You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘book club debriefing’ category.
Hello again, everybody! I think this book was a breath of fresh air for many of us; the core of this group loves science fiction, and Hugo award winners make us very, very happy. There was no one at the meeting who was displeased with this one, except maybe for Kat because she was really digging on STEPPENWOLF and wasn’t too happy switching in the middle.
Now, I know me, and if I don’t write all this down tonight I’m going to forget it. I also know that I am hopped up on flu medication and super sleepy so this might not make the most sense. Bear with me people! We will go for broad strokes and you guys are more than welcome to edit/add comments to flesh this evening out more.
Thing Number One: DID YOU KNOW? that Alfred Bester wrote the oath of the Green Lantern? He did! Apparently he had a lot of experience in graphic novels and screenwriting, which explains his extraordinary economy of words and a strong emphasis on the visual and cinematic flow of the narrative.
Hello all! It’s Pamela again, after Dean gave me the month off last month. Well done, Dean! This was a low-key meeting tonight – mainly because we did not know the book was out of print and the title was remarkably similar to other Lackey books in her arsenal. We roundly decided that as a piece of fluff it was certainly enjoyable. Dean said that he was quite ready to hate this book and eviscerate it but by the end “you just can’t stay mad at this thing.” He even had a complex “Kevin is a paranoid narcissist” theory going (for which he took copious notes) but was unable to follow through. Everybody is just so darn pleasant!
We all, Dave included, cocked our heads at the last paragraph:
“‘That’s that,’ Tich’ki said in satisfaction. ‘All the loose ends are nicely tied up. All right, everyone, enough talk. We’ve some heavy celebrating to do!'”
THE END.
(OR IS IT?)
YES.
(BUT ARE YOU SURE??)
YES.
Hello, Dean here. Firstly, a bit of business: after some soul-searching on my part and discussion with everyone present at the last meeting, we will be changing April’s selection from Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse to The Stars, My Destination by Alfred Bester. I’m sorry if this causes any confusion; they are both excellent books by wonderful authors, but Alfred Bester’s work is a little closer to the core of what the club is about.
Our most recent gathering focused on Ursula K. LeGuin’s Hugo- and Nebula-award winning novel The Lathe of Heaven. This has long been one of my favorites and the Missus has grown to love it as well. Everyone agreed that LeGuin’s prose was graceful, lyrical and very clear. There was some disagreement, however, about the general worth of the plot. Criticism on this point argued that the double-edged nature of power is an idea that has been explored many, many times, as has the notion of “be careful what you wish for”. The godlike ability that Orr wished to repudiate and that Dr. Haber desired was likened to the titular object in the horror classic “The Monkey’s Paw” and to tales of wily djinn turning someone’s wish into an ironic comeuppance. Conversely, the careful incorporation of Taoist ideas into the book differentiates The Lathe of Heaven from the stories that preceded it: Orr understood instinctively the dangerous trap of his power and the moral quandaries that it raised.
Happy First Anniversary, everybody! And how encouraging that our first book of the year was a triumphant tour de force of book writing. Everyone thought it was AWESOME. The end.
Really.
Okay no. January’s book was one of most polarizing reads I think this group has ever encountered. I even called in reinforcements by way of Brian (good job Brian!) to back up my side. Dave’s letter was firmly in the anti-Moon camp, but also hilarious (I think I saw Kat willing herself to not shoot coffee out her nose during some of the reading) so I thought I would “borrow” heavily from that. Ahem:
Greetings, fellow SFBCers! Our most recent meeting (12/11/10) was combined with Dinner Club and it was a great success, especially on the grounds of having two events nearly cancelled by snow rather than one. Nebraska weather -– won’t you?
December’s book was Newbery award winner The Giver by Lois Lowry. Lively discussion was had on many points, mainly revolving around the moral responsibilities of the title character and his young protégé to their community. Brian in particular had the most strident opinions regarding the book; he asserted that “this was the most offensive book I have ever read outside of Dick Cheney’s memoir.” Brian’s main concern was that the protagonist did not follow the Prime Directive – rather than letting this admittedly imperfect society gradually redeem itself he forced change upon it, causing untold traumas and pain to an unsuspecting public. The word “selfish” and “irresponsible” were tossed around a lot.
Hello all! We had a smaller group at book club tonight, due in large part to holiday festivities and the extended families living in far off distant places like… western Nebraska. We also had a new person come to join us! That was exciting. Welcome Karen!
The book itself appeared to be a hit. Chuck said that the writing was plain but the story required plain, hardboiled detective speak and the story moved at a brisk enough pace to get himself caught up quite nicely. Much of the discussion was around the larger history of the Jewish people and what sort of cultural and personal changes occur during periods of displacement and oppression.
We had a smaller group tonight, which in itself is a bit of a wonder because who would have guessed that we would keep this going for eight full months, add on several new members, and are now defining “smaller group” as seven people? Well done us!
For those who have read more of the Foundation series, the discussion tonight easily segued into future plot contrivances that Asimov has set up in this book, for those who are very familiar with his robot series (I am so proud of us for being able to quote his three laws, then debate exact wording without referencing any book – again, well done) it was hard not to applaud Baley and Daneel walking off into the sunset together and waxing poetic about real robots and how awesome that will be, and for those unfamiliar with Asimov they didn’t show up tonight.
Well then. Last night marked a first for our young book club – no one, including Dave, finished this book. We had some valiant efforts: Trilety and Kat both made it to page 73, Chuck got into the triple digits, Dean made it to 150. In the other column, Mick threw his albatross of a book over to Trilety and announced it was not allowed back in his home after page 25, and I never even opened it. In my defense, I live with Dean. If he’s having a hard time getting through a book, that’s my dead canary in the shaft. There’s no way I’m going in.
Dave said that his inability to finish the book was due to “one of the things I liked best, namely the archaic writing style and the vocabulary words that had me searching (futilely) for my OED. There’s a complexity to the writing that is completely absent from modern fiction which I really appreciated. Sadly this also led me to fall asleep nearly every time I picked up the book. This somnolence should not be looked upon as a failing on the book, but rather a shortcoming of this reader.” Mick disagreed with this statement, saying that the writing style was one of the more offensive characteristics because it wasn’t clear to a room full of intelligent folks and none of us were able to access it well. I countered that I don’t think H.G. Wells was meaning for plebs like us to read this – when education was more class based, say from the time writing was invented to about fifty years ago in developed countries, it wasn’t enough that you knew how to read but that you were properly acculturated to tolerate such density.
Basic themes we discussed tonight:
“Lyrical” writing – beautiful, poetic, or horrendously irritating and could he just get on with it already?
Were the characters underdeveloped, or allegories for larger themes?
Distraction (walk without rhythm and you won’t attract the worm), a sense of humor, or love – what actually saved the protagonists here? Also, was the dust witch using hypnotism for most of her power?
The (minimal) role of women in the novel, and Bradbury’s view of women overall.
Will and Jim: Coward and Fool, Dionysius and Apollo, Good and Evil, Light and Dark, Yin and Yang? Which fits best, and best describes their duality? Or are they the same character separated by bodies?
The evolution of Charles Halloway – realistic character development, or stealing the show from what might have been a satisfying story about 13 year old empowerment?
Speculative Fiction Book Club 