What are we Reading Now: Conan the Librarian

[Kidd]

Just finished "Thin Air" by Richard K Morgan, the author of "Altered Carbon" and the other Takeshi Kovacs series.

I've just started Thirteen, which I think is the 1st book of this series.

Have you read Morgan's Market Forces?

Both are generally enjoyable, in a near-future hard-ish sci-fi techno-thriller kind of way, but not as much as AC. Thirteen being a little more realistic near-future than either MF or AC, Richard Morgan indulges his soapboxing significantly which I find to be a turn-off.

Market Forces in particular turns the satire up to 11 which quite spoils the immersion. Perhaps it's not wrong for what seems to be an outright pastiche of classic John Grisham, but it's a loss for a concept that could easily have been played straighter.

[Dubble_g]

I've just started Thirteen, which I think is the 1st book of this series.

Have you read Morgan's Market Forces?

Both are generally enjoyable, in a near-future hard-ish sci-fi techno-thriller kind of way, but not as much as AC. Thirteen being a little more realistic near-future than either MF or AC, Richard Morgan indulges his soapboxing significantly which I find to be a turn-off.

Market Forces in particular turns the satire up to 11 which quite spoils the immersion. Perhaps it's not wrong for what seems to be an outright pastiche of classic John Grisham, but it's a loss for a concept that could easily have been played straighter.

In theory, Thirteen is the first book in the series, but Thin Air is essentially a standalone, and the only common point is the idea of creating genetically modified people for specific roles. Got to admit, I didn't like 13 or Market Forces that much. I found the eugenics ideas in 13 mildly offensive, and Market Forces just reminded me of the 80s tabletop game Car Wars, so I couldn't take it seriously.

[Kidd]

In theory, Thirteen is the first book in the series, but Thin Air is essentially a standalone, and the only common point is the idea of creating genetically modified people for specific roles. Got to admit, I didn't like 13 or Market Forces that much. I found the eugenics ideas in 13 mildly offensive, and Market Forces just reminded me of the 80s tabletop game Car Wars, so I couldn't take it seriously.

Yeah Market Forces went full Death Race stupid on that score. Which is a shame, because corporate shenanigans in a mercenary venture capitalist group is totally a thing that needs to be played straight.

13... well lets put it this way, Richard Morgan vented his spleen out vociferously albeit vicariously through the words of this characters, and made his view of things abundantly clear.

Now, as a SF writer one can and should be charting and projecting the course of human societal and cultural development - it's in fact almost a prerequisite of the genre - but a good writer should also be as impartial as possible, deliver the pros and cons, critique and judge them fairly. A writer of course pushes the side s/he favours, but at least a fair trial as it were ought to be held before arriving at a conclusion. Which is not what happens here, because RM takes aim at a couple of apparently favourite bugbears and fires away with maximum sneering snark.

Another point is that in the 13 universe, RM seems to buy heavily into some gender and dominance models which have been debunked heavily criticised, to put it kindlier. 1 of them is "alpha male" theory, plus mixed with a heavy dose of eugenics (I think this is what you refer to?) to create the justification for his titular super-soldier.

Well I'll read it for the whodunit and the noir cyberpunk appeal. But it's not fully enjoyable.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Yeah Market Forces went full Death Race stupid on that score. Which is a shame, because corporate shenanigans in a mercenary venture capitalist group is totally a thing that needs to be played straight.

13... well lets put it this way, Richard Morgan vented his spleen out vociferously albeit vicariously through the words of this characters, and made his view of things abundantly clear.

Now, as a SF writer one can and should be charting and projecting the course of human societal and cultural development - it's in fact almost a prerequisite of the genre - but a good writer should also be as impartial as possible, deliver the pros and cons, critique and judge them fairly. A writer of course pushes the side s/he favours, but at least a fair trial as it were ought to be held before arriving at a conclusion. Which is not what happens here, because RM takes aim at a couple of apparently favourite bugbears and fires away with maximum sneering snark.

I hate authors that do that.  Even on the times that it's something I agree on, it usually comes across as pretentious and frequently it's so badly done that the flaws are easy to spot.  If you want to put real-world discussions or arguments into your speculative fiction, you should at least make a point of actually knowing what the heck the arguments for and against it are and not resort to weak straw-manning.

[Kidd]

I hate authors that do that.  Even on the times that it's something I agree on, it usually comes across as pretentious and frequently it's so badly done that the flaws are easy to spot.  If you want to put real-world discussions or arguments into your speculative fiction, you should at least make a point of actually knowing what the heck the arguments for and against it are and not resort to weak straw-manning.

For one, Richard Morgan likes to use (his target) as the punchline of exaggeration, e.g.:
"Wow, that's bad."
"What, like (target) bad?"
"Nah, not that bad."

Hardy har har. This happens several times in more than one form.

Or he salts descriptions of (target) liberally with epithets and slurs that are otherwise not necessary. I mean, come on, grow up, who are you trying to kid? we're all mature readers here, we all know the psych behind repeated casual, petty and snide belittling... why even try it?

But he goes even further. He has the temerity to lambast (target) for straw-manning and caricaturising things they don't like, while in the same book featuring caricatures of (target) as subject for his own innumerable potshots. That's really jaw-dropping hypocrisy.

That's the problem I perceive with 13 and Market Forces. Altered Carbon was okay. Maybe cause the former are obvious soapboxing platforms, while the latter goes more into areas where he doesn't hold strong views.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Ouch. :facepalm:

[Kidd]

Finished Lisbeth Salander trilogy, RIP Stieg Larsson

Was a very interesting peek into Swedish culture, and obviously Mr Larsson was pointedly critiquing various key contemporary issues.

The books could really have been a duology I think. It was a good establishing arc, and tails off on a promise of more to come. Sadly it was not to be.

[Dubble_g]

Finished Lisbeth Salander trilogy, RIP Stieg Larsson

Was a very interesting peek into Swedish culture, and obviously Mr Larsson was pointedly critiquing various key contemporary issues.

The books could really have been a duology I think. It was a good establishing arc, and tails off on a promise of more to come. Sadly it was not to be.

Interesting! I'll admit I only read the first book, and wasn't very impressed so I never read the other two. I enjoyed the slow unraveling of the mystery in the first book--it reminded me of a slightly more serious, more sober Dan Brown perhaps--but felt the main character was far too obviously a stand-in for Stieg himself (same job, same age, etc.), which made his runaway success with every woman in the book a little eye-rolling.

I agree, it was an insight into some of the darker aspects of Swedish culture, which (at least in Canada) we don't usually hear much about, such as the disturbingly high incidence of violence towards women. There was also a bit about Swedish economics, from what I recall, which was again something I'd never heard about (though also an excuse for Stieg to go on a rant about how useless the stock market is). 

'Could do with trimming down' was also my impression after the first book. There was the kernel of a really interesting, slow-burning tale there, but it got a little lost amid the bloat. Perhaps the same goes for the trilogy as a whole.

Trying to decide what to read next myself ... possibly Charles Yu (writes beautifully, but self-consciously nerdy and overly complex sometimes), or one of Iain Banks's mainstream novels (I've read and loved his SF but never his literary fiction ... but I've heard there's a lot of supernatural weirdness in his other books, so may give them a try). 

[Kidd]

Interesting! I'll admit I only read the first book, and wasn't very impressed so I never read the other two. I enjoyed the slow unraveling of the mystery in the first book--it reminded me of a slightly more serious, more sober Dan Brown perhaps--but felt the main character was far too obviously a stand-in for Stieg himself (same job, same age, etc.), which made his runaway success with every woman in the book a little eye-rolling.

I would liken it to a slower-moving John Grisham.

Mr Larsson wrote what he knew, which in this case is the Swedish media industry. (He shows his knowledge gaps in other areas quite blatantly.) Blomkvist is indeed a bit of a Gary-Stu, but he's a co-protagonist of Lisbeth Salander and the later books lay the foundation for more of an ensemble cast. His womanising is indeed detailed, but IMO is really just a matter-of-fact statement of his various relationships. Mr Larsson's portrayal of urban upper-class Swedes is that they are generally and casually promiscuous. Blomkvist is not much of an exception.

I agree, it was an insight into some of the darker aspects of Swedish culture, which (at least in Canada) we don't usually hear much about, such as the disturbingly high incidence of violence towards women. There was also a bit about Swedish economics, from what I recall, which was again something I'd never heard about (though also an excuse for Stieg to go on a rant about how useless the stock market is). 

There's much more of that in the latter books. Again I get the feeling that Mr Larsson was hitting at contemporary Swedish issues, unsurprising given his background.

'Could do with trimming down' was also my impression after the first book. There was the kernel of a really interesting, slow-burning tale there, but it got a little lost amid the bloat. Perhaps the same goes for the trilogy as a whole.

Larsson wrote some things in excruciating detail - artifacts of journalist-esque writing perhaps - but it does help set the scene, which I appreciated as a sort of tour of Swedish life. Do we need to know every stick of furniture Lisbeth Salander bought for her flats? Perhaps not. Did it emphasize the role of IKEA in Swedish life, provide a contrast against home decor of poorer and richer Swedes, and spark insights into various characters' personalities? Absolutely. It's actually world-building done right, and many sci-fi/fantasy authors could learn from this approach.

Trying to decide what to read next myself ... possibly Charles Yu (writes beautifully, but self-consciously nerdy and overly complex sometimes), or one of Iain Banks's mainstream novels (I've read and loved his SF but never his literary fiction ... but I've heard there's a lot of supernatural weirdness in his other books, so may give them a try).

How's Haruki Murakami? Lots of hype but never really caught my interest.

[Dubble_g]

How's Haruki Murakami? Lots of hype but never really caught my interest.

A robust defense of Steig there. Perhaps I'm too critical, I often am, though at least in part it's because I felt it was an okay book that could have been great.

Murakami is probably something of an acquired taste, one of those authors people either adore or detest. I've sort of fallen out of love with his novels, but they're always beautifully written, though virtually plotless and filled with the bizarre and the surreal. They always seem to hint at greater depth, there's more going on than appears, hint at some deeper meaning, but never come out and say anything out loud. For some people, I think that's energizing and stimulating, makes them think and create their own meaning, but I think it's frustrating for others.

Norwegian Wood is probably the most straightforward and transparent, while Wind Up Bird Chronicle was more opaque but more enjoyable for me. Haven't read the later ones, like 1Q84 or Kafka On the Shore.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I agree, it was an insight into some of the darker aspects of Swedish culture, which (at least in Canada) we don't usually hear much about, such as the disturbingly high incidence of violence towards women.

One thing to keep in mind about that is that the legal definition of violence in Sweden is different from most other countries and they have a more robust system for reporting sexual assaults in particular.  There's more reporting of violence because they track statistics differently, not because Sweden is inherently a more violent place than Canada or the US.

[Kidd]

A robust defense of Steig there. Perhaps I'm too critical, I often am, though at least in part it's because I felt it was an okay book that could have been great.

Oh I'm just pointing out the good bits. Other than that it was a by-the-numbers mystery, the twist being that most of the protagonists are a do-gooder media crew who profitably and ethically run a magazine dedicated to exposes. Which is probably a journalist fantasy  ::) and the other protaganist, Lisbeth Salander, also commits the sin of being the classic autistic-abused-orphan-photographic memory-world's top hacker... mentally solves Fermat's theorem to boot... turn all the tropes up to eleven...

If it had been American, it's doubtful the books would have made it far up the New York Bestselling list. Being Swedish, it has rarity and exotic value.

Norwegian Wood is probably the most straightforward and transparent, while Wind Up Bird Chronicle was more opaque but more enjoyable for me. Haven't read the later ones, like 1Q84 or Kafka On the Shore.

Hrms. I'll give it NW a shot. Ordinarily I hate surreal, but surreal and Japan sometimes goes well together in my experience.

[Dubble_g]

Hrms. I'll give it NW a shot. Ordinarily I hate surreal, but surreal and Japan sometimes goes well together in my experience.

Wood has literally zero surreal weirdness, very straightforward coming of age tale about a guy whose gf gets committed to a mental institution, so he's dealing with that, plus he meets another girl and then feels guilty for being happy, and he's trying to work all this out. It's totally unlike anything else Murakami has written, which makes it very accessible, but not a good guide to his works.

[rebs]

From Where the Sun Now Stands  I have grown to like Westerns, and this one by author Will Henry is one of the best.  It's about the Nez Perce war and is told from tje point of view of a young warrior close to Chief Joseph.  Highly recommended

[nckestrel]

The Sword of Kaigen by M.L. Wang.
Self-published asian epic fantasy. Great characters, and an amazing detail of world-building that fits in well. Makes me want to try to do something with House Kurita.  It starts off feeling like a young adult school story, but it gets dark.  It's an epic tragedy.  Perhaps most surprising are the fight scenes, with BattleTech I often just skim over them.  Wang does a great job of making the fights evocative and meaningful, especially once it gets to actual battle.

[Armiger]

Operation Trojan Horse by the late John Keel. Quite an interesting, if weird, topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Horse_(book)

[Banzai]

Heading to Gettysburg next week, so reading The Killer Angels Michael Shaara again. 

[Ghostbear_Gurdel]

I just picked up Forever Faithful by Blaine Lee Pardoe, along with Spice and Wolf Vol 13 by Isuna Hasekura. Good Day.

[DaveMac]

Coastal Dawn by Andrew Bird

The story of Bristol Blenheims in Europe during WW11 to the Battle of Britain in 1940

Prolonged very high loss rates over months make it rather upsetting in parts

 

[Wrangler]

Just finished Blaine Pardoe's Battletech novel, Forever Faithful.
This what i been hoping to read for a long time. Mr. Pardoe did not disappoint us with this one.

Truly the spiritual part of the Twilight of the Clan series and more.

I hope able follow up with another gem like this. Balance in action, intrigue, universe changing events and more.

[Von Rohrs]

I agree, it was an insight into some of the darker aspects of Swedish culture, which (at least in Canada) we don't usually hear much about,

I quite liked The Almost Nearly Perfect People: The Truth About the Nordic Miracle by Michael Booth but it's mostly just a Brit humorously carping about living in Scandinavia.

Anyway, The Labyrinth Index by Charles Stross, and Monster Hunter Memoirs: Saints by Larry Correia.

[Reldn]

I also just finished Blaine Lee Pardoe's "Forever Faithful". Not going to spoil it, but, there's one particular scene that just gave me chills. Such an awesome book that dropped some really interesting hints and bits of information.

Currently I have started reading D.P. Prior's "Ravine of Blood and Shadow" Book 1 of The Annals of the Nameless Dwarf.

[Kidd]

Skimmed through a couple of Economics texts. Not totally happy with them. Can you guys recommend any ones which are written clearly, don't waffle, and don't delve too much into politics?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Would you also like some square circles while you're at it?

[Daryk]

Ogre has a point... economics and politics are inextricably linked.

[Kidd]

Well I just want something that explains the theories without needlessly segueing into diatribes of capitalism vs socialism every couple of pages. If I crack upon a Marketing text for example, I don't get inundated every chapter with funfacts about how it's all a bloody scam to chisel dollars out of the consumer - even though Marketing in particular is a buyer's market for cheap shots. That's not too much of an ask is it? ****** Wikipedia manages it, surely a textbook can?

And no, the answer isn't "so go read Wikipedia", because the stuff in there isn't organised formally or completely enough.

P.s. I'm flashing back to the bar scene from Good Will Hunting: "Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably, you’re gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you’re gonna be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year, you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization."

He's right. These chaps can't seem to keep their personal views out of the books.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I think that might require finding an economics textbook that was written by a chemistry major.

[Jaim Magnus]

Would you also like some square circles while you're at it?

Ogre has a point... economics and politics are inextricably linked.

I think that might require finding an economics textbook that was written by a chemistry major.

This is why we need likes/upvotes/whatever.

Kidd, you will find that economics changes based on which branch of political science is being used as control/interpretation. What makes sense in one, doesn't in the other. It is, sadly, very much an apples and oranges kinda thing, and you need to have at least a basic grasp of the politics for certain economic issues to make sense.

[Sartris]

"unbiased" is just the bias you don't detect. Lord Acton talked about a concept we apply a lot in historical source analysis called Double Subjectivity - the author of the thing you're reading has biases, blind spots, and agendas - you have them as well. subverting those biases into subtext by feigning some sort of objectivity is disingenuous. best to note them up front and juggle the merits of different arguments until you find your own understanding.
 
as to not waffling, economists are just the people that don't understand economics the least - or as a student of mine said in class "economics is just astrology for boys"

[Kidd]

economists are just the people that don't understand economics the least

Hah. Good one.

Yeah well, that's the whatchamacallit - interpretivist view of research? Our views of the world are coloured by our own biases? I forget.

I'm not that much an ogre as to force any author to be wholly objective. All I want is for the chap is to present both sides of the story as fairly as possible, then chip in with his opinions - not pepper the text all over with snooty asides every couple of paragraphs. Isn't that how it's done? Isn't that how everyone else does it? I mean, you don't see a tax textbook speechifying all over about whichever sides of income vs consumption tax the author happens to favour... (then again, maybe they exist; except they're just boring enough that nobody cares...)

Maybe I'll try Economics For Dummies instead.