ursula | (no subject)

I bought two books yesterday: Elizabeth Moon's new space-opera novel, Trading in Danger, which is exactly as cheesy as it sounds, and the first book in the Ash series by Mary Gentle. (I don't entirely trust Mary Gentle-- she's a good writer, but I read Architecture of Desire at a sufficiently young age to be scarred by the experience-- but the Ash book appears to be a novel that

nobu needs to read, if for no other reason than that

nobu's career plans parallel Mary Gentle's biography.)

I read Trading in Danger last night, too. My mind needed to be off; and Elizabeth Moon is one of the few writers I can assume will produce books that are cheerful, absorbing, utterly without artistic merit, and that I will not want to throw at the wall before I finish them. I think it's because all of her supporting characters (except for rich fathers, who appear to have the common sense of small red gerbils) are aggressively competent. Admittedly, the fifty thousandth grandmotherly character in a pink dress with a background in military analysis can be a little tiresome; but I find it terrifically relaxing to read about people who are actually trying to do the right thing by the book, etc. That, and people who have the sense to shoot the bad guy when he shows up, hostage or no.

Trading in Danger has the further merit that it doesn't appear to be connected to the Heris Serrano series, and therefore has only one viewpoint character, instead of sixteen. The main flaw is the way this character willfully ignores the Important Plot Point sent to her as a present in chapter 2 until she needs to discover that the model of a spaceship is (surprise!) not just a model of a spaceship. However, she does figure it out in the nick of time rather than angstily remembering it five minutes after the nick of time, so I can forgive her. She also starts every other piece of dialogue with the phrase "trade and profit." The first half of the book is essentially a lengthy profit-and-loss calculation involving an aging starship and a lot of agricultural machinery, which other readers might find dull, but which I quite enjoyed. (I am, after all, the daughter of an engineer.)

This is presumably the beginning of a series in which the main character will become a spy for the military. (She will also, of course, find a suitable young man, and fall into bed with him after the appropriate grandmotherly type tells her to stop being an idiot and get laid already.) The world is similar enough to the Heris Serrano - Familias world that I suspect Trading might actually be a prequel, in which case there will also be grand political plot in which the Familias is formed; but it's always possible that all of Elizabeth Moon's universes are very similar for no particular reason, and the Trading universe is entirely free of spacefaring Texans.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Interesting. The only full-length Moon I've read (because I've discovered an allergy to writers who have collaborated with post-1980s Anne McCaffrey) is The Speed of Dark (http://greythistle.livejournal.com/32755.html), which does have artistic merit. I'd give it rather less than a 6.0, but it registers on the scale.

What in particular felt scarring (Architecture)? Please ignore that question if it's too awkward, of course.

I haven't read Speed of Dark. It looks preachy, in a way that wouldn't allow me to reminisce about playing lawful good characters.

Scarring is perhaps a little strong, and I read Architecture a very long time ago. I remember that it was confusing, and that it featured a number of intentionally repulsive descriptions of breast-feeding, and that it had an unsatisfyingly unhappy ending. I read Grunts anyway, though, because really, how could you not?

How strange. Perusing the Amazon reviews of Architecture suggests that I had forgotten a rape, while remembering graphic descriptions of breast-feeding . . . Presumably the book's entire worldview is unsettling; that's sort of what I would expect of Mary Gentle.

mmm... Paks! :P

Ash is sort of like Evil Paks, actually-- blonde, good with a sword, has a divine connection, kicks a lot of ass-- but kills her first man at the tender age of eight.

Ash: A Secret History of Burgundy is massive. I also discovered rather late that I could skip the 'modern day scientist' parts entirely and not affect the book in any way shape or form.

She has good moments. The late 15th century is a favorite time period of mine, and I was not disgusted by her version of it, though I could rag on her for having a scene where a dress is laced up the back- clothing of the time period, I am 99.9% certain, laced up the front. (nit, nit, nit! Yeah, she does a good job.)

She's very fond of 'grit' and killing off characters. I lost track of how many mercs died, frequently after only one scene of development. Donasian should like her. :) But I found her violence gratuitous at times.

And, from personal experience, no sane woman would wear her hair down in a Burgundian cuirass. Not more than once, anyway. (ow, ow, ow ow ow!)

Good visceral descriptions, though, and I did enjoy the read, once I learned which parts I could skip. (The modern-science epistilarly-style chapters drag like a rusted ford on cinder blocks.)

Piss and bricks realism. That's my short review of Mary Gentle. :)

Alas, not everyone has the benefit of real life experience with a cuirass... if only she'd known she coulda asked you for advice! hee ;)

But true, most historically set novels have nothing to do with the history they are set in. ;)

According to her author bio, Mary Gentle has two different history MAs and engages in "medieval sword-fighting" in her spare time, so it's possible that she does have real life experience in armour. She has short hair, though.

I like the epistolary chapters so far, though I don't really believe that any serious academic would release new work in a form that looks like the rest of the book.

I knew she was gritty. In fact, I think Gentle wins the prize for least accurate name ever. I wonder if it's her private joke?

My main historical gripe is that "ash" meaning cinders and "ash" meaning the tree aren't the same word in Latin, and as far as I know aren't the same word in medieval French either, which makes the description of the way she chose her name a little confusing.

not to nitpick you... but dresses in the 13/14th century laced up sometimes on the sides and on the back, so it stands to reason that they probably would have in the 15th... i mean, how else did they get those dresses so form-fitting? :P

evil paks... hmm... and named Ash. hmm... sounds good.

I'd trust

reasie. She's a bit of a Burgundian expert.

But yes, you should definitely have this book after I'm done with it.

Ooo... do you have a source for 14th century coathardies lacing up the sides? I made one... laced it up the sides because I was doing embroidery on the neck and didn't want to interupt it... then thought 'this is looking good... I should enter it in our local arts and sciences competition' then, like an idiot, tried to do my research /after/ the dress was done instead of /before/ I started. Me smart, ug. And I couldn't find a single coathardie with lacings on the sides! Tonnes and tonnes with lacing up the front or no visible lacing. *tragic sigh*

If they didn't lace up the side, I can understand it though. That dress is a PITA to get in and out of... and here I thought I was making it easier by lacing on the side. Foolish gwacie. I have learned so much. ;) And wasted so much good fabric! ;)

if the lacing isn't visible, but the dress is still fitted... guess how they did it? probably the back. i swear i have seen something period (a drawning or description i think, don't recall) at some point with one laced up the side... dunno offhand :)

(no subject)

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: lace up

Re: lace up