![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI continue to amuse myself with Good Reads book reviews and discussion threads at lunch time.
1) I inadvertently managed to turn a 50 Shades discussion thread into a discussion about politics. (I made an off-the-cuff comment about how its popularity could potentially be a reaction to current events...such as men telling women they are sluts for using birth control. Wherein one poster, C, stated never in her life had she ever heard that. So I told her about Rush Limbaugh. And several ladies joined in and defended me. This resulted in a rather amusing debate. Ending with:
C: How did we get on to politics. Let's go back to 50 Shades.
(ME: because you decided to respond to my off-the-cuff comment about men accusing women of being sluts for using birth control, instead of just letting it go.)
J: Yes, much safer. Discussing politics can get mean really fast.
(Me - I don't know, there's some pretty mean comments on this thread regarding people who like 50 Shades or don't like 50 Shades. I don't think nasty is necessarily restricted to politics.)
C: We can talk about how Christian practiced Safe Sex with Condoms. Now that's safe sex.
S: Well, that's until he forced Ana to get a birth control injection because he hated using them. And felt she should take all the responsibility.
C: He didn't force her. They signed a contract.
S: Ana never signed a contract. He made her do it. Depicts what an abusive jerk he is.
C: No he didn't. She agreed. He asked her.
S: You clearly have a warped view -
(Me: I rest my case.)
C: The woman in Georgetown who claimed she spent all that money was working for Obama.
M: No she wasn't, she was testifying about her friend who lost an ovary due to the inability to afford birth control which would have reduced the cyst.
C: I saw her - campaigning for Obama.
M: That was after she testified.
C: Well, I don't trust any of these newfangled politicians. The only one I ever trusted was JFK who I voted for. He'd be turning over in his grave over this.
[Paraphrased - I'm not copying what was actually said. This is just the gist.]
2. The Most Disturbing Book You EVER Read Thread" or basically the list of books that made people go..ack or ew or yippee...depending on the individual.
Some of the choices on this list bewildered me. While American Pyscho makes complete sense, seriously...Catcher in the Rye? Or A Hundred Years of Solitude? Or The Color Purple?
Wuthering Heights? Unbearable Lightness of Being??
What are people reading??? Probably nothing but Georgette Heyer and trashy best-selling Regency romance novels.
Although it was reassuring to see the Holy Bible on the list.
There are a few books on this list...that I'm not sure I want to read and would have been happier not knowing about, the spoilery reviews are bad enough. But if you want to share my pain...they are listed below the cut:
* The Girl Next Door by Jack Ketchum (which is apparently based on a real story and got a movie made of it. This book makes most episode of Criminal Minds, the X-Files and Fringe seem relatively tame in comparison.) It's about a teenage girl who was gruesomely tortured and murdered by a woman and her sons, while a next-door neighbor watches and does absolutely nothing about it.
* Cows by Michael Stoke - which might turn you into a vegetarian, if you aren't one already. Just reading the reviews made me choose a veggie dinner tonight instead of a burger. Actually some of the reviews are downright creative and at times, disturbing.
* Lets Go Play at the Adams by Mendal W. Johnson - personally I think this one should be in the top ten. It's similar to Ketchum's book. Except this time around its about a bunch of kids who torture and murder their babysitter. What's really creepy though are some of the reviews. Three reviewers rated it low because it wasn't shocking enough, didn't have enough graphic torture and they found it boring as a result. Alrighty then.
* Haunted by Chuck Plontchick (sp?) - which sounds plain gross. It's about a writer retreat, where the host decides to lock the writers in and starve them. Each writer must come up with a horrible story and out do the others on horror. There's one story that when the writer read it on his book tour - it caused audience members to faint or throw-up.
It's called Guts. And yes, it's gross, several of the reviewers decide to provide spoilerly plot depictions. Yet, not as gross as the description of Human Centipede.
The human mind can be a sad depraved thing.
3. Under the Skin by Michael Faber is basically what I thought it was about. I figured out the Reveal long before it was revealed, mainly because I've read and/or seen a lot of sci-fi/horror in this vein.
Anne McCaffrey did it, as did many many others. What distinguishes this one from the others...is the gender bias twist. There's a heavy metaphor about how each gender objectifies the other - sees the other as little more than an animal, an object, a piece of meat for its consumption and/or pleasure.
This is apparently a topic of some interest to the writer, whose next novel concerns the misadventures of a prostitute. I haven't read The Crimson and the Petal, but I did read the teaser or plot synopsis...and like Under the Skin, it involves a female protagonist who in some ways is forced to prostitute herself for male gain.
Here...the victims are Isserley and her male hitchers, who she lures with her big breasts, reducing her to little more than a sexual object in their eyes, and the hunks, with their big muscels and big chests - who are reduced to bodies in her mind and those she is working for.
From a gender wars/gender bias perspective it is actually fascinating. And oddly this theme none of the reviewers on Good Reads picked up on. All they picked up on was the classic and now cliche sci-fi theme about animal cruelty or vegetarianism. If the book was only about that or focused solely on that - I'd have given up on it by now. But there's more to it.
Faber is unfortunately a bit preachy and obvious about it. He's not subtle. I feel a little hammered over the head. Which is why I wondered why the other reviewers didn't see it? Hello? We have a female driver, with surgically enhanced boobs, picking up and only choosing "hunks" - muscular men, who are big chested with big biceps and abs - and both parties oogle the other in a sexual manner and their discussion feels a bit like a flirtation or pick up. They are checking her out for a quickie - one that gives them pleasure not her, and she is checking them out to see if they'll be good "meat".
Not the most subtle metaphor on the planet.
In fact, when she captures them - she injects them with a drug that is similar to the date-rape drug in description. While they are unconscious, they are gelded and have their tongues removed and cauterized. Then they are put in pens and fattened up. Until they are ready to be slaughtered. [The way they are kept and slaughtered is exactly the same way that many beef packing companies treat cattle. Although conditions are better in the US than abroad due to Temple Grandin, and the local organic movement. Organic beef is humanely treated and grass-feed. So this is a bit dated at least from a US perspective.]
The focus on removing their sexual organs - testicles and tongue - refers back to the sex object thing - in the car, they are trying to talk her up, and they want her to suck them off.
Nor is it that hard to figure out that Isserly, the protagonist, is not of Earth, she calls herself human, but she sees the hitchers as vodsels and has another language. So humanoid. And Alien. For a bit, I thought she was of an advanced race of humans who were from the future and are feeding on their ancestors, but no...not that interesting. OR an animal race that had evolved and saw itself as human while the human forbears are animals, sort of like Planet of the Apes. But no. She's an alien from an alien race. The author's choice to have the aliens call themselves human - is dicey, it does keep the reader on their toes but it is also a bit heavy-handed. Yes, I wanted to tell Faber, I get it. I would have preferred more subtlety. Faber doesn't quite trust his reader. (After having read some of the reviews...can't say I blame him. And I'm being a bit disingenuous here, since as I've stated earlier - I've read and seen a lot of books and films with similar themes.
The Alien's eating humans, and being stand-in's for humanity's selfish disregard of life...is a common theme in sci-fi. Going back to the Twilight Zone episode - "To Serve Man" and of course, Soylent Green (humans feeding off of humans in a future society), Meat Train by Clive Barker, Restoree by Anne McCaffrey, and of course BattleStar Galatica (the original version). There's also Planet of the Apes - about the apes being stand-in's for how humanity justifies its treatment of animals and fellow humans. Sci-fi's take on this theme is actually easier to stomach than actual historical record - the Nazi's, various religious cults, various political regimes...have done this sort of thing to fellow humans.
And well, look at the true crime novels or novels on the Most Disturbing Book List.
I still think the best book on the whole aliens eating sentient life was Maria Doria Russell's captivating novel The Sparrow - which didn't paint the picture in black and white terms and made the ethical questions harder to answer or at least more uncomfortable.
The Sparrow is possibly the most complex book that I've read to date on the topic.
Faber's book distinguishes itself from this crowd by being more about gender relations and how people can degrade the gender that isn't their own. But it is still rather shallow in its depiction. It may become less shallow, but I doubt it.
It's a trippy because we are in her point of view and occasionally the hitchers. But no one else's. Which is why I think the author is more focused on sexual objectification than animal cruelty - which is sub-theme, but not the main one.
I know this review most likely makes no sense to anyone who hasn't read the book, because I'm being slightly vague on a few things. It's a hard book to discuss with people who haven't read it. You can't without spoilers. So I'm spoiling and not spoiling at the same time. I did spoil on the reveal...so if you want to read the book, you might want to skip the above.
Haven't really finished it yet, so this is not really a full review. It's more a musing than anything else.
Will state that this is sort of the antithesis of a romance novel or the anti-romance novel. I've managed to go in the opposite direction. It's also violent, graphically so.
And incredibly disturbing.
I may finish reading Feast of Crows by George RR Martin as an anti-dote. I know, I know, I'm supposed to be reading Far from the Maddening Crowd by Hardy...but Hardy writes in that annoyingly formal style that makes you feel like you are sitting at a hard desk in a school room, the stink of chalk dust in the air, while some old guy mutters at the podium about his youth. The formal style is draining for me to read in part because I read and write financial, legal and technical reports for a living. Third person distant gets tiring after a bit.
1) I inadvertently managed to turn a 50 Shades discussion thread into a discussion about politics. (I made an off-the-cuff comment about how its popularity could potentially be a reaction to current events...such as men telling women they are sluts for using birth control. Wherein one poster, C, stated never in her life had she ever heard that. So I told her about Rush Limbaugh. And several ladies joined in and defended me. This resulted in a rather amusing debate. Ending with:
C: How did we get on to politics. Let's go back to 50 Shades.
(ME: because you decided to respond to my off-the-cuff comment about men accusing women of being sluts for using birth control, instead of just letting it go.)
J: Yes, much safer. Discussing politics can get mean really fast.
(Me - I don't know, there's some pretty mean comments on this thread regarding people who like 50 Shades or don't like 50 Shades. I don't think nasty is necessarily restricted to politics.)
C: We can talk about how Christian practiced Safe Sex with Condoms. Now that's safe sex.
S: Well, that's until he forced Ana to get a birth control injection because he hated using them. And felt she should take all the responsibility.
C: He didn't force her. They signed a contract.
S: Ana never signed a contract. He made her do it. Depicts what an abusive jerk he is.
C: No he didn't. She agreed. He asked her.
S: You clearly have a warped view -
(Me: I rest my case.)
C: The woman in Georgetown who claimed she spent all that money was working for Obama.
M: No she wasn't, she was testifying about her friend who lost an ovary due to the inability to afford birth control which would have reduced the cyst.
C: I saw her - campaigning for Obama.
M: That was after she testified.
C: Well, I don't trust any of these newfangled politicians. The only one I ever trusted was JFK who I voted for. He'd be turning over in his grave over this.
[Paraphrased - I'm not copying what was actually said. This is just the gist.]
2. The Most Disturbing Book You EVER Read Thread" or basically the list of books that made people go..ack or ew or yippee...depending on the individual.
Some of the choices on this list bewildered me. While American Pyscho makes complete sense, seriously...Catcher in the Rye? Or A Hundred Years of Solitude? Or The Color Purple?
Wuthering Heights? Unbearable Lightness of Being??
What are people reading??? Probably nothing but Georgette Heyer and trashy best-selling Regency romance novels.
Although it was reassuring to see the Holy Bible on the list.
There are a few books on this list...that I'm not sure I want to read and would have been happier not knowing about, the spoilery reviews are bad enough. But if you want to share my pain...they are listed below the cut:
* The Girl Next Door by Jack Ketchum (which is apparently based on a real story and got a movie made of it. This book makes most episode of Criminal Minds, the X-Files and Fringe seem relatively tame in comparison.) It's about a teenage girl who was gruesomely tortured and murdered by a woman and her sons, while a next-door neighbor watches and does absolutely nothing about it.
* Cows by Michael Stoke - which might turn you into a vegetarian, if you aren't one already. Just reading the reviews made me choose a veggie dinner tonight instead of a burger. Actually some of the reviews are downright creative and at times, disturbing.
* Lets Go Play at the Adams by Mendal W. Johnson - personally I think this one should be in the top ten. It's similar to Ketchum's book. Except this time around its about a bunch of kids who torture and murder their babysitter. What's really creepy though are some of the reviews. Three reviewers rated it low because it wasn't shocking enough, didn't have enough graphic torture and they found it boring as a result. Alrighty then.
* Haunted by Chuck Plontchick (sp?) - which sounds plain gross. It's about a writer retreat, where the host decides to lock the writers in and starve them. Each writer must come up with a horrible story and out do the others on horror. There's one story that when the writer read it on his book tour - it caused audience members to faint or throw-up.
It's called Guts. And yes, it's gross, several of the reviewers decide to provide spoilerly plot depictions. Yet, not as gross as the description of Human Centipede.
The human mind can be a sad depraved thing.
3. Under the Skin by Michael Faber is basically what I thought it was about. I figured out the Reveal long before it was revealed, mainly because I've read and/or seen a lot of sci-fi/horror in this vein.
Anne McCaffrey did it, as did many many others. What distinguishes this one from the others...is the gender bias twist. There's a heavy metaphor about how each gender objectifies the other - sees the other as little more than an animal, an object, a piece of meat for its consumption and/or pleasure.
This is apparently a topic of some interest to the writer, whose next novel concerns the misadventures of a prostitute. I haven't read The Crimson and the Petal, but I did read the teaser or plot synopsis...and like Under the Skin, it involves a female protagonist who in some ways is forced to prostitute herself for male gain.
Here...the victims are Isserley and her male hitchers, who she lures with her big breasts, reducing her to little more than a sexual object in their eyes, and the hunks, with their big muscels and big chests - who are reduced to bodies in her mind and those she is working for.
From a gender wars/gender bias perspective it is actually fascinating. And oddly this theme none of the reviewers on Good Reads picked up on. All they picked up on was the classic and now cliche sci-fi theme about animal cruelty or vegetarianism. If the book was only about that or focused solely on that - I'd have given up on it by now. But there's more to it.
Faber is unfortunately a bit preachy and obvious about it. He's not subtle. I feel a little hammered over the head. Which is why I wondered why the other reviewers didn't see it? Hello? We have a female driver, with surgically enhanced boobs, picking up and only choosing "hunks" - muscular men, who are big chested with big biceps and abs - and both parties oogle the other in a sexual manner and their discussion feels a bit like a flirtation or pick up. They are checking her out for a quickie - one that gives them pleasure not her, and she is checking them out to see if they'll be good "meat".
Not the most subtle metaphor on the planet.
In fact, when she captures them - she injects them with a drug that is similar to the date-rape drug in description. While they are unconscious, they are gelded and have their tongues removed and cauterized. Then they are put in pens and fattened up. Until they are ready to be slaughtered. [The way they are kept and slaughtered is exactly the same way that many beef packing companies treat cattle. Although conditions are better in the US than abroad due to Temple Grandin, and the local organic movement. Organic beef is humanely treated and grass-feed. So this is a bit dated at least from a US perspective.]
The focus on removing their sexual organs - testicles and tongue - refers back to the sex object thing - in the car, they are trying to talk her up, and they want her to suck them off.
Nor is it that hard to figure out that Isserly, the protagonist, is not of Earth, she calls herself human, but she sees the hitchers as vodsels and has another language. So humanoid. And Alien. For a bit, I thought she was of an advanced race of humans who were from the future and are feeding on their ancestors, but no...not that interesting. OR an animal race that had evolved and saw itself as human while the human forbears are animals, sort of like Planet of the Apes. But no. She's an alien from an alien race. The author's choice to have the aliens call themselves human - is dicey, it does keep the reader on their toes but it is also a bit heavy-handed. Yes, I wanted to tell Faber, I get it. I would have preferred more subtlety. Faber doesn't quite trust his reader. (After having read some of the reviews...can't say I blame him. And I'm being a bit disingenuous here, since as I've stated earlier - I've read and seen a lot of books and films with similar themes.
The Alien's eating humans, and being stand-in's for humanity's selfish disregard of life...is a common theme in sci-fi. Going back to the Twilight Zone episode - "To Serve Man" and of course, Soylent Green (humans feeding off of humans in a future society), Meat Train by Clive Barker, Restoree by Anne McCaffrey, and of course BattleStar Galatica (the original version). There's also Planet of the Apes - about the apes being stand-in's for how humanity justifies its treatment of animals and fellow humans. Sci-fi's take on this theme is actually easier to stomach than actual historical record - the Nazi's, various religious cults, various political regimes...have done this sort of thing to fellow humans.
And well, look at the true crime novels or novels on the Most Disturbing Book List.
I still think the best book on the whole aliens eating sentient life was Maria Doria Russell's captivating novel The Sparrow - which didn't paint the picture in black and white terms and made the ethical questions harder to answer or at least more uncomfortable.
The Sparrow is possibly the most complex book that I've read to date on the topic.
Faber's book distinguishes itself from this crowd by being more about gender relations and how people can degrade the gender that isn't their own. But it is still rather shallow in its depiction. It may become less shallow, but I doubt it.
It's a trippy because we are in her point of view and occasionally the hitchers. But no one else's. Which is why I think the author is more focused on sexual objectification than animal cruelty - which is sub-theme, but not the main one.
I know this review most likely makes no sense to anyone who hasn't read the book, because I'm being slightly vague on a few things. It's a hard book to discuss with people who haven't read it. You can't without spoilers. So I'm spoiling and not spoiling at the same time. I did spoil on the reveal...so if you want to read the book, you might want to skip the above.
Haven't really finished it yet, so this is not really a full review. It's more a musing than anything else.
Will state that this is sort of the antithesis of a romance novel or the anti-romance novel. I've managed to go in the opposite direction. It's also violent, graphically so.
And incredibly disturbing.
I may finish reading Feast of Crows by George RR Martin as an anti-dote. I know, I know, I'm supposed to be reading Far from the Maddening Crowd by Hardy...but Hardy writes in that annoyingly formal style that makes you feel like you are sitting at a hard desk in a school room, the stink of chalk dust in the air, while some old guy mutters at the podium about his youth. The formal style is draining for me to read in part because I read and write financial, legal and technical reports for a living. Third person distant gets tiring after a bit.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-08-14 03:27 am (UTC)I'm still dying to revisit zombie Catelyn! And I want to know where Tyrion snuck off to! LOL
no subject
Date: 2012-08-14 05:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-14 06:04 pm (UTC)but I will ruthlessly skim over the parts w/characters I don't care about (after all, I can always re-read later.... the books aren't going anywhere).
no subject
Date: 2012-08-14 09:59 pm (UTC)While I on the other hand felt the need to slog through every single one.
Tyrion is in Dance of Dragons. As is Dany.
Although I have to admit both Brienne and Jamie got on my nerves in Feast.
Lots of meandering. While Sansa and Littlefinger became rather interesting.
Surprising that, considering Brienne and Jamie were my favorites and I could care less about Littlefinger and Sansa.
Rather like Aysha..who is Arrya in the tv series (Theon's sister). She's important.
I didn't do as much skimming, because something would happen and I'd think wait...what? And have to go back and find it whenever I skimmed. Martin has a nasty habit of hiding key plot points in the midst of boring chapters.
Hee...what did you think of the Red Wedding? It may not have bugged you all that much...since you didn't love those characters.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-14 11:32 pm (UTC)I haven't 'skipped' any of the chapters, but I can skim (getting plot lines without really taking in much more... I am pretty good at speed reading, but I only do it when I don't really care). I have a friend who actually skipped chapters her first time through... but I think she has read the books 3 times each by now.
Actually I like Cersei, she just keeps getting crazier, but she remains interesting (it helps that I like the actress who plays her on HBO). And I had gotten to be very fond of Davos, for all the good it did me. *sigh*
I haven't found Brienne or Jaime annoying at all... but I agree that Littlefinger has gotten even more interesting now that his split personalities are in the forefront (poor Sansa has no luck at all does she? I guess that is what happens when your wolf dies).
I've had to go back and study the maps a lot, I lose track of where everyone is.... In fact I'm tempted to print out larger copies of the maps from online (I am getting obsessed).
no subject
Date: 2012-08-14 12:26 pm (UTC)And the person you debated was old enough to vote for JFK? And read 50 Shades of Gray? And she's a conservative?
Boy, that book has found a broad audience.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-14 10:04 pm (UTC)No, no...not reading crime. Just read the book reviews, which were enough to deter me. Under the Skin is sci-fi, so whole different category.
And the person you debated was old enough to vote for JFK? And read 50 Shades of Gray? And she's a conservative?
Boy, that book has found a broad audience.
You've no idea. There are men who are reading and enjoying these books (and the Twilight series apparently...which is interesting.) Also all over the world. The gal who started the discussion thread lives in Greece and was for a bit writing in Greek (which was fun), and believes 50 Shades of Grey is going to become a literary classic a la Dickens. (Sigh. No. Afraid not. Maybe a la Peyton Place or Story of O, but not Dickens.)
no subject
Date: 2012-08-14 12:36 pm (UTC)The story behind The Girl Next Door was also filmed as An American Crime starring Ellen Page. I had the same problem with it as I do with a lot of fictionalised true crime stories: they feel hypocritical, promising both shocks at man's inhumanity and a clean conscience in that we can tell ourselves that we're better than that. So in that sense, it's a bit disturbing, but I don't think that's what the people behind it intended.
Palahniuk's "Guts" is pretty gross (though there's one story in Haunted, "Exodus", which is far, far worse) though it's probably worth noting that the reason people kept passing out is probably that the story starts with the narrator instructs the reader to hold their breath for the duration of the story, and it takes about 10 minutes to read out loud...
no subject
Date: 2012-08-14 06:11 pm (UTC)I wouldn't be able to get through a book that made me feel so trapped.
But then I almost never read disturbing books at all (they get into my nightmares and camp out).
no subject
Date: 2012-08-14 10:24 pm (UTC)It's why I've avoided some of these books...too hard to stomach. And they do take up residence in one's nightmares.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-14 10:23 pm (UTC)Quite true. I was reading the comments to the list...and it became clear after a bit that they weren't defining disturbing in the same way. Some people seemed to think it was a synonyme for bad. (This Storm woman...she was offended that American Psycho was number one on the list. And stated it was brilliant. Well, yes, possibly, but that doesn't make it any less disturbing. Although, why people see it as brilliant when the same thing has been done better elsewhere with a lot less blood...is a whole other conversation.)
While other's seem to think disturbing is synonyme for brilliant. There were a lot of people who were upset the Twilight series was on the list - because the Twilight series is so badly written. (Again, yes, but that doesn't mean its not disturbing.)
Loved the debate on whether the Holy Bible should be listed. Or the LDS Holy Bible. People were offended and felt that it was a critique of their religion. I'm surprised no one put L Ron Hubbard's Dianetics...maybe they did? I've admittedly not gone through the whole list.
I had the same problem with it [Girl Next Door] as I do with a lot of fictionalised true crime stories: they feel hypocritical, promising both shocks at man's inhumanity and a clean conscience in that we can tell ourselves that we're better than that. So in that sense, it's a bit disturbing, but I don't think that's what the people behind it intended.
Would agree. It's why I don't like to read them - they feel highly exploitive and somewhat voyeuristic. And that is the one thing I liked a great deal about Whedon/Goddard's Cabin in the Woods. The filmmakers emphasized how the audience (or scientists) were less interested in the people in the cabin (reduced to cardboard stereotypes or tropes) and more interested in how they were tortured or killed. The scientists much like the audience they reflected felt no empathy for the kids in the cabin, they were rooting for the monsters to torture them. An interesting commentary on an audience that is watching horror for shock value or how gross can it get, and not well...for the characters solving a problem.