Wed Reading Meme
May. 31st, 2017 08:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. What I just finished reading?
The drakon trilogy by Shannon Abe, which included "The Smoke Thief", "The Dream Thief", and "The Queen of Dragons".
While she's good at witty dialogue, the writer sucks at plotting and structure. And while I adored "The Smoke Thief", the later two books don't quite work, in part because for some reason or other she feels this need to write a first person expository perspective that pops up intermittently in book. For example, first chapter (hero's pov), second chapter (heroine's pov), third chapter - brother's pov, fourth chapter -- some weird omniscient party commenting on everything in first person perspective. I thought it was the heroine for a bit, but then I realized it couldn't be, so I've really no idea. While certainly ambitious, it was mainly jarring and disruptive of the action, also added nothing to the story. I skimmed after a while.
The last book in the trilogy, Queen of Dragons, irritated me. There's a plot about the hero's brother (Rhys) and a little girl (Honor) being taken, and his sister (Lia) and her husband (Zane) (from the last novel) infiltrating the sanf ( the drakon hunter sect) in order to protect and save the sister's family of drakon. Also, the hero/heroine (Kit/Rue) from the first book have mysteriously disappeared without a trace -- to find the hero/heroine (Zane/Lia) from the second book. But...this plot sort of takes place off-page. And every once and awhile pops up. Also, there's subplot about the brother who was taken by the drakon hunters, Rhys, being in love with the heroine as well -- but this dropped when he's kidnapped. The heroine, Mari, finds him, but loses him when she's taken by the hunters, one of which is the hero from the previous book, Zane. Zane uses the Dramur or dreaming diamond to keep her from turning into a drakon. He's trying to keep everyone safe as a double-agent. But can't keep the sanf from torturing her. Before they do, she's rescued in dramatic fashion by the hero, Kimber. Kimber and Mari go back to Kimber's house, he recuperates, they swear their love for each other. The end.
And I'm thinking...okay, but what about Rhys, Zane, his wife, the missing girl Honor, the missing Marquess and Marchioness (the hero/heroine from the Smoke Thief).
Confused? Yeah, so was I. The damn book gave me a headache.
Like I said, bad plotting.
Also read a review in The Economist on a new book that I'd been flirting with by David Goodhart entitled The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics is published by C Hurst & Co.
And realized, I sort of agree with the reviewer, although I admittedly have not read the book. But mainly I don't think I agree with either on the depiction of the divide or I find myself heavily questioning it - which would pose problems in reading the book. It could just piss me off. And I'm trying to avoid things that piss me off. (grins)
And of course, now the silly Economist won't let me access it again without subscribing so, I had to go to the Guardian and read its review. Which sort of agreed with the Economist, interestingly enough and I found myself agreeing with. (I like The Economist slightly better, because it's less emotionally charged, and more objective in its analysis, at least for the most part. But the Guardian is cheaper and easier to access, so there's that.)
He argues that the key faultline in Britain and elsewhere now separates those who come from Somewhere – rooted in a specific place or community, usually a small town or in the countryside, socially conservative, often less educated – and those who could come from Anywhere: footloose, often urban, socially liberal and university educated. He cites polling evidence to show that Somewheres make up roughly half the population, with Anywheres accounting for 20% to 25% and the rest classified as “Inbetweeners”.
I don't agree with this categorization. Too many generalizations. Although it may work in Britain, (or not according to the Guardian) it doesn't quite work here.
Let me try to explain.
My difficulty with post-election/post-Brexit analysis from both sides of the spectrum, is my own personal experiences with various people across the spectrum tends to sort of blow their theories apart. I was talking to my mother about this over the phone, she lives on a island populated by Anywhere's who voted for and in some cases supported Trump, while various family members are Somewhere's who voted for and in some cases supported Hillary and Bernie Sanders. My uncle, is an Anywhere (as part of his profession, he's never rooted much in one place), and a Catholic Priest, who voted for Trump because of the abortion issue. While his best friend, is also an Anywhere, and very liberal. My other uncle, far less educated, fits the Somewhere description, but despises Trump and would never have voted for him and is incredibly liberal. He does fit it in a lot of ways. And two other uncles, both military guys, hate technology, hate Trump, and fit the Somewhere depiction, would not have voted for Brexit or Trump.
I also work with people who defy the categories the writer has set up.
And even how Somewheres and Anywheres are defined doesn't entirely work, because I know people, including myself who are a combo of both - I guess we are in-betweeners? And, here's the thing some of that, you can't control. I didn't choose to move around as much as I did. I was talking to someone at work about it...I said, most people in Texas live their entire lives in Texas, unlike New Yorkers...than stopped, and said, no, wait, there are Long Islander's who've never left Long Island. And heck, I've lived here well on 20 years, hate moving, and have been known to stay in the same crappy apt as long as I can.
I have problems with the post-election and pre-election labeling, categorizing and name-calling. Just the other day, a co-worker was condemning everyone who voted for Trump as not educated or a critical thinker - and I don't think that is necessarily true, because I've met people and know people who did and are. A Iranian woman that I met in Costa Rica. Heck, many of the Syrian refugees were Trump supporters.
We want to paint the other in shades of black and ourselves in shades of white or vice versa, when in reality, I think we're more shades of pink, green, purple, and vermillion.
One of the things I've learned over the years is how incredibly easy it is to demonize people who think and act differently. And how incredibly unproductive and destructive that can be to everyone involved. I don't know about anyone else, but I need to do better. I think learning to be patient and to truly listen, regardless of what is said, might help. Even if, it can be incredibly hard at times -- like today, for example.
2. What I'm reading now?
Eh, a bunch of stuff.
* Let's Develop! by Fred Neuman -- basically a primer on social group psychology and emotional/creative developmental psychology
*White Hot by Illona Andrews
* Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman Script -- which I'm going to try to access on my ipad via email download.
And whatever else...catches my eye.
The drakon trilogy by Shannon Abe, which included "The Smoke Thief", "The Dream Thief", and "The Queen of Dragons".
While she's good at witty dialogue, the writer sucks at plotting and structure. And while I adored "The Smoke Thief", the later two books don't quite work, in part because for some reason or other she feels this need to write a first person expository perspective that pops up intermittently in book. For example, first chapter (hero's pov), second chapter (heroine's pov), third chapter - brother's pov, fourth chapter -- some weird omniscient party commenting on everything in first person perspective. I thought it was the heroine for a bit, but then I realized it couldn't be, so I've really no idea. While certainly ambitious, it was mainly jarring and disruptive of the action, also added nothing to the story. I skimmed after a while.
The last book in the trilogy, Queen of Dragons, irritated me. There's a plot about the hero's brother (Rhys) and a little girl (Honor) being taken, and his sister (Lia) and her husband (Zane) (from the last novel) infiltrating the sanf ( the drakon hunter sect) in order to protect and save the sister's family of drakon. Also, the hero/heroine (Kit/Rue) from the first book have mysteriously disappeared without a trace -- to find the hero/heroine (Zane/Lia) from the second book. But...this plot sort of takes place off-page. And every once and awhile pops up. Also, there's subplot about the brother who was taken by the drakon hunters, Rhys, being in love with the heroine as well -- but this dropped when he's kidnapped. The heroine, Mari, finds him, but loses him when she's taken by the hunters, one of which is the hero from the previous book, Zane. Zane uses the Dramur or dreaming diamond to keep her from turning into a drakon. He's trying to keep everyone safe as a double-agent. But can't keep the sanf from torturing her. Before they do, she's rescued in dramatic fashion by the hero, Kimber. Kimber and Mari go back to Kimber's house, he recuperates, they swear their love for each other. The end.
And I'm thinking...okay, but what about Rhys, Zane, his wife, the missing girl Honor, the missing Marquess and Marchioness (the hero/heroine from the Smoke Thief).
Confused? Yeah, so was I. The damn book gave me a headache.
Like I said, bad plotting.
Also read a review in The Economist on a new book that I'd been flirting with by David Goodhart entitled The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics is published by C Hurst & Co.
And realized, I sort of agree with the reviewer, although I admittedly have not read the book. But mainly I don't think I agree with either on the depiction of the divide or I find myself heavily questioning it - which would pose problems in reading the book. It could just piss me off. And I'm trying to avoid things that piss me off. (grins)
And of course, now the silly Economist won't let me access it again without subscribing so, I had to go to the Guardian and read its review. Which sort of agreed with the Economist, interestingly enough and I found myself agreeing with. (I like The Economist slightly better, because it's less emotionally charged, and more objective in its analysis, at least for the most part. But the Guardian is cheaper and easier to access, so there's that.)
He argues that the key faultline in Britain and elsewhere now separates those who come from Somewhere – rooted in a specific place or community, usually a small town or in the countryside, socially conservative, often less educated – and those who could come from Anywhere: footloose, often urban, socially liberal and university educated. He cites polling evidence to show that Somewheres make up roughly half the population, with Anywheres accounting for 20% to 25% and the rest classified as “Inbetweeners”.
I don't agree with this categorization. Too many generalizations. Although it may work in Britain, (or not according to the Guardian) it doesn't quite work here.
Let me try to explain.
My difficulty with post-election/post-Brexit analysis from both sides of the spectrum, is my own personal experiences with various people across the spectrum tends to sort of blow their theories apart. I was talking to my mother about this over the phone, she lives on a island populated by Anywhere's who voted for and in some cases supported Trump, while various family members are Somewhere's who voted for and in some cases supported Hillary and Bernie Sanders. My uncle, is an Anywhere (as part of his profession, he's never rooted much in one place), and a Catholic Priest, who voted for Trump because of the abortion issue. While his best friend, is also an Anywhere, and very liberal. My other uncle, far less educated, fits the Somewhere description, but despises Trump and would never have voted for him and is incredibly liberal. He does fit it in a lot of ways. And two other uncles, both military guys, hate technology, hate Trump, and fit the Somewhere depiction, would not have voted for Brexit or Trump.
I also work with people who defy the categories the writer has set up.
And even how Somewheres and Anywheres are defined doesn't entirely work, because I know people, including myself who are a combo of both - I guess we are in-betweeners? And, here's the thing some of that, you can't control. I didn't choose to move around as much as I did. I was talking to someone at work about it...I said, most people in Texas live their entire lives in Texas, unlike New Yorkers...than stopped, and said, no, wait, there are Long Islander's who've never left Long Island. And heck, I've lived here well on 20 years, hate moving, and have been known to stay in the same crappy apt as long as I can.
I have problems with the post-election and pre-election labeling, categorizing and name-calling. Just the other day, a co-worker was condemning everyone who voted for Trump as not educated or a critical thinker - and I don't think that is necessarily true, because I've met people and know people who did and are. A Iranian woman that I met in Costa Rica. Heck, many of the Syrian refugees were Trump supporters.
We want to paint the other in shades of black and ourselves in shades of white or vice versa, when in reality, I think we're more shades of pink, green, purple, and vermillion.
One of the things I've learned over the years is how incredibly easy it is to demonize people who think and act differently. And how incredibly unproductive and destructive that can be to everyone involved. I don't know about anyone else, but I need to do better. I think learning to be patient and to truly listen, regardless of what is said, might help. Even if, it can be incredibly hard at times -- like today, for example.
2. What I'm reading now?
Eh, a bunch of stuff.
* Let's Develop! by Fred Neuman -- basically a primer on social group psychology and emotional/creative developmental psychology
*White Hot by Illona Andrews
* Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman Script -- which I'm going to try to access on my ipad via email download.
And whatever else...catches my eye.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-03 05:20 pm (UTC)No worries this is in the abstract still. ;-)
But in the past when I have asked 'why the electoral college system' I was always given the answer that it was to prevent a populist. Then you guys elected Trump and that excuse kind of crumbles away. So I am surprised there is not now pressure to dump the electoral colleges and switch to a direct one person one vote system. Or is that movement in fact happening and I just haven't picked up on it from this side of the pond.
Oh it's more complicated than that. The reason they didn't go with the popular vote is at the time, the most populous state was I think Virgina, which meant they'd rule. And the idea of going with big states vs. small states meant certain states would get it over others, not fair.
Now? If we went popular vote, the urban areas would have a voice and the rural areas wouldn't. The candidates would ignore Iowa, etc completely, and just focus on New York, California, Chicago...
So the electoral college was really an attempt to ensure everyone had a voice -- or so they say. But Gerrymandering and redistricting has sort of eclipsed that. (The Voting Rights Act was hurt prior to the last election, states that had been prohibited from gerrymandering, were doing it again -- this affected the votes in Arizona, New Mexico, the Carolinas, Florida...)
There's definitely pressure right now to do away with the electoral college, But well, complicated. Off to see the movie Wonder Woman!
no subject
Date: 2017-06-03 05:43 pm (UTC)A very sensible thing to do! I hope it lives up to your expectations. But if she regenerates as a man, prepare for some upset ;)
no subject
Date: 2017-06-04 01:01 am (UTC)But no, regeneration thankfully.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-04 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-06-04 09:09 pm (UTC)