Ancillary Mercy - Ann Leckie.

[Titus G]

I planned to read the Hugo novel nominees and have had the final
Ancillary book waiting for months and decided to start it last week.
Before doing so, I thought it would be a more rewarding read if I
revised my knowledge of the first two books which I read ages ago but
after picking up Ancillary Justice to skim through it ended up
re-reading the whole book. I enjoyed this re-read as much if not more
than the first time through. Brilliant in so many aspects.
I had recently read Pride and Prejudice and was constantly reminded of
proper "manners", events were still surprising and dramatic despite
remembering most of the plotting, the main characters were fascinating
with the highlight being the details of how the multiple bodied minds
thought and the consequent intrigues.
I usually like a change of genre or at least author between books in a
series but now plan to re-read Ancillary Sword before Ancillary Mercy
with a minor concern that I may become Leckied out.
Have you read Ancillary Mercy?
How does it compare to the others?

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 2 May 2016 21:50:46 +1200, Titus G
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote
in<news:ng77n8$q9l$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> I usually like a change of genre or at least author
> between books in a series but now plan to re-read
> Ancillary Sword before Ancillary Mercy with a minor
> concern that I may become Leckied out.

> Have you read Ancillary Mercy?
> How does it compare to the others?

I liked all three books a great deal. However, I consider
the nominal trilogy to be a duology whose second volume has
been split between _Ancillary Sword_ and _Ancillary Mercy_:
they seem to me much more tightly linked than _Ancillary
Justice_ is to _Ancillary Sword_, both in the events
covered and in the nature of the narrative .

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Titus G]

On 03/05/16 04:18, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2016 21:50:46 +1200, Titus G
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote
> in<news:ng77n8$q9l$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
>> I usually like a change of genre or at least author
>> between books in a series but now plan to re-read
>> Ancillary Sword before Ancillary Mercy with a minor
>> concern that I may become Leckied out.
>
>> Have you read Ancillary Mercy?
>> How does it compare to the others?
>
> I liked all three books a great deal. However, I consider
> the nominal trilogy to be a duology whose second volume has
> been split between _Ancillary Sword_ and _Ancillary Mercy_:
> they seem to me much more tightly linked than _Ancillary
> Justice_ is to _Ancillary Sword_, both in the events
> covered and in the nature of the narrative .

Having re-read Justice and Sword in preparation, I have now read
Ancillary Mercy and although it was an enjoyable read, it was not as
compelling as the first two and part of that was its similarity to
Sword. I don't know the technicalities of what defines a trilogy but can
see your point as the scope of book 1 was far wider than the others and
whilst the wrapping up made sense in terms of the plot, it was a very
restricted view with regard to the history and scope of Justice.

One of the techniques that made the trilogy so rewarding were the scenes
where different events were seen simultaneously through ancillaries or
other AIs. Another factor was her writing skills though I sometimes
found her sentence structures confusing and had to re-read paragraphs.
It didn't help to chose Stevenson's Treasure Island as a break between
books where archaic word choices and outmoded expressions caused
similar confusion.

I am now even more interested in reading the other Hugo finalists
assuming they are better than Leckie's efforts.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 18 May 2016 17:10:25 +1200, Titus G
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote
in<news:nhgt9c$fv9$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> I am now even more interested in reading the other Hugo
> finalists assuming they are better than Leckie's
> efforts.

I thought hers the best of the bunch, though I wouldn’t
quarrel with those who pick the Jemisin ahead of it.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <mcbmqfqxfidc.11...@40tude.net>,

Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 May 2016 17:10:25 +1200, Titus G
><no...@nowhere.com> wrote
>in<news:nhgt9c$fv9$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>[...]
>
>> I am now even more interested in reading the other Hugo
>> finalists assuming they are better than Leckie's
>> efforts.
>
>I thought hers the best of the bunch, though I wouldn’t
>quarrel with those who pick the Jemisin ahead of it.

Having read three of five finalists, I'm already predicting that
my ballot will be:

1. Jemisin
2. Novik
3. Leckie
4. Stephenson
5. No Award
6. Butcher

I do genuinely think that the Jemisin deserves first place; that her
winning would be one in the eye to Beale is just gravy.

--
David Goldfarb |"I'm in the middle of fifteen things,
goldf...@gmail.com | all of them annoying."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Babylon 5, "Midnight on the Firing Line"

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 19 May 2016 02:12:56 GMT, David Goldfarb
<gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote
in<news:o7EJH...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> In article <mcbmqfqxfidc.11...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>> On Wed, 18 May 2016 17:10:25 +1200, Titus G
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in<news:nhgt9c$fv9$1...@dont-email.me>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written:

>> [...]

>>> I am now even more interested in reading the other Hugo
>>> finalists assuming they are better than Leckie's
>>> efforts.

>> I thought hers the best of the bunch, though I wouldn’t
>> quarrel with those who pick the Jemisin ahead of it.

> Having read three of five finalists, I'm already
> predicting that my ballot will be:

> 1. Jemisin
> 2. Novik
> 3. Leckie
> 4. Stephenson
> 5. No Award
> 6. Butcher

> I do genuinely think that the Jemisin deserves first
> place; that her winning would be one in the eye to Beale
> is just gravy.

I simply don’t *like* the Jemisin enough to put it first,
no matter how good it may be. My order (without having
read or having any desire to read the Stephenson) would be
Leckie, Jemisin, Novik, Butcher, Stephenson.