jump to navigation

Names, names, names February 5, 2010

Posted by dolorosa12 in blogging, internet, meta.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

This is essentially a housekeeping post which has become necessary because of the high number of links to this blog (yay!). In the light of some of these links, I thought I’d take the time to mention that I have preferred ways of being referred to.

(This probably sounds a little bit fussy, but as someone who has written not one, not two, but four essays about the significance of names in various literary texts, and who spends way too much time looking up the meanings of various names, I care quite a lot about names – in particular my own.)

I’m not one of those people who hides behind pseudonyms online. Most of my readers and other online friends know that my name is Ronni and address me as such. I have a couple of variations on a username theme that I use online, but what I’m about to say is not particularly difficult.

When referring to me
I’m happy to be called any of the following:
Ronni
Dolorosa
RonniDolorosa or Ronni Dolorosa
(or, if you must, in the context of The Republic of Heaven, Aletheia Dolorosa, although I tend to think of that as a very site-specific username)

When referring to this blog
I’d like it to be called any of the following:
Geata Póeg na Déanainn
The Geata
Ronni’s blog/Ronni’s wordpress blog
Dolorosa’s blog/Dolorosa’s wordpress blog

When referring to any of my other blogs, Twitter etc
Longvision
Ronni’s Romanitas fanblog/blog
Dolorosa’s Romanitas fanblog/blog
(and the equivalents of these for Twitter, Livejournal etc)

What I do not like being referred to as
Dolorosa12 (the 12 is a necessary addition as someone else already has the dolorosa.wordpress.com url, but it’s not something I associate with my username in any way)
Dolour Inviolate – in relation to any of my blogs (I know it’s on my Twitter, but it is also not a username that I associate with blogging at all)
Aletheia on its own without the ‘Dolorosa’
Or, worst of all, Aletheia misspelled as ‘Alethia’

I hasten to add that this was not prompted by any heinous misnaming in particular, but it’s something that I thought I should put out there.

As you were!

The wardrobe in the Retiring Room January 22, 2010

Posted by dolorosa12 in books, childhood, fangirl, life, memories.
Tags: , , , ,
6 comments

People often talk about ‘gateway drugs’, lighter or less-extreme substances that introduce people into the world of addiction. I’ve noticed, in my case at least, a similar trend with literary genres. I always tend to come to a new genre of literature with preconceived ideas about it, and strong opinions as to whether I will enjoy reading it or not. Then I get my ‘gateway novel’, and I’m an instant convert. I want to talk about my ‘gateway fantasy novel’.

As everyone who’s ever spoken to me or read this blog knows, I am deeply, deeply obsessed with Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy, and credit it with causing just about everything that is good in my life. You may know that it was this series that was responsible for my career as a newspaper reviewer, and (indirectly) my presence as a PhD student at Cambridge. You may not know, however, that I consider it my ‘gateway fantasy series’.

I was given a copy of the first book in the trilogy, Northern Lights, for my 13th birthday in late 1997. It formed part of a large collection of books that I’d been given for Christmas and my birthday by my mother. She always gave me books, usually after a year of scouring review pages of newspapers and literary magazines and keeping track of things that looked well-written and interesting. At this point, I was a fairly omnivorous reader. I had read fantasy novels (most notably those written by Australian YA geniuses Victor Kelleher and Gillian Rubinstein) but I didn’t really notice genre, only quality and personal resonance. My favourite books were all historical novels: A Little Princess, The Girls in the Velvet Frame, Of Nightingales That Weep and the Pagan Chronicles.

I took Northern Lights with me down the South Coast when my dad took my sister and me there for a week-long holiday in late December. I was not too impressed with it, judging it solely on its cover. ‘I don’t like books about animals,’ I thought, and read every other book I’d brought. Two days into the holiday, I was whining to my sister that I ‘had nothing to read’.

‘Why don’t you read this?’, she asked, gesturing at Northern Lights. (I should add that she had not read it herself. She was merely exasperated with my complaints.) With trepidation, I opened it and read the first page. Within two paragraphs, I was hooked. I read the whole book in one day, and when I finished, I simply flipped back to the beginning and began to read it again. After my second read-through, I was so overwhelmed by the themes my 13-year-old brain was only just beginning to comprehend that I had to phone up my mother and rave at her for hours. (As a child and teenager, my poor mother was the unfortunate recipient of many of my outpourings of literary enthusiasm. I would rehash the plot of a book, rhapsodise about its amazing themes and babble about how it related to my own life.)

Thus began a lifelong love affair with (good quality, for the most part) fantasy literature. After Northern Lights I deliberately sought out the otherworldly and fantastical, and although it would take another 10 years before a book left me that overwhelmed (American Gods by Neil Gaiman, 2008), I haven’t regretted a minute of it. My reading diet is slightly too imbalanced in the fantasy area, despite desultory, half-hearted efforts on my part to remedy this. I followed Lyra into the wardrobe in the Jordan College Retiring Room in 1997, and I found a world of inexhaustible wonder.

Did any of my readers have similarly transformative ‘gateway’ experiences? (Not necessarily with fantasy novels, but just with some kind of text?)

Am I not gritty enough? January 22, 2010

Posted by dolorosa12 in books, reviews.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

Over the summer, I read a new series of fantasy novels, Firethorn and Wildfire by Sarah Micklem. As I was reading them (and thinking about how to review them on this blog), I realised I was about to commit the cardinal sin of reviewers: I was preparing to criticise the second book for not being the book I thought Micklem should’ve written, rather than reviewing it for what it actually was. I’m sufficiently self-aware as a reviewer to realise that this was completely wrong and unfair, and yet I couldn’t help myself. With that in mind, please prepare to read Ronni’s Completely Unfair And Incedibly Biased Review of Sarah Micklem’s Firethorn Series.

I should probably point out here that there will be spoilers.

Firethorn was one of those books I’d been considering reading for years. You know how you wander into a bookshop, browse idly, pick up a book, read its blurb, hesitate, and then put it back? I did this with Firethorn every single time I came across it in a bookshop for about two years. Something always put me off. So over the summer, when I had access to a decent public library, I finally bit the bullet and borrowed it.

I shouldn’t have been so cautious. Firethorn is excellent. I have very strong opinions about the depiction of war in fantasy novels. Far too many, especially of the high fantasy sub-genre, but some romantic fantasy books as well, seem to glorify war unintentionally. Oh, I’m not saying that Tolkien and his ilk say that war is a fabulous and wonderful thing, and wouldn’t it be great if we had more wars, but they depict war as an inherently honourable passtime, something that enobles people and makes them heroic. When such authors want to show the cost of war, it’s all about the glorious sacrifice of the stoic old retainer, or the raw young recruit finding the courage to save his comrades with no thought to his own safety. If they mention the casualties, it’s always in a highly impersonal way, piles of dead bodies left on a battlefield, mourning the unnamed dead after the battle is won – that kind of thing.

Micklem joins a small group of exalted authors who choose to present combat in a much more realistic way. Whether it’s Jo Walton, whose Tir Tanagiri Saga contains endless scenes of tactical planning sessions, arms training and conversations among quartermasters about food caches and supply lines, Kate Elliott, whose Crossroads trilogy shows the way ordinary middle class people cope with and react to war or George R. R. Martin whose A Song of Ice and Fire so brutally portrays the inhumanity visited upon everyone who gets caught up in a conflict, there are some authors who bother to get it right when it comes to writing about war. Firethorn is another such book.

The causes and major players of the war are unimportant. Firethorn is concerned instead with its eponymous heroine, a ‘Mudborn’ (in a world where people are either – shades of J.K. Rowling – ‘Muds’ or ‘Bloods’) who attaches herself to Sire Galan, a noble warrior as a sort of wartime concubine. Note that in her world, this is the best prospect she has of escaping her squalid circumstances. Firethorn deals with the relationship between Galan and Firethorn in a realistic manner. The word ‘love’ never passes either one of their lips. They both recognise that theirs is a relationship of convenience and compromise, with each getting something out of it. They are both practical, unsentimental people. Against this unconventional, unromantic backdrop, Micklem explores the effects of war on ordinary people, conveying with great accuracy the ways in which such people struggle to survive and flourish in trying circumstances. Hers is a world of cooks and armorers, laundresses and camp followers, all of whom orbit around their more elevated companions, living a kind of desperate, hand to mouth existence where every day is a gamble and where ingenuity, evasiveness and flexible morals are required in order to survive. It’s refreshingly honest, both in the handling of the relationship between Galan and Firethorn, and in the depiction of life on campaign.

Why oh why, then, did Micklem feel the need to write a follow-up novel that nearly destroyed all my good opinion of her as an author?

Wildfire, the second novel, sees the campaign actually begin. Firethorn herself had been packed off to an estate that Galan gave her as a present at the end of the first book, but she was determined to follow him to war. However, after being struck by lightening (and left with supernatural abilities), Firethorn and Galan are reunited, only to be parted again when she is captured by the enemy side. So far, so redeemable. But then things start to get a little bit odd.

It’s almost impossible for me to fathom Micklem’s authorial choices from this point on. Why, for example, does Firethorn suddenly turn into an utter Mary Sue, beloved by all around her, possessing over-the-top magical powers and randomly winding up meeting (and manipulating) just about every powerful person on the enemy side? Why does Micklem see the need to create a society that’s half-Greek, half-Japanese, and entirely Orientalist? Why would Firethorn’s captors see the need to train her as a kind of geisha? It’s as if Micklem got overawed by her powers of worldbuilding, and forgot the strengths of the previous book: solid characterisation, gritty, realistic depictions of war, and a focus on the ‘ordinary people’.

The sudden switch in focus and tone from one book to another really bothers me. It’s rare that I find a series where the first book is everything I could hope for, and the second is something that sends me fleeing for the hills, but that’s the case with Firethorn and Wildfire. I’m reserving opinion of the series until the third and final book is published, but I fear it will take an author more talented than Micklem to turn this trilogy around.

The frozen North, the sunburnt South January 10, 2010

Posted by dolorosa12 in life, university, work.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

That is a satellite image of Britain as it is at the moment. I’ve just got back from a month in Australia, where I spent pretty much every morning swimming at the beach. As you can imagine, I was shocked at the contrast.

My time in Australia was a mixture of nostalgia and happiness. It was very odd to return, and at times I felt like the typical exile that I write about, a person who lives in a foreign land, and then returns home to find that it’s not ‘home’ any more. But for the most part, my trip back was enjoyable, and it was wonderful to see all my friends and family again.

I landed in Melbourne first, and spent about five days staying with my dad, stepmother and two little half-sisters. The time was marred only by the fact that Dad had giardia, and looked rather emaciated. But it was fantastic to see my youngest sisters, who are growing up so quickly that they seem like different people every time I visit them.

I also managed to see several other friends while I was in Melbourne, which was excellent.

After that I flew to Sydney, for what turned out to be a three-week-long catch-up fest. The first night I was there, I went to a housewarming for two of my usydgroup friends, and the day after that, pretty much everyone I knew in Sydney (and some Canberrans) turned up for a picnic that I organised at Bronte. I had my first swim of the holiday there, and it was great.

I saw most of those people (a mixture of usydgroupians, Canberrans and others) a couple of other times during my trip, but it was great to see them all together, especially at an event that I’d organised, as I find organising and hosting events very stressful.

I saw a lot of my extended family. I was living with my mum and my sister (who had just moved back home) of course, but I also saw a lot of my grandparents, four of my aunts (the fifth was on holiday in Japan, Korea and Thailand), most of my cousins and my uncles. I also managed to catch up with one of my Obernet friends for lunch and secondhand bookshopping in Newtown. Raphael and his mother drove up from Canberra for a few days, and it really meant a lot to me that they did this primarily to visit me. We had a great time browsing the bookshops in the CBD.

Aside from all the socialising, I managed to spend some time earning money by working in my old patisserie where I worked as an undergrad. It was the Christmas lead-up, so it was insane, of course. I realised how much I enjoyed doing that work, which makes me worry that it may be the only job I ever completely enjoy doing. I suspect I’m destined to work in that patisserie on and off until the day I die.

It was a good trip, but it raised lots of troubling emotions. Although I relished seeing everyone again, I couldn’t help but feel a little awkward, as though I was trying to force myself into a space that no longer existed. I suspect that this feeling might’ve lessened if I’d remained longer. It’s hard to explain, but if you go away for this long, people (of course) do things without you. Their lives change without you. I’m not saying these changes are for the worse, just that you realise that the universe goes on without you. Time doesn’t stop for you.

Of course, as soon as I got back to Cambridge, I wanted to go back to Australia. The snow, which was such a novelty last year, is a pain this year. I can’t run outside or I’ll slip on the black ice. (I saw some hardy souls running in shorts today. Their knees were bright red with the cold.) The lack of sunlight depresses me.

Most of all, I lapse back into childhood the second I spend any time with my mother. Although I’ve always been able to handle the more practical aspects of independence (cooking, cleaning, shopping, budgeting etc), I’ve always been incredibly emotionally dependent on my mother. It takes me about a month to regain my emotional resilience after seeing her. At the moment, however, I just want a hug.

Birthday books January 10, 2010

Posted by dolorosa12 in books, reviews.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

I got three books for my birthday and Christmas this year. I read the first two while I was in Sydney and finished the third while flying back to the UK. The first one was excellent, the second one was good, and the third one was seriously disappointing.

The first book was An American In Victorian Cambridge, by Charles Astor Bristed. He was a student at Trinity in the 1840s, and recounted his experiences in detail and at length. I learnt so many amazing things about what Cambridge was like then – did you know, for example, that everyone had to study Maths and Classics, and that all other subjects were basically unassessed and more for general interest?

But the most amusing thing about this book was realising how little anything has changed in Cambridge. Alcohol is still the main social lubricant, the rules of the colleges and university are still arcane and surprise you unexpectedly, and the Fellows are still brilliant but slightly misanthropic. We have, thankfully, however, moved on from virulent debates about Anglo-Catholicism.

The book also gained additional humour from the unintentionally hilarious nature of Astor Bristed’s narration. Every so often, he’d mention some bizarre or baffling experience, earnestly and with great seriousness, while failing to see that he’d been being made fun of by his fellow-students. It’s a really engaging book, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

The second book was a memoir by Kevin Crossley-Holland called The Hidden Roads. I was familiar with Crossley-Holland’s children’s literature and his translations of Anglo-Saxon riddles, so I was interested to read what his childhood was like (The Hidden Roads is a book that aspires to be like Roald Dahl’s Boy – a recollection of a childhood, written, for the most part, with a young readership in mind.)

For the most part, the book was successful. Crossley-Holland vividly recreates his experiences as a child in an intellectual family in Britain in the 1950s and 60s, and there are some wonderful little anecdotes, such as the time Rumer Godden taught him to tie a bow-tie. However, I’m not convinced that the addition of Crossley-Holland’s poetry (which was scattered at relevant places throughout the book) really added much to the tale. It’s not that it was bad poetry, more that it interrupted the flow of the narrative.

The final book I read was Lustrum by Robert Harris. I’d read very positive reviews of this book and the one preceding it – in fact, the way the reviewers went on, you’d think this book was the second coming of I, Claudius. I was greatly disappointed, but when I explain my reasons for disappointment, you may conclude that the fault was more with me than with the books.

The problem is, Lustrum is a retelling of the end of the Roman Republic. And I’ve already got my own canon when it comes to this time period: Steven Saylor’s Roma Sub Rosa series. I’ve been reading Saylor since I first picked up a copy of A Murder on the Appian Way in the library at Narrabundah, nine years ago, and I’ve read most of the books in the series more than once. I’m so used to Saylor’s characterisation of all the major players – Caesar, Pompey, Marcus Crassus, Sulla, Catilina, Clodius, Milo, Marc Antony, and above all, Cicero – that for me, they are no longer Saylor’s interpretations of these historical figures, they are the figures themselves.

This makes reading an alternative interpretation of such figures very difficult. When I tell you that Lustrum is written from the point of view of Cicero’s slave and secretary Tiro, you’ll see the problem. Cicero in Saylor’s books is the consummate politician, a canny and cynical manipulator of the Roman political situation. He’s certainly not an idealist, and he’s mostly in it for his own gain (as are all the major players outlined above, except maybe Catilina). Harris’ Cicero is a staunch believer in the values of the Roman Republic, and above all is working as a politician not to further his own ends, but to do right by the people of Rome. It just didn’t ring true for me.

This is really the only time period for which I have such a decided view of the motivations and personalities of the historical figures (excepting maybe the Angevins and Poitevins as depicted by Sharon Penman), but it puts me at a disadvantage in interpreting books set in this period not written by Steven Saylor. I feel that the writing wasn’t great, but I’m not sure if this was caused by my discomfort at the non-Saylorian characterisation.

It’s a great shame that I’m not able to more adequately sum up the qualities of this book. I did like learning a bit more about Tiro. In particular, I was intrigued to learn that his famous shorthand was responsible for our abbreviations ‘etc’, ‘NB’ and ‘ie’, and the symbol ‘&’ for ‘and’. It’s a pity that I can’t say I enjoyed much more about the book.

Romanesque December 5, 2009

Posted by dolorosa12 in books, reviews.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

Several years ago, I hesitated for more than an hour in a bookshop, hovering over a new Steven Saylor book, reading it, picking it up, putting it down again. This is not normal behaviour for me when faced with a new Steven Saylor book; normally I’m quite happy to rush to the bookshop and hand over extortionate amounts of money for his works the instant they are released in hardback. With this particular book, I ultimately decided against buying it and left the shop wondering if I had made the right decision. Now, I can safely say that I did.

You see, the difference between this book, Roma, and all of Saylor’s other books is that Roma is what some would call ‘a sweeping family saga’, the history of Rome from its mythological foundations until the rise and fall of Caesar as seen through the eyes of one particular family. Edward Rutherfurd has done the same thing for Salisbury, London, Dublin, Russia and the New Forest. I’ve read all of Rutherfurd’s books, but they always left me a little cold. Until I read Saylor’s version of this sub-genre, I never quite understood why.

You see, Saylor is more typically a writer of historical crime novels. He’s written a whole series of them, Roma Sub Rosa, set in the time from Sulla’s dictatorship to Caesar’s rise to power. Each story focuses on both a real, historical crime (the Sextus Roscius case, for example) and the broader historical events of Rome (the so-called ‘Catiline conspiracy’) and weaves them together. Last year, I wrote a bit about the ways in which crime fiction acts as a mirror of society, and how we can work out a lot about a historical period by looking at the crimes committed in it.

The thing is, Saylor’s Roma Sub Rosa books are so tightly focused, and so strong in their interweaving of story and themes (or ‘message’, if you prefer; there tends to be a strong correlation between Saylor’s characters’ levels of outrage at the erosion of democracy in the name of security and how many years of the Bush presidency had gone by) that the world they describe is utterly three-dimensional. They remain my favourite evocation of Ancient Rome (and that’s including I, Claudius). This is because each book acts as a bite-sized chunk of Roman history, a snapshot of one event that Saylor views (with the benefit of hindsight) as a step along the road away from a republic and towards an empire. (I don’t really know enough about Roman history to judge whether the events he chooses are really so solidly associated with this argument, but I do know that each book brings each of these events vividly to life.)

In Roma, Saylor tries to do the same thing. Each section of it is devoted to a different period of Roman history (say, Hannibal’s invasion). But there’s only so much you can say in a 500-page novel. In attempting to record the broad sweep of Roman history, Saylor does what my supervisor is always criticising me for: going for breadth and not depth.

Part of the reason why the Roma Sub Rosa books seem so alive and why Roma seems like dead history is that they’re long enough to give us a good understanding of their characters. The same characters recur throughout the series, of course, but in the hands of a capable writer, one book should be enough to make characters known. One could argue that this is beside the point in Roma, that the main character of the book is not the ever-changing cast of Potitii and Pinarii but the city of Rome itself. This is a perfectly valid argument, except of course that a city is nothing without people. Throughout the course of Roma, the characters remained ciphers, and I was unable to work up much interest in their stories – and consequently, in the story of Rome.

I may here be simply expressing my unfortunate and seemingly incurable dislike of short stories. Try as I might, I’ve never been able to enjoy short stories as much as I do novels (with a few exceptions, most notably the works of Jorge Luis Borges). It’s rarely the fault of the author, but rather my inability to be engaged by something unless I can connect with (or at least come to understand) its characters. A world doesn’t feel solid to me until I can imagine myself having conversations with its inhabitants. I can imagine sitting around making rueful, sarcastic comments about politics with Gordianus the Finder. But I can’t imagine even exchanging polite pleasantries about the weather with a single character from Roma, and that is its failing.

Character-building December 3, 2009

Posted by dolorosa12 in fangirl, television.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
12 comments

As most of you know, I’m a shameless Joss Whedon fangirl. As far as I’m concerned, Whedon can do no wrong, and his name being attached to a particular project confirms for me that said project will be amazing. So far, I’ve never been disappointed.

There are three main reasons why I love Whedon’s work so much: the amazing stories he tells (and themes he conveys through these stories), the brilliant way with words he has, and the fantastic characters he creates. It’s this third thing I’d like to talk about here.

At this point I should probably note that ‘Whedon’s’ brilliance is not all down to Whedon: his own talents are supported and supplemented by the writing skills of an ever-growing group of collaborators, all of whom do so much to bring Whedon’s creations to life. When I say ‘Whedon’ in this post, I mean, by extension, ‘Whedon and his co-writers’.

Whedon is the only TV writer so far who creates real characters. I’ll say that again, so that you have time to let my words sink in: there is no other writer on television (except perhaps Amy Sherman-Palladino, the creator of Gilmore Girls, and in her case only some of the characters fulfil this criterion) whose characters seem like real people. That is to say, you could take any one of Whedon’s characters, from Buffy Summers to Zoe Washburne, from Winifred ‘Fred’ Burkle to Topher Brink, plonk him or her in our world and imagine how he or she would act in any given situation. This is not limited to the main characters: I can imagine pre-Season 6 Jonathan as a real person, just as I can imagine Anne Steele (‘Chanterelle’ from Buffy, later on Angel) wandering around real-world LA.

Of course, this characterisation works better on Whedon’s longer-running shows, Buffy and Angel, where Whedon had longer to develop characters and show them reacting and interacting in a wider range of situations, and it’s one of the reasons why Firefly’s cancellation still hurts. It’s also one reason why Dollhouse was so much less welcoming and so much more ambitious than Whedon’s other shows: when half your characters change personality every episode, how are we to get to know them as people?

In any case, Whedon’s characters spoiled me for regular TV. Since Firefly ended (with a brief respite during which Dollhouse screened), I have found no television show that ever approached anything Whedon created in terms of characterisation. This is not for want of trying. I’ve tried Heroes (never again), Supernatural, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, the BBC’s Robin Hood, Being Human, Battlestar Galactica (which I gave up for reasons other than characterisation, but which still suffered this problem), Merlin, and, more recently, Glee. Of these, only Supernatural comes close to approaching Whedon’s talents of characterisation, and only in relation to Sam and Dean. No matter how many new characters are added, the show remains the Sam-and-Dean show, and while it is wonderful at developing the complex relationship of the brothers, it fails to demonstrate how the brothers relate to the outside world.

The other shows I’ve listed are even worse. They fail on so many ways. Some of them (Terminator, Merlin, Robin Hood and Being Human in particular – I wonder if it’s a failing of BBC shows in general?) lack any kind of character development. In Buffy, not one character begins a season in the same place that he or she ends up, and not one character in Season 1 is the same person they are in Season 7. After two seasons, Merlin is still resentful about hiding his magic, Arthur (and all the other main characters save Gaius) are still unaware of Merlin’s abilities and Uther is still bigoted and opposed to magic. Real people change. They change subtly or they change dramatically, but change they do. No person could experience the things that any character on any of these shows experiences and remain the same. (Robin Hood is a particularly egregious example of this: SPOILER ALERT at the end of Season 2, Marion, the love of Robin’s life, is killed. Season 3 sees Robin rageful and grieving for about half-an-hour, and then reverting back to his cheerful, anarchic ways. END SPOILER)

Many of the other shows fail because their writers do not realise that giving characters ‘quirks’ or ‘flaws’ does not make them real people. Heroes and, in particular, Glee are the worst culprits in this regard. Many critics and fans seem to think that Glee is edgy or groundbreaking because it features minority characters in major roles. But after watching the show, you realise that all of these ‘minorities’ have been reduced to their ‘minority-ness’: Mercedes is The Sassy Black Girl, Artie is The Saintly Disabled Boy, Kurt is The Camp Gay Guy (happiest singing show tunes and giving makeover advice) and Tina is The Shy Asian Girl. There is absolutely nothing else that defines or drives them. It’s insulting to think that these characters somehow put an end to whitewashing in popular culture. Take any one of them out of the Glee-verse and you’d be scratching your head to figure out how they’d behave. They’re about as complex and three-dimensional as pieces of cardboard.

A character’s believability lies in how long it would take to describe him or her. What I’ve said about the characters in Glee is all I’d be able to say to a person who asked ‘Who is Mercedes? What drives her? What kind of person is she?’ If someone asked me the same question about Willow Rosenberg, or Mayor Richard Wilkins III, or Mal Reynolds, or Shepherd Book, or Angel, or Rupert Giles, or Adele DeWitt, or even Victor (the Doll), you’d be here until the end of the week.

What most TV writers fail to grasp is that people are more than the sum of their parts (whether these parts be flaws, positive qualities, neuroses or cultural influences). A truly great television character is someone whose life you can imagine in scenes where he or she does not appear, or after the screen goes black. I might’ve been spoiled by Joss, and I might be castigating the writers of the shows I’ve discussed for not writing the shows that I want to see, but I refuse to believe that Joss Whedon and the small coterie of writers he’s gathered around him are the only ones capable of creating characters who are completely and utterly human.

Link me up, link me in November 26, 2009

Posted by dolorosa12 in blogging, internet.
Tags: ,
2 comments

Many of the posts on Geata Póeg na Déanainn are inspired by debates, stories and essays I’ve read elsewhere online. As you probably know, I’m an avid reader of blogs; you can see most of my favourites listed in the blogroll to the right of this post. My favourite thing about the internet is the way it’s made it much easier for like-minded people to come together and discuss the things that fascinate them. The internet, for me, has become like several overlapping circles of cafe chairs where people who think about the things I think about can gather together, sip their virtual coffees and share their collective wisdom, anecdotes and enthusiasm.

I thought I’d walk you through my favourite corners of the internet. It will be ‘a day in the virtual life of Ronni’, as it were.

My first port of call on the internet is always Livejournal. I started off using Livejournal as a way to stay in contact with high school friends who lived in different towns during university, but I soon spread my wings into Livejournal’s numerous communities. I follow everything from Fantasy With Bite, a community devoted to discussion of left-field fantasy novels, to What Was That Book, where people can post half-remembered details of books in the hopes that other members of the community will recognise and name the forgotten book.

Several of the authors’ blogs I read are on Livejournal: Kate Elliott and Jo Walton have particularly fine blogs there, full of details about the writing process, the publishing world and the science fiction/fantasy community.

But my favourite place on Livejournal is probably Metafandom, which, as the name suggests, is a community devoted to gathering links to all the interesting meta posts that are setting the fandom agenda on any given day. I appreciate Metafandom in particular because it links to off-Livejournal blogs that LJers otherwise may not stumble upon.

I like Livejournal’s friends-page feature. It’s one of the most useful elements of the site, in that it gathers all the new posts in blogs one reads in the one place. I suspect that I would read even more blogs more avidly if they were also on Livejournal.

However, I do step outside my LJ comfort zone for quite a few outstanding blogs.

Abigail Nussbaum’s blog ‘Asking the Wrong Questions’ is one of the best review and commentary blogs out there. I might not agree with all of her opinions, but I greatly appreciate the detail that goes into every post, and the depth of knowledge from which she is writing. I’ve always tried to model Geata Póeg na Déanainn on Nussbaum’s blog, and I hope that sometimes I come close!

Hal Duncan’s blog, Notes From The Geek Show is another fantastic one. Duncan’s posts are witty and knowledgeable. They’re often very long, but are well worth reading.

John Scalzi’s blog, Whatever, should be the first port of call for anyone wanting to know what’s going on in SF/F, publishing, or the places where writers meet online. Scalzi blogs on a wide range of topics, and can always be relied on (as can his commenters) to provide erudite entertainment.

After you’ve checked out Whatever, you’d do well to visit Boing Boing. If something is happening on the internet, it’s happening at Boing Boing. The site, a ‘directory of wonderful things’, is geek Mecca. Posts range from the quirky to the disturbing, from the nostalgic to the political. There’s a strong focus on reforming copyright law, which is the pet cause of all the Boing Boing bloggers.

I find it hard to explain why my two favourite authors’ blogs are those of Neil Gaiman and Justine Larbalestier. They couldn’t be more different. Larbalestier’s is much more the typical author blog, with a focus on the writing process and the broader concerns of young-adult and ‘genre’ literature. Gaiman’s is much more like a stream of consciousness, and posts tend to be on whatever the hell Gaiman wants. What they have in common is a genuineness and warmth, and a real sense of carrying out a conversation with their readers. I’m a reviewer, and I sometimes have real trouble navigating authors’ dysfunctional websites. If all were as wonderful as Gaiman’s and Larbalestier’s, the world would be a much better place.

The next two blogs focus on a particular interest of mine: feminism in pop culture. Tiger Beatdown is a fabulously intelligent look at that subject. The blogger, Sady Doyle, writes irregularly on a wide range of texts, looking at them in relation to feminism. I particularly enjoy her INTELLIGENT USE OF CAPSLOCK. The Hathor Legacy is also a blog focused on feminism in pop culture, but its concern is reviewing texts to see if they pass the Bechdel Test (that is, do they have two women who have a conversation about something other than a man). It’s been useful to me as a place to get recommendations for books, TV shows or films.

The final blog I will link to here is The Intern. It’s written by a woman who worked as an intern in a publishing house over the summer, and it’s a really good (if often depressing) look at the publishing world from the inside.

I could mention more places, but the blogs I’ve linked to above are my main ports of call (aside from friends’ blogs, which I also read at the same frequency, but aren’t really the subject of this post). They’re only a tiny fraction of the myriad fascinating conversations that are going on all over the internet, but they’re my fraction, and they’re quite enough to be going on with!

Book learning November 19, 2009

Posted by dolorosa12 in books, childhood, fangirl, memories.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The only wars my family waged were with pen and paper.

Madhur Jaffrey, Seasons of Splendour.

As someone who lives a little too vicariously through books (and the occasional film or television series), the idea that a person might fight his or her battles on the page really resonates with me. For me, books have always provided if not guidance then at least aspirations. For almost as long as I can remember reading, I have latched on to particular characters and attempted, with varying degrees of success, to emulate them. There have been a lot of articles and posts recently about female role-models in literature (prompted in part by the upcoming release of the New Moon film and the inevitable bout of hand-wringing about the message Bella Swan sends to impressionable young women) and this post is prompted, in part, by these articles. I’ll do a links round-up over at Livejournal so you can see the sorts of things that are being said, if you’re interested.

I’m quite proud of my literary role models, on the whole.

The first character I can remember pretending to be, was, fittingly, Sara Crewe from A Little Princess by Frances Hodgson Burnett. (I had spent many years pretending to be fairytale princesses before that, but I choose to ignore that as I feel my identification with these princesses was more due to the fact that they wore pretty dresses and jewellery.) For those of you not familiar with the character, Sara is the daughter of an English soldier who lives in India as part of the colonial administration. She grows up pampered in a London boarding school run by the cartoonishly vile Miss Minchin, until her father’s death, which leaves her penniless. Miss Minchin, who spoiled Sara because she hoped to get rewarded by the wealthy Captain Crewe, finds herself responsible for a girl she detests. Overnight, Sara’s life changes. Instead of being the favoured student at the school, she is now a drudge teaching the younger students. She has to move out of her luxurious rooms into a cold attic, eating scraps where before she had dined on delicacies.

What I loved about Sara was not so much the grace with which she endured this change in circumstances but the way she chose to endure them. You see, Sara was a reader. (‘She doesn’t just read books, Miss Minchin, she devours them,’ her father says.) More importantly, she was a storyteller. The thing that kept me covering wooden crates with red crepe paper (to make them look like Sara’s ‘battered red footstool’) and drawing fireplaces on bits of paper in order to stick them on my wall to recreate Sara’s attic bedroom was the power of Sara’s imagination. ‘Suppose,’, she would say, meaning, ‘Imagine something better than here’.

A Little Princess was an early lesson for me in the power of the imagination to overcome the most horrendous circumstances. The book articulated something I’d only just begun to understand: that books offered readers another, infinitely more wonderful world.

The next book to set my imagination on fire to such an extent was Adèle Geras’ wonderful The Girls in the Velvet Frame. What, you might ask, did a story about five Jewish sisters growing up poor in pre-Israel Jerusalem have to do with a seven-year-old middle-class Canberran in the early 90s? For me, it was two things: the warmth of the sisters’ relationship (and their relationships with their widowed mother Sarah and unmarried, ageing aunt Mimi), and the perfection of Geras’ characterisation.

I loved the matriarchal world of the Bernstein sisters, as I saw (and valued) a similar quality in my own family (which is made up of very strong women with very close relationships). And I loved, in particular, two of the sisters: dreamy Naomi, who saw the world through rose-coloured glasses and used storytelling to occupy her two younger sisters, and practical, cynical Chava (‘I always expect bad things to happen, because then bad things don’t disappoint me and the good things come as a nice surprise’). There’s a lot of Naomi and Chava in me, and there is a lot of stubborn, determined Dvora in my younger sister Mimi. I recognised this even then, and I identified passionately with Geras’ characters.

When I was ten, along came one character who would blow them all away with sheer awesomeness. I’m referring, of course, to Pagan Kidrouk, from Catherine Jinks’ Pagan Chronicles. I read these books initially as I was invited to a talk given by Jinks at the sadly now defunct Griffith Library, and I fell in love with the snarky, sarcastic, scarily intelligent hero. It’s been a life-long love affair: if Pagan were to walk out of the pages of the books today, I would follow him to the ends of the earth, even if all he did was make disparaging remarks about my intelligence and rage at the stupidity of mankind.

Part of the appeal of Pagan lay in his identity as a literate intellectual in a largely illiterate, anti-intellectual world (the books are set during the Third Crusades). He was irresolutely bookish, with a rich, if angry, intellectual life going on in his head. He has always appealed to my book snobbery, which in my preteen days was even more fierce than it is today. I read, therefore I am would’ve been my motto if I’d heard of Descartes. Pagan made even the illiterate characters recognise the value of reading: Lord Roland, the knight whom Pagan serves, remarks (giving me a quote that has always resonated with me), ‘People who read are always like you. You can’t just tell them, you have to tell them why.’ I swooned, and I’m still swooning today.

The Tomorrow series by John Marsden also provided me with a set of inspirational characters. After briefly cheating on Pagan with Lee (haha), I settled down into a more sedate appreciation of this classic Australian series. I honestly think it was one of the most important cultural artefacts of my generation. For about five years, everyone was reading these books. When a new one came out, we’d all be discussing them on the playground, speculating about who would live and who would die. They were, for my generation, bigger than Harry Potter, and for that they’ll always have a special place in my heart: although I loved being a reader because it set me apart, I also enjoyed it when my classmates and friends read so that we could discuss books.

I also adored the characters because they rang so true. Not one of them is a stereotype or a cardboard cut-out placed in the book as a mouthpiece for Marsden’s views (which happens so often in so many YA books). Oh, sure, it was very clear what Marsden’s views were, but he let them seep through organically, whispering at the margins of one of the most gripping plots I’ve ever had the pleasure to read. Marsden’s teenage characters, from Ellie the tomboyish, self-reliant narrator to Fi the sheltered princess, from Robyn the pacifist Christian to Lee the depressed, revenge-obsessed artist, taught me how to be brave. They taught me that war was hell and that I had a moral obligation to do all that I could to prevent it, and they taught me that teenagers were the most powerful, most adaptable, most resilient and most resourceful creatures on the planet.

The next author to play such a significant role in my moral and intellectual development was the wonderful, eloquent, word-weaving Philip Pullman. He gave me such great gifts: the character Lyra, from his His Dark Materials series, who is probably my favourite fictional heroine, and is definitely the most heartbreakingly human character ever to stalk the pages of a book, and the book The Tiger In the Well, which gave me a speech which has informed my political beliefs to this day. These books didn’t exactly change my beliefs (I was an atheist already, I was in favour of knowledge and consciousness and life, I was a social democrat, I was appalled by unchecked capitalism) so much as confirm them and articulate them in a way that I could not have done myself. No books have ever meant more to me than His Dark Materials and nothing has ever had, or will ever have, such a profound effect on my life.

In His Dark Materials, the idea that a very small event has the potential to create millions and millions of universes is a crucial theme. Well, the fact that my sister overheard me complaining about lack of books (I was put off by the cover of Northern Lights, which had animals on it: I’ve never been particularly interested in stories about animals) and forced Northern Lights into my hands utterly changed my life. I would not be at Cambridge without Philip Pullman.

There are several other book, film and television characters who are important to me: Amelie from the movie Amelie (who gave me unrealistic expectations about life, but introduced me to the joys of quirkiness and serendipity), Sulien ap Gwien from Jo Walton’s Tir Tanagiri Saga (who showed me that one could have a fulfilled life without romantic realitionships), Una from Jo Walton’s Romanitas series (whose intense introversion and observation of other people is something with which I identity strongly) and the characters in Joss Whedon’s television shows Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Firefly (who taught me that the family that you choose for yourself, united, can never be defeated, and that misfits can save the world).

These characters are in some ways more important to me than the themes of the texts in which they appear. As I took on all these characters and integrated them into my identity, they ceased to be the creations of their respective authors and became something different. I hesitate to say that they taught me how to be, since of course I am not as stoic as Sara Crewe, as resilient as Naomi and Dvora Bernstein, as intelligent as Pagan Kidrouk, as brave as the teenagers in the Tomorrow series or as all-around awesome as Lyra. I don’t have the courage of my convictions of Dan Goldberg and Sally Lockhart, I don’t brighten the lives of those around me as much as Amelie Poulain, I’m not as loyal as Sulien, I’m not as determined as Una and I’m not as good a friend as the characters in Joss Whedon’s shows. But all these characters taught me who I wanted to be, and how I wanted to live. Although I do not live up to their standards, that I value these standards says something essential about my identity.

Middle-class army October 28, 2009

Posted by dolorosa12 in books, fangirl, reviews.
Tags: , , , ,
4 comments

You may recall that quite some time ago, I complained about the way fantasy writers tend to be very dismissive of, and even hostile towards, the middle class. If you’re reading a book set in a pre-industrial, medieval-Europe-inspired world, you’ll often find cowardly, money-grubbing merchants who reject their ‘rightful’ rulers – and, by extension, the heroism which these rulers represent – out of sheer avarice.

As I wrote,

[W]hy do these city-dwellers have to be presented as uniformly effete, grasping, power-hungry and degenerate? Why must all epic fantasy worlds be peopled with steadfast, humble, loyal peasants just waiting for their lost kings to return and save them from the Big Brewing Evil? It’s so juvenile, and it makes me want to fling things at the wall.

I’m pleased to report that in Kate Elliott’s latest series, the Crossroads trilogy, this convention has been somewhat turned on its head.

Spirit Gate

I’ve read the first two books, Spirit Gate and Shadow Gate, and while there are many wonderful things about these books (not least that they’re set in an alternative version of what appear to be China, Mongolia, India, the Ottoman Empire and Central Asia, rather than the usual vaguely medieval European mishmash you tend to find in much fantasy), what I’d like to applaud is their positive presentation of the middle class. At this point, I should let you know that there may be spoilers.

The books are, for the most part, set in ‘The Hundred’, a Chinese-inflected country which was once governed by supernatural, supposedly immortal ‘Guardians’. The Guardians’ justice was enforced by eagle-riding reeves, who are all that remains of the governing structure of the Hundred, since the Guardians have disappeared. The Hundred is undergoing a great deal of chaos and upheaval, as various factions seek to establish control, or at least access to trade routes and wealth. Into this chaos step Anji and Mai, who are fugitives from the neighboring Sirnarkian empire. Anji is one of many rival heirs to the Sirnarkian throne – a throne which is always won by slaughtering one’s rivals. He is also half-Qin. Despite what the name might suggest, the Qin are probably closest to nomadic Mongol culture, and are currently enjoying rule over several neighboring regions. Mai is Anji’s wife, and she comes from a wealthy merchant family from one of these Qin-controlled regions. The pair of them become inadvertently caught up in the struggles within the Hundred.

What is so fantastic is that although Anji and his Qin mercenaries play a major role in saving the forces of good in the Hundred, Mai plays an equally significant part. This is amazing, as Mai has been set up as a consummate merchant: she worked on her family’s fruit stall back home, and her combination of hard bargaining and an accurate understanding of human nature meant that she contributed greatly to her family’s wealth. Throughout the series, her negotiating skills mean that she, Anji and their followers constantly enjoy favourable conditions and, ultimately, a privileged position in the Hundred. But her merchant skills achieve far more than that: they actually save the Hundred on more than one occasion.

Shadow Gate

It’s so refreshing to see the medieval equivalent of the middle class presented in this way. It shows that Elliott really did her research – it reflects a more accurate understanding of how mercantile societies operated, and how such societies might’ve reacted to conflict and war. Mai is a fabulous character, principled yet pragmatic, outwardly restrained but gifted at speaking persuasively when the need arises. It’s been a long time since I’ve met a character in a fantasy novel who appealed to me so much, and it’s been an even longer time since I’ve read a fantasy novel where all elements of the imagined society rang so true. I cannot wait to read the final book in the series.