g3shuo4eejfrfhhu...@news.earthlink.net>,
> Kate Nepveu wrote:
>
> > _Freedom and Necessity_ is another of those books it's oddly difficult
> > for me to write about. I know *why* I like it so much, but I also
> > know that some of those reasons are nearly irrelevant for these
> > purposes (the extent to which I do or do not identify with certain of
> > the characters being of no use at all to those of you who are, well,
> > not me).
>
> Hmmm. I bought the book on the strength of lavish praise here, and hated
> it. Never finished it.
>
> 1) There was something skew about the way it depicted Victorian society.
> It got it wrong -- whereas Byatt's _Possession_ got it exactly right.
>
and I love _Possession_, too. I know what you mean about the depiction of
Victorian society, though, but somehow the anachronisms didn't bother me,
perhaps reading it as a fantasy made me more tolerant - that's not right
exactly, but I was prepared to accept more liberties with the period and
attitudes etc. _Possession_ is a more scholarly, literary book where errors
would be more glaring. The strength of F&N was the characters - I _did_
care about James and all the others. I'm still not sure what happens at the
end - I'm due for a reread soon...
Debbie
how...@brazee.net
off well written. But I have started it 3 times over the years and then put
aside when I wanted something more direct.
wren
keep trying.
remember that this is NOT a normal fantasy. This is something different and
wonderful, but by and large it is a 19th century epistolary discussion of love
and politics disguised as 20th c. novel.
if you enjoyed brust's paarfi books, you will ultimately find this one rewarding.
--
Use our news server 'news.foorum.com' from anywhere.
More details at: http://nnrpinfo.go.foorum.com/
David Dyer-Bennet
> Hmmm. I bought the book on the strength of lavish praise here, and hated
> it. Never finished it.
>
> 1) There was something skew about the way it depicted Victorian society.
> It got it wrong -- whereas Byatt's _Possession_ got it exactly right.
I felt the characters had unrelentingly modern worldviews, which felt
wrong. Of course, a lot of the "modern" worldview grows out of their
flavor of radicalism, so *maybe* it's actually reasonable.
> 2) It attempted to glorify violent revolution and conspiracy. I reject
> such things vehemently and I cannot in any way identify with such heroes.
>
> 3) I didn't care what happened to any of the characters.
And I got confused about who was who a lot, I'm afraid.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
Steven Brust
Mostly stuff Emma wrote. Damn she's good.
Reading it with a few years perspective is odd. I can only say that
(unlike some of the stuff I've done that I'm not terribly happy with)
if I was intending to write something that I would enjoy reading, I
succeeded.
The scenes with Engels in particular are, well, for my taste, just
right.
The last time the "is it a fantasy?" discussion came up, Emma said,
"Well, if you don't read it as a fantasy, there are things that won't
make sense." I pretty much agree. James, however, thinks that's
nonsense.
As for the attitudes being too modern, I must respectfully disagree,
and recommend that anyone who think so read some of the works that are
mentioned in the book, and others works of the period (which works
include all of Darwin and Freud, among others). Our contemporary view
of Victorian attitudes and beliefs will not stand up to scruitiny.
As for those who had trouble because of sympathetic portrayals of
revolutionaries: I haven't been so pleased since I got vitriolic
hate-mail on _Brokedown Palace_ and discovered by glancing at the
enveolope that the author was a libertarian.
Anita Graham
wrote:
>
>Some of the questions that stay unanswered would help resolve the
>perennial question of whether this is a fantasy novel or not. Some
>people get very exercised over the whole issue--either they think it's
>definitely one thing, and thought they were getting the other, or they
>want to know which it's *supposed* to be. The closest thing to a
>definite word on the subject is from one of the authors, who said [1]
>that it depended on which character you asked. I don't really care;
>it's a damn good novel and I'm happy to leave it at that, but if such
>things matter to you, be warned.
>
As someone else pointed out to me (so no credit to me) it can be read
as a Tam Lin story.
Some of the elements: the time (a year and a day)
Janet (well, you know who I mean - I haven't read it for a while) has
to chase after Tam Lin (James) and he keeps changing and is very
elusive.
The whole midsummer's eve business with his Father.
I'm sure there are more...
Anita Graham
Julie Stampnitzky
>As someone else pointed out to me (so no credit to me) it can be read
>as a Tam Lin story.
>
>Some of the elements: the time (a year and a day)
How do you calculate that?
>Janet (well, you know who I mean - I haven't read it for a while) has
>to chase after Tam Lin (James) and he keeps changing and is very
>elusive.
>The whole midsummer's eve business with his Father.
Midwinter, actually, and in Tam Lin I think it was All Hallow's Eve.
>I'm sure there are more...
I think it's just a vague plot similarity- the hero joined a strange
group and now they want to ritually kill him, the heroine's pregnancy,
etc.
-Julie
Frossie
"KL" == Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> writes:
KL> 1) There was something skew about the way it depicted Victorian
KL> society. It got it wrong -- whereas Byatt's _Possession_ got it
KL> exactly right.
I beg to disagree. Though I read it when it first came out, I
distinctly recall I was in the midst of a Trollope binge at the time,
and did not find _F&N_ jarring in the least.
Oh and I wish to categorically deny that my copy falls open on the
I've-seen-statues-in-Rome page :-)
KL> 2) It attempted to glorify violent revolution and conspiracy. I reject
KL> such things vehemently and I cannot in any way identify with such heroes.
Oh dear. That rules out quite a lot of literature, doesn't it?
Personally, I just bloody well wish that Bull would write more books.
<sigh>
Frossie
--
Joint Astronomy Centre, Hawaii http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~frossie/
Language is the soul's ozone layer and we thin it at our peril --Sven Birkerts
Karen Lofstrom
> I beg to disagree. Though I read it when it first came out, I
> distinctly recall I was in the midst of a Trollope binge at the time,
> and did not find _F&N_ jarring in the least.
A claim to superior knowledge of Victorian mores?
I don't know how much you've read from the period, but I do think that
many years of reading not just Trollope, but such luminaries as Mrs.
Craik, Mrs. Oliphant, and Mrs. Braddon, has given me at least some sense
of what people would have said and done then.
It could be that you've read as much as I have, or more, and that what
we've got is a difference of opinion and not a difference in knowledge
base. But I do think that I'm as much an expert as you can be if you don't
live in England and don't have an ancestral library full of musty old
three-deckers and back issues of Punch.
It could be that I thought Byatt did it better just because she's English
and not American. It's hard for Americans to get Britain right. I'm not
sure that I could. (Very often one can sense when things don't work, while
being far from able to make it work oneself.)
> Oh dear. That rules out quite a lot of literature, doesn't it?
Not that much. I don't like things that *glorify* pain and cruelty. A lot
of authors discuss such things, but not necessarily to glorify them.
I stopped dead in my re-reading of Les Miserables when I got the "hurrah
for war" section on Waterloo. OTOH, I love Patrick O'Brian's sea stories,
and they're chock full of battles. Just that O'Brian seems to have a clear
sight of the misery during and following. Ditto Lois Bujold.
--
Karen Lofstrom SCIENTOLOGIST BAIT lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OT7-48 1. Find some plants, trees, etc., and communicate to them
individually until you know they received your communication.
Jo Walton
>In article <ux1yal7...@jach.hawaii.edu>, Frossie wrote:
>
>> I beg to disagree. Though I read it when it first came out, I
>> distinctly recall I was in the midst of a Trollope binge at the time,
>> and did not find _F&N_ jarring in the least.
>
>A claim to superior knowledge of Victorian mores?
>
>I don't know how much you've read from the period, but I do think that
>many years of reading not just Trollope, but such luminaries as Mrs.
>Craik, Mrs. Oliphant, and Mrs. Braddon, has given me at least some sense
>of what people would have said and done then.
>
>It could be that you've read as much as I have, or more, and that what
>we've got is a difference of opinion and not a difference in knowledge
>base. But I do think that I'm as much an expert as you can be if you don't
>live in England and don't have an ancestral library full of musty old
>three-deckers and back issues of Punch.
I grew up in a house with a study like that... and I thought they did it
OK. Not perfectly, but really who can be perfect? They did it pretty
well.
>It could be that I thought Byatt did it better just because she's English
>and not American. It's hard for Americans to get Britain right. I'm not
>sure that I could. (Very often one can sense when things don't work, while
>being far from able to make it work oneself.)
There is one mistake every single American writer except John M. Ford
has made when writing about Britain, and I know what causes it and I
don't think it's fixable. The mistake is that they look at a map and
they say "Gosh, this is a little place, everywhere is close together,
people can move from here to here easily in <carefully researched>
amount of time, I can have X move from here to here on Thursday and Y go
from there to there on Friday... and really British people just do not
move about with this sort of gay abandon.
Britain is actually as big as the US or Canada, it's just that the huge
physical distances are translated into huge psychological distances. If
writing about Britain, and British characters, for any trip you're
thinking about having the character make which isn't something they do
often, quadruple or quintuple the psychological distance to discover the
effort it would take to make that trip.
James and Kitty jaunt about the country in a way that just doesn't seem
natural, because they do it easily and naturally, like Americans. (See
also Willis's _To Say Nothing of the Dog_ which completely lost my
suspension of disbelief on the trip to Coventry.)
Consider Trollope, since we were talking about him, where people make
visits of a month's length to somewhere six miles away, and every time
anyone goes anywhere they prepare themselves mentally. (Mr. Harding
prepares himself mentally when going to Plumstead, which is about six
miles, and he stresses out madly when going to London, which is a couple
of hours on the train -- and note that he stays for several days when he
does go, he doesn't buzz there and back.)
Consider the scene in _Possession_ in the railway carriage, and consider
how far psychologically Yorkshire feels from London because of that --
and the parallel scene in Lincoln station in 1983 and how far the Wolds
feel from Roland's flat.
>> Oh dear. That rules out quite a lot of literature, doesn't it?
>
>Not that much. I don't like things that *glorify* pain and cruelty. A lot
>of authors discuss such things, but not necessarily to glorify them.
>
>I stopped dead in my re-reading of Les Miserables when I got the "hurrah
>for war" section on Waterloo. OTOH, I love Patrick O'Brian's sea stories,
>and they're chock full of battles. Just that O'Brian seems to have a clear
>sight of the misery during and following. Ditto Lois Bujold.
I didn't think _Freedom and Necessity_ glorified pain or cruelty.
I need to read it again.
--
Jo I kissed a kif at Kefk blu...@vif.com
*THE KING'S NAME* out now, *THE KING'S PEACE* paperback out in August,
*THE PRIZE IN THE GAME* due out in November, all from Tor.
Poetry, map, etc. at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk (new web page soon)
Frossie
"KL" == Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> writes:
KL> In article <ux1yal7...@jach.hawaii.edu>, Frossie wrote:
>> I beg to disagree. Though I read it when it first came out, I
>> distinctly recall I was in the midst of a Trollope binge at the time,
>> and did not find _F&N_ jarring in the least.
KL> A claim to superior knowledge of Victorian mores?
Sorry, I thought we were discussing _F&N_, rather than having a
I've-read-more-Victoriana-than-you pissing contest. You said you found
the Victorian setting unauthentic, or some such. I was just remarking
that given that I was in the midst of a Victoriana binge at the time,
I should have been particularly sensitized to any jarring
dissimilarities but nevertheless, *I personally* failed to notice any
and on the contrary, remember being quite pleased with the period
tone.
I wasn't aiming for an argument ex cathedra, I was expecting a
response with a specific example so I could understand your point of
view better and thus end my day a bit more enlightened than I started
it.
It's just a conversation, ya know?
Louann Miller
>There is one mistake every single American writer except John M. Ford
>has made when writing about Britain, and I know what causes it and I
>don't think it's fixable. The mistake is that they look at a map and
>they say "Gosh, this is a little place, everywhere is close together,
>people can move from here to here easily in <carefully researched>
>amount of time, I can have X move from here to here on Thursday and Y go
>from there to there on Friday... and really British people just do not
>move about with this sort of gay abandon.
>
>Britain is actually as big as the US or Canada, it's just that the huge
>physical distances are translated into huge psychological distances. If
>writing about Britain, and British characters, for any trip you're
>thinking about having the character make which isn't something they do
>often, quadruple or quintuple the psychological distance to discover the
>effort it would take to make that trip.
Four of us went on vacation to the UK a couple of years ago. The
number of us plus the amount of luggage made it a better deal (in our
opinion) to rent a car for areas outside London* rather than get four
Britrail passes.
We car-mad Texans laid out an itenerary for part of this that started
in Bath, went up through a corner of Wales, along the west coast (wave
at the Liverpool exit as you go by, in spite of the Beatles shrines),
overnight stop in Glasgow. Second day, up to Inverness, back down the
other coast to Edinburgh.
Easy as pie. Plenty of time to see Bath most of the morning before we
left, take a leisurely lunch at a roadside pub just inside Wales, run
moderately amok in Hay-on-Wye, do laundry in Glasgow, etc. Sure, the
roads were a little narrow but each day's drive wasn't even as much as
Dallas to Houston.
And yet, just as you say, every single Brit who knew our route thought
we were either insane or masochistic.
Louann
*Car was both rented and dropped off again well outside London.
Nobody's THAT crazy.
--
Over the last few weeks, Yahoo! has completely turned its
public image around from "respected net resource" to "hateful
money-grubbing spam merchants." Funny goal for a company to have.
Julie Stampnitzky
>In article <ux1yal7...@jach.hawaii.edu>, Frossie wrote:
[It attempted to glorify violent revolution and conspiracy.]
>> Oh dear. That rules out quite a lot of literature, doesn't it?
>
>Not that much. I don't like things that *glorify* pain and cruelty. A
lot
>of authors discuss such things, but not necessarily to glorify them.
How do you see that in the book? Most of the main characters weren't
violent revolutionaries, and even those who were acknowledged certain
limits. (Granted, we never heard an answer to 'If it would get you the
Charter, would you do it [blow up innocent people in order to provoke a
rising]?' but I'm pretty sure the answer would have been 'No.')
-Julie
Frossie
JW> Britain is actually as big as the US or Canada, it's just that the huge
JW> physical distances are translated into huge psychological distances.
True and that is still the case - for example the UK view of a
long-distance relationship can seem ludicrous to people who haven't
lived there.
JW> James and Kitty jaunt about the country in a way that just doesn't seem
JW> natural, because they do it easily and naturally, like Americans.
Fair enough. As an aside, anybody know what distance your typical
Victorian coach driver travelled?
Del Cotter
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> said:
>blu...@vif.com (Jo Walton) wrote:
>>Britain is actually as big as the US or Canada, it's just that the huge
>>physical distances are translated into huge psychological distances. If
>>writing about Britain, and British characters, for any trip you're
>>thinking about having the character make which isn't something they do
>>often, quadruple or quintuple the psychological distance to discover the
>>effort it would take to make that trip.
>
>Four of us went on vacation to the UK a couple of years ago. The
>number of us plus the amount of luggage made it a better deal (in our
>opinion) to rent a car for areas outside London* rather than get four
>Britrail passes.
<snip tale of perfectly feasible itinerary decried by "Brits" as a
punishing schedule>
And yet there is room for disagreement even between one Briton and
another:
'It must be very agreeable to her to be settled within so easy a
distance of her own family and friends.'
'An easy distance do you call it? It is nearly fifty miles.'
'And what is fifty miles of good road? Little more than half a days
journey. Yes, I call it a *very* easy distance.'
'I should never have considered the distance as one of the
*advantages* of the match,' cried Elizabeth. I should never have said
Mrs. Collins was settled *near* her family.'
[...]
'I do not mean to say that a woman may not be settled too near her
family. The far and the near must be relative, and depend on many
varying circumstances. Where there is fortune to make the expence of
travelling unimportant, distance becomes no evil. But that is not the
case *here*. Mr. and Mrs. Collins have a comfortable income, but not
such a one as will allow of frequent journeys-- and I am persuaded my
friend would not call herself *near* her family under less than *half*
the present distance.'
Thus Elizabeth explains to Darcy (for it is he) that not everyone thinks
a hundred miles is a short distance.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:e:TerryPratchettTheTruth:JeromeKJeromeThreeMenInABoat:WilliamGo
ldmanThePrincessBride:AlastairReynoldsRevelationSpace:GregEganQuarantine
ToRead:KimStanleyRobinsonTheYearsOfRice&Salt:BenJeapesHisMajesty'sStarsh
Maureen O'Brien
>>from there to there on Friday... and really British people just do
>>not move about with this sort of gay abandon.
>>
>>Britain is actually as big as the US or Canada, it's just that the
>>huge physical distances are translated into huge psychological
>>distances.
This explains why so few of the British fans I knew planned to go to
Glasgow when Worldcon was there. They kept saying it was too far
away.... <g>
So, what does that say about Dr Who, since it's a British show?
Maureen
Karen Lofstrom
> There is one mistake every single American writer except John M. Ford
> has made when writing about Britain, and I know what causes it and I
> don't think it's fixable. The mistake is that they look at a map and
> they say "Gosh, this is a little place, everywhere is close together,
> people can move from here to here easily in <carefully researched>
> amount of time, I can have X move from here to here on Thursday and Y go
> from there to there on Friday... and really British people just do not
> move about with this sort of gay abandon.
Thanks Jo. Yes, that is one of the things Americans get wrong.
The other ones are class and manners. People interacting as if they were
American suburbanites. "Hiya, Duke, how's the wife?"
Re the pain and cruelty part -- it's the romantic view taken of conspiracy
and insurrection. It's Brust's politics, dammit.
I didn't finish the book, and I find, checking my shelves, that I must
have given it to the library. So I can't say exactly what gave me that
impression, and why it should have taken me the wrong way.
I can sympathize with an attempt to include issues of social justice and
labor history in a Victorian-era novel. One of the reasons I like to read
Mrs. Gaskell, even if her solution was "Everybody be Christians and be
nice to each other". Then there's the whole "Upstairs Downstairs" genre of
modern takes on Victorian/Edwardian society, which directors and writers
have done with varying success. Writers of mystery novels generally.
Sorry I can't be more explicit, lacking a copy of the book. I was even
going to *read the whole darn thing* and see if I still reacted the same
why and try to figure out why.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Oh what a cute wee thing!
Kate Nepveu
>Personally, I just bloody well wish that Bull would write more books.
In February, I heard her read from her work-in-progress, which was a
secret history of the OK Corral, if I recall correctly. No ETA then,
but it sounded... interesting.
Kate Nepveu
>Sorry I can't be more explicit, lacking a copy of the book. I was even
>going to *read the whole darn thing* and see if I still reacted the same
>why and try to figure out why.
Dedication indeed to intellectual discussion. If you come across a
copy eventually, do let us know.
Kate Nepveu
>The last time the "is it a fantasy?" discussion came up, Emma said,
>"Well, if you don't read it as a fantasy, there are things that won't
>make sense." I pretty much agree. James, however, thinks that's
>nonsense.
I'd love to know what you and/or Ms. Bull think wouldn't make sense if
it weren't fantasy--there are a number of things that don't seem to
make sense without *the characters believing* it's a fantasy, but I
don't recall anything that absolutely has to be explained by the
fantastic. (I think they probably are--but that's not the question.)
Kate Nepveu
I remembered a spoiler question I had, and if you're still here and
would care to comment, that would be cool.
Spoilers.
Kitty says, at the end, that they are starting to gather up all the
letters, and maybe they can put them all together someday. She also
says that Richard has lost some of the ones sent to him.
Are we reading, in the book, all the letters that were written, or
only the ones that were kept? I can see one letter that's missing
(Richard's note to Kitty about Tournier's sister, which is so short as
to not really be missed), but I can't see any others. Then again, I'm
not good at that, because in _Possession_, some letters get mentioned
out of order and I can't spot where they ought to be.
David Silberstein
Kate Nepveu <kne...@steelypips.org> wrote:
>Frossie <fro...@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote:
>
>>Personally, I just bloody well wish that Bull would write more books.
>
>In February, I heard her read from her work-in-progress, which was a
>secret history of the OK Corral, if I recall correctly. No ETA then,
>but it sounded... interesting.
>
Ooooh. I wonder if she's following up on the life & times of
"Calamity" Jane Austin that was being kicked around (and
parts of which are still archived on Jo Walton's site).
That would be amusing.
Kate Nepveu
>In article <2pueiu0fgt7gno5a2...@news.earthlink.net>,
>Kate Nepveu <kne...@steelypips.org> wrote:
[Emma Bull]
>>In February, I heard her read from her work-in-progress, which was a
>>secret history of the OK Corral, if I recall correctly. No ETA then,
>>but it sounded... interesting.
>Ooooh. I wonder if she's following up on the life & times of
>"Calamity" Jane Austin that was being kicked around (and
>parts of which are still archived on Jo Walton's site).
>That would be amusing.
Uhh, did Calamity Jane have anything to do at all with the OK Corral?
I don't think so...
Steven Brust
wrote:
>sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust) wrote:
>
>>The last time the "is it a fantasy?" discussion came up, Emma said,
>>"Well, if you don't read it as a fantasy, there are things that won't
>>make sense." I pretty much agree. James, however, thinks that's
>>nonsense.
>
>I'd love to know what you and/or Ms. Bull think wouldn't make sense if
>it weren't fantasy--there are a number of things that don't seem to
>make sense without *the characters believing* it's a fantasy, but I
>don't recall anything that absolutely has to be explained by the
>fantastic. (I think they probably are--but that's not the question.)
>
James and the horse, for one. And the final encounter between James
and his father. And James's survival.
Steven Brust
wrote:
>Kitty says, at the end, that they are starting to gather up all the
>letters, and maybe they can put them all together someday. She also
>says that Richard has lost some of the ones sent to him.
>
>Are we reading, in the book, all the letters that were written, or
>only the ones that were kept?
Only the ones they were able to find.
Timothy A. McDaniel
Kate Nepveu <kne...@steelypips.org> wrote:
>dav...@kithrup.com (David Silberstein) wrote:
>>Ooooh. I wonder if she's following up on the life & times of
>>"Calamity" Jane Austin that was being kicked around (and
>>parts of which are still archived on Jo Walton's site).
>
>>That would be amusing.
>
>Uhh, did Calamity Jane have anything to do at all with the OK Corral?
He is sadly mistaken. The OK Corral was late in 1881, and Calamity
Jane Austin entered the Alamo with Davie Crockett in 1836 (although
there are those persistent rumors that she escaped and eventually
become a bandita in Bolivia).
--
Tim McDaniel is tm...@jump.net; if that fail,
tm...@us.ibm.com is my work account.
"To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting everything
up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka....@hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
Lee Ann Rucker
<loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
> We car-mad Texans laid out an itenerary for part of this that started
> in Bath, went up through a corner of Wales, along the west coast (wave
> at the Liverpool exit as you go by, in spite of the Beatles shrines),
> overnight stop in Glasgow. Second day, up to Inverness, back down the
> other coast to Edinburgh.
>
> Easy as pie. Plenty of time to see Bath most of the morning before we
> left, take a leisurely lunch at a roadside pub just inside Wales, run
> moderately amok in Hay-on-Wye, do laundry in Glasgow, etc. Sure, the
> roads were a little narrow but each day's drive wasn't even as much as
> Dallas to Houston.
>
> And yet, just as you say, every single Brit who knew our route thought
> we were either insane or masochistic.
I totally misjudged the amount of time it would take me to get from
Glasgow to Lancaster - I only made a short trip north of Glasgow
because I didn't think I had time to do more and still get to Lancaster
that day. But then I'd planned my trip with the help of a British
friend.
> *Car was both rented and dropped off again well outside London.
> Nobody's THAT crazy.
Rented in Glasgow, dropped off at Heathrow. Even my friend doesn't
drive in London, and he'd lived there.
John Johnson
says...
> In article <0amgiugi6j995kfsi...@news.earthlink.net>,
> Kate Nepveu <kne...@steelypips.org> wrote:
> >dav...@kithrup.com (David Silberstein) wrote:
> >>Ooooh. I wonder if she's following up on the life & times of
> >>"Calamity" Jane Austin that was being kicked around (and
> >>parts of which are still archived on Jo Walton's site).
> >
> >>That would be amusing.
> >
> >Uhh, did Calamity Jane have anything to do at all with the OK Corral?
>
> He is sadly mistaken. The OK Corral was late in 1881, and Calamity
> Jane Austin entered the Alamo with Davie Crockett in 1836 (although
> there are those persistent rumors that she escaped and eventually
> become a bandita in Bolivia).
Later hooking up with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and escaping
from Bolivia to Washington?
--
John Johnson
"A cry in the dark . . ."
http://johnajohnson.diaryland.com
Steven Brust
wrote:
>In article <0amgiugi6j995kfsi...@news.earthlink.net>,
>Kate Nepveu <kne...@steelypips.org> wrote:
>>dav...@kithrup.com (David Silberstein) wrote:
>>>Ooooh. I wonder if she's following up on the life & times of
>>>"Calamity" Jane Austin that was being kicked around (and
>>>parts of which are still archived on Jo Walton's site).
>>
>>>That would be amusing.
>>
>>Uhh, did Calamity Jane have anything to do at all with the OK Corral?
>
>He is sadly mistaken. The OK Corral was late in 1881, and Calamity
>Jane Austin entered the Alamo with Davie Crockett in 1836 (although
>there are those persistent rumors that she escaped and eventually
>become a bandita in Bolivia).
>
That was after serving with Quantril's raiders in the Civil War, and
becoming an outlaw in Lincoln County, New Mexico.
Jonathan J. Baker
>From the book log, slightly edited. There will be spoilers in a
>follow-up post.
> Oh, okay, it's also about means and ends in one's political
>and personal life, and there are other characters and other events of
>importance, but at core it's about James in the same way that
>Dunnett's Lymond books are about, well, Lymond.
My big problem with it is that I have trouble understanding the underlying
philosophical message about necessity. I keep telling myself that I should
read Hegel's Logic, and maybe that would help, but the longer Logic is really
huge, and I haven't really gotten into the Shorter Logic, which at least I
went out & bought.
--
Jonathan Baker | It's almost time ta muze
jjb...@panix.com | about the Destruction.
Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
Steven Brust
<jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <k.net> Kate Nepveu <kne...@steelypips.org> writes:
>
>>From the book log, slightly edited. There will be spoilers in a
>>follow-up post.
>
>> Oh, okay, it's also about means and ends in one's political
>>and personal life, and there are other characters and other events of
>>importance, but at core it's about James in the same way that
>>Dunnett's Lymond books are about, well, Lymond.
>
>My big problem with it is that I have trouble understanding the underlying
>philosophical message about necessity.
Nuts. I thought the Engels quote at the end would have done it.
Bugger.
Oh, well.
Kate Nepveu
>On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 23:25:51 GMT, Kate Nepveu <kne...@steelypips.org>
>wrote:
>>sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust) wrote:
>>>The last time the "is it a fantasy?" discussion came up, Emma said,
>>>"Well, if you don't read it as a fantasy, there are things that won't
>>>make sense." I pretty much agree. James, however, thinks that's
>>>nonsense.
>>I'd love to know what you and/or Ms. Bull think wouldn't make sense if
>>it weren't fantasy--
Great big SPOILERS.
>James and the horse, for one. And the final encounter between James
>and his father. And James's survival.
Well, the first two I thought could be explained, for the skeptic, by
those unreliable narrators. It truly never occurred to me that the
last might *need* to be explained, because first, I would have
considered it such a waste if James had died after all that, and
second, yes, he was very badly wounded, but it also took him forever
to recover.
I sit here with jap agape (or did, several days ago when I first read
that, but didn't have time then to respond).
Kate Nepveu
If you *really* wanted to be cruel, now would be the time to tell us
that the missing letters explained about the ring, or the ancestors,
or some other un-explained reference...
Laurie Brassard
>
> My big problem with it is that I have trouble understanding the underlying
> philosophical message about necessity. I keep telling myself that I should
> read Hegel's Logic, and maybe that would help, but the longer Logic is really
> huge, and I haven't really gotten into the Shorter Logic, which at least I
> went out & bought.
Or try what I did (after picking up the Brust/Bull book entirely due
to this thread, thank you very much) and run a Google search on
"freedom" and "necessity" - you'll spend days slogging through it all
but it's a great way to pick up some new views, writings, etc. and/or
to refresh those hazy Intro to Philosophy memories. I do warn,
however, that you'll most likely end up a) just reading the damn Hegel
and b) staying up until midnight finding your old copies of all the
books in the Taltos series, just for a change of pace when you are
done...
Oh, brother - I've probably gotten myself into trouble with the "damn
Hegel" comment. What sort of punishment do you get for that heresy?
Anyway, best of luck.