Book: The House of the Scorpion
Author: Nancy Farmer
Pages: 380
Copy: Mine; see Librarything
Read: 1 July 2012; read it as soon as I bought it at Green Hand Bookstore in Portland, Maine.
Spoilers: a few, but none that should cause problems
So this was unexpectedly amazing. I don’t know why it should have been amazing--after all Nancy Farmer is pretty awesome and this thing is plastered with awards. I guess the amazing part was the fact that I hadn’t read it before. I actually even recall rejecting it! Rejecting a futuristic sci-fi young adult book with clones and zombies? Why?
Because the main character is a boy, of course. There were so many futuristic sci-fi or classic fantasy young adult books (though none with clones) with girl characters to read, why read this one?
This is something of a shame. The House of the Scorpion has combined the huge scientific morality questions--are clones an ethical means of medical research? what happens when science and technology begin to destroy humanity?--with the simplicity and grace of language that examines the human condition without being obnoxiously philosophical. This is a novel about science and drugs and politics, but it is also a novel about families and human relationships.
In The House of the Scorpion, Farmer creates a new country out of the borders of the US and Mexico, a country that has existed under the power of an ancient despot, El Patrón. Matteo Alacrán is his clone, grown from skin cells and harvested from a cow. Matt is the child of technology, but he is more human than the Alacrán family that surrounds him. Matt’s self-discovery guides the reader through a book half fairy-tale and half sci-fi.
This is pretty nearly a perfect book. My only regret is not reading it when I was younger. Please, please read it, so I can talk about the ending!
-Mercutia
Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts
27 June 2011
Blood, Guts, Mayhem, Death...: “The Running Man”
Title: The Running Man (from The Bachman Books: Four Early Novels by Stephen King)
Author: Stephen King (writing as Richard Bachman)
159 Pages (pages 533-692) (Hardcover)
Read: 27 June 2011
Spoilers: I go over the plot in scant detail but I don’t really give anything away
To begin with, this book is gory. Really gory. There’s blood, everywhere. There are guts, flying. There are gunshot wounds, which causes most of the blood and guts. Having never read Stephen King, I can’t say if there is an unusual amount of blood and guts, but there seems to be quite a bit. The story is fairly interesting, so getting over the gore seems worth it to me. However, there is also racism, prostitution, anti-homosexual sentiments, and a screaming woman in distress. So the worth of the novel is sort of a toss-up.
Stephen King writes in the introduction (a weirdly organized essay entitled “Why I Was Bachman” which is interesting but ultimately useless) to this collection that The Running Man “is nothing but story--it moves with the goofy speed of a silent movie, and anything which is not story is cheerfully thrown over the side.” He seems rather proud of this assessment. I think it’s perfectly true, but I’m not sure that it makes the story powerful or even particularly noteworthy.
The set-up is simple. The masses are sedated by watching violent games on television; in many of these games (if not all, it’s hard to tell exactly) the contestants die. Ben Richards, strapped for money (his cause is noble, of course), becomes a contestant on the most violent and bloody (and rigged) of the shows, The Running Man. The story follows his attempt to overthrow the system. Along the way, King makes room for a indictment of pollution and an exploration of class.
King discusses pollution in an interesting way, suggesting that the effects of pollution are felt by the poorest. The wealthy are able to escape the negative effects of poisonous air and therefore don’t notice it anymore. Furthermore, the government of The Running Man censors information about pollution and pollution levels, raising questions about the government’s involvement with environmental injustice. I think he raises interesting points about pollution and environmental justice, but he discards the environmental question when it starts to take the novel over. This weakens his argument some, as well as making pollution seem unimportant. However, this depiction suggests, very powerfully, that environmental issues fade when a person is confronted with terrible personal trauma. It is depressing, but seemingly accurate. I think that if King had chosen to focus on the pollution issue he would have had a much more interesting and powerful novel. As it is, he settled for an action story without any attempts at making it an “issue book.”
King’s discussion of class moves in and out of focus, but remains a theme throughout. Obviously King has great sympathy and understanding for the suffering of the poor and unemployed and he does his best to uphold them as the better sort of person. In some ways, this echoes Orwell’s use of proles in 1984, proles being considered the greatest hope for the future, a dream that is complicated by reality. However, the ending of the novel doesn’t provide closure or even hope for the future. King points out class issues without suggesting that the lower classes will ever be able to escape.
Interestingly, two of the lowest class characters are readers, suggesting that class can be escaped through education and imagination. This vision does not work particularly well in the context of the novel. Ben Richards is depicted as an action hero, but somehow it is necessary to see him also as a sensitive reader of novels. The other major reader is a gang member, who belongs to a gang of...readers. They sneak into the library to read about pollution and how the upper classes cope with poison air. It’s a bizarre moment in the book, one that made me raise my eyebrows (not that I don’t think people should read). I think reading is great, and I think everyone should sneak into their libraries to read about pollution. The scenes just aren’t in keeping with the rest of the novel. I think perhaps King wanted people to know how important reading is and didn’t work too hard on how to deliver that message.
I think this is a fair dystopian novel. The novel is more about society than about politics, along the lines of Farhenheit 451 rather than 1984. That being said, this isn’t the greatest dystopian novel ever written. I think King was trying to take on racism, but he didn’t make his point strong enough. He just comes across as possibly racist. Further, he seems to be trying to fight against anti-gay sentiment, but he fails there too. This isn’t to say that the book ought to have been longer. The story would have lost its pop and suffered terribly if it were longer. I just think King should have worked harder on making his argument stronger.
That being said, I’d recommend this to the same audience as Logan’s Run. The stories are roughly similar (superhuman runs away from bad guys; there’s even a similar scene of claustrophobia), but Richards seems a little more interesting (perhaps because he’s 28 and not just 21) even as his situation seems a little less plausible. This isn’t a book for the faint of heart or the easily upset. This feels like a book that a non-reading teenager (I mean this as nicely as possible) would really like--there’s blood, the main character kicks ass, and a couple important issues are mentioned. It isn’t boring, it isn’t slow, and it doesn’t stop in the middle for a complicated political discussion (ahem, 1984).
-Benvolia
Also read this week:
Water: Tales of Elemental Spirits, by Robin McKinley and Peter Dickinson (23 June 2011)
The Blue Sword, by Robin McKinley (27 June 2011)
Author: Stephen King (writing as Richard Bachman)
159 Pages (pages 533-692) (Hardcover)
Read: 27 June 2011
Spoilers: I go over the plot in scant detail but I don’t really give anything away
To begin with, this book is gory. Really gory. There’s blood, everywhere. There are guts, flying. There are gunshot wounds, which causes most of the blood and guts. Having never read Stephen King, I can’t say if there is an unusual amount of blood and guts, but there seems to be quite a bit. The story is fairly interesting, so getting over the gore seems worth it to me. However, there is also racism, prostitution, anti-homosexual sentiments, and a screaming woman in distress. So the worth of the novel is sort of a toss-up.
Stephen King writes in the introduction (a weirdly organized essay entitled “Why I Was Bachman” which is interesting but ultimately useless) to this collection that The Running Man “is nothing but story--it moves with the goofy speed of a silent movie, and anything which is not story is cheerfully thrown over the side.” He seems rather proud of this assessment. I think it’s perfectly true, but I’m not sure that it makes the story powerful or even particularly noteworthy.
The set-up is simple. The masses are sedated by watching violent games on television; in many of these games (if not all, it’s hard to tell exactly) the contestants die. Ben Richards, strapped for money (his cause is noble, of course), becomes a contestant on the most violent and bloody (and rigged) of the shows, The Running Man. The story follows his attempt to overthrow the system. Along the way, King makes room for a indictment of pollution and an exploration of class.
King discusses pollution in an interesting way, suggesting that the effects of pollution are felt by the poorest. The wealthy are able to escape the negative effects of poisonous air and therefore don’t notice it anymore. Furthermore, the government of The Running Man censors information about pollution and pollution levels, raising questions about the government’s involvement with environmental injustice. I think he raises interesting points about pollution and environmental justice, but he discards the environmental question when it starts to take the novel over. This weakens his argument some, as well as making pollution seem unimportant. However, this depiction suggests, very powerfully, that environmental issues fade when a person is confronted with terrible personal trauma. It is depressing, but seemingly accurate. I think that if King had chosen to focus on the pollution issue he would have had a much more interesting and powerful novel. As it is, he settled for an action story without any attempts at making it an “issue book.”
King’s discussion of class moves in and out of focus, but remains a theme throughout. Obviously King has great sympathy and understanding for the suffering of the poor and unemployed and he does his best to uphold them as the better sort of person. In some ways, this echoes Orwell’s use of proles in 1984, proles being considered the greatest hope for the future, a dream that is complicated by reality. However, the ending of the novel doesn’t provide closure or even hope for the future. King points out class issues without suggesting that the lower classes will ever be able to escape.
Interestingly, two of the lowest class characters are readers, suggesting that class can be escaped through education and imagination. This vision does not work particularly well in the context of the novel. Ben Richards is depicted as an action hero, but somehow it is necessary to see him also as a sensitive reader of novels. The other major reader is a gang member, who belongs to a gang of...readers. They sneak into the library to read about pollution and how the upper classes cope with poison air. It’s a bizarre moment in the book, one that made me raise my eyebrows (not that I don’t think people should read). I think reading is great, and I think everyone should sneak into their libraries to read about pollution. The scenes just aren’t in keeping with the rest of the novel. I think perhaps King wanted people to know how important reading is and didn’t work too hard on how to deliver that message.
I think this is a fair dystopian novel. The novel is more about society than about politics, along the lines of Farhenheit 451 rather than 1984. That being said, this isn’t the greatest dystopian novel ever written. I think King was trying to take on racism, but he didn’t make his point strong enough. He just comes across as possibly racist. Further, he seems to be trying to fight against anti-gay sentiment, but he fails there too. This isn’t to say that the book ought to have been longer. The story would have lost its pop and suffered terribly if it were longer. I just think King should have worked harder on making his argument stronger.
That being said, I’d recommend this to the same audience as Logan’s Run. The stories are roughly similar (superhuman runs away from bad guys; there’s even a similar scene of claustrophobia), but Richards seems a little more interesting (perhaps because he’s 28 and not just 21) even as his situation seems a little less plausible. This isn’t a book for the faint of heart or the easily upset. This feels like a book that a non-reading teenager (I mean this as nicely as possible) would really like--there’s blood, the main character kicks ass, and a couple important issues are mentioned. It isn’t boring, it isn’t slow, and it doesn’t stop in the middle for a complicated political discussion (ahem, 1984).
-Benvolia
Also read this week:
Water: Tales of Elemental Spirits, by Robin McKinley and Peter Dickinson (23 June 2011)
The Blue Sword, by Robin McKinley (27 June 2011)
22 June 2011
Dystopian Books: "Logan's Run"
Title: Logan's Run
Authors: William Nolan and George Clayton Johnson
133 pages (Hardcover)
Copy: UC Davis library
Read: early June
Spoilers: several itty-bitty ones
Because I saw the film before I read Logan's Run, I had exceedingly low expectations. The movie, while intriguing in some respects, has such bad acting that the film is nearly unwatchable--the female lead is particularly annoying--and the special effects are limited by technology. I picked the book up with trepidation but a feeling of duty (I'm reading dystopian literature this summer in preparation for my Senior Honors Thesis). I was surprised by the book and its intriguing view of the future.
This is a dystopia that explores the cult of youth so beloved by our modern society. In this world, people are killed at 21 because society has decided that life after 21 is too horrible to contemplate. Thus, the "ages of man" are skewed--a 16 year old, for instance, is considered a consenting adult. Drugs and sex figure predominately in the early part of the book (rather similarly to Brave New World) and while people seem to have jobs, it is hard to know exactly what these jobs are. The only clearly defined occupation is Logan's job as a Sandman, a sort of special policeman who pursues "runners," people who run away on their death day rather than submitting quietly. The life stage of a member of this society is determined by a "flower" (some sort of jewel implanted in the hand) that changes color as part of its 21 year decomposition.
The book is slim and seems to be cut short. The entire piece has the feel of a fairly detailed outline. The action moves at an extraordinary pace and the time seems impossible (think compression along the lines of The Da Vinci Code). Plus, injuries are fleeting which makes the novel seem more like an action TV series. I have the feeling, though, that if the novel had been expanded any it would have become absolutely unbearable. And, really, why bother to demand realism in a book of this nature? Obviously the authors are caricaturing one aspect of culture and it seems that the fast, unrealistic pace could be part of the book's main philosophic thrust--face paced lives and a fast paced book. It works fairly well.
I read the book to see how it depicts the environment. I have to say, the characters in the novel have an interesting relationship to the natural world. Nature is the way to freedom, but it is also out to kill them. The novel depicts traveling through a cave-system with creepy success, elaborating on the claustrophobia of the characters and the disgusting creatures that live in the caves. A sense of death pervades the scene, in a more or less realistic way. The vague realism of the cave scene, however, is overwhelmed by later, more unrealistic scenes. Later in the novel, Logan has a prolonged fight with a tiger. The scene strikes me as incredibly odd. The tiger hunts Logan and carries a grudge, finally attacking him in a decidedly abnormal fashion. The scene is more anthropomorphic than real. Ultimately, the final scene presents a firm denial of Earth, in a scene that is unexpected and out-of-place. On the whole, the book seems to find nature dangerous and most likely lethal, and seems to think we'd all be better off without it.
Of course, the depiction isn't all that surprising. Science fiction, in many ways, denies the value of Earth and upholds the value of technology. There are science fiction novels that deal exclusively with nature, but they are a more recent development. Still, if Logan's Run is placed alongside Fahrenheit 451, for instance, this extremely negative natural depiction becomes more striking. I wonder if this negatively viewed environment is part of youth (perhaps the environment can't be seen or understood until one is older than 21) or merely a symptom of a societal separation from nature. At any rate, it's a curious depiction.
I'd recommend this novel to anyone interested in the intense glorification of youth because Logan's Run has much to say about age and maturity. I'll warn that there is sex, but not too detailed, and there is drug use. There are also violent scenes (and sexually violent scenes) and questionable depictions of women. Nevertheless, Logan's Run is an interesting dystopia, fast paced and intriguing. It's definitely a product of its era, but it's still fairly relevant. And it's way better than the movie, so don't be turned off from the novel if all you know about it is the film. The book is more interesting and the film leaves a lot of the most thought-provoking parts out.
-Benvolia
Authors: William Nolan and George Clayton Johnson
133 pages (Hardcover)
Copy: UC Davis library
Read: early June
Spoilers: several itty-bitty ones
Because I saw the film before I read Logan's Run, I had exceedingly low expectations. The movie, while intriguing in some respects, has such bad acting that the film is nearly unwatchable--the female lead is particularly annoying--and the special effects are limited by technology. I picked the book up with trepidation but a feeling of duty (I'm reading dystopian literature this summer in preparation for my Senior Honors Thesis). I was surprised by the book and its intriguing view of the future.
This is a dystopia that explores the cult of youth so beloved by our modern society. In this world, people are killed at 21 because society has decided that life after 21 is too horrible to contemplate. Thus, the "ages of man" are skewed--a 16 year old, for instance, is considered a consenting adult. Drugs and sex figure predominately in the early part of the book (rather similarly to Brave New World) and while people seem to have jobs, it is hard to know exactly what these jobs are. The only clearly defined occupation is Logan's job as a Sandman, a sort of special policeman who pursues "runners," people who run away on their death day rather than submitting quietly. The life stage of a member of this society is determined by a "flower" (some sort of jewel implanted in the hand) that changes color as part of its 21 year decomposition.
The book is slim and seems to be cut short. The entire piece has the feel of a fairly detailed outline. The action moves at an extraordinary pace and the time seems impossible (think compression along the lines of The Da Vinci Code). Plus, injuries are fleeting which makes the novel seem more like an action TV series. I have the feeling, though, that if the novel had been expanded any it would have become absolutely unbearable. And, really, why bother to demand realism in a book of this nature? Obviously the authors are caricaturing one aspect of culture and it seems that the fast, unrealistic pace could be part of the book's main philosophic thrust--face paced lives and a fast paced book. It works fairly well.
I read the book to see how it depicts the environment. I have to say, the characters in the novel have an interesting relationship to the natural world. Nature is the way to freedom, but it is also out to kill them. The novel depicts traveling through a cave-system with creepy success, elaborating on the claustrophobia of the characters and the disgusting creatures that live in the caves. A sense of death pervades the scene, in a more or less realistic way. The vague realism of the cave scene, however, is overwhelmed by later, more unrealistic scenes. Later in the novel, Logan has a prolonged fight with a tiger. The scene strikes me as incredibly odd. The tiger hunts Logan and carries a grudge, finally attacking him in a decidedly abnormal fashion. The scene is more anthropomorphic than real. Ultimately, the final scene presents a firm denial of Earth, in a scene that is unexpected and out-of-place. On the whole, the book seems to find nature dangerous and most likely lethal, and seems to think we'd all be better off without it.
Of course, the depiction isn't all that surprising. Science fiction, in many ways, denies the value of Earth and upholds the value of technology. There are science fiction novels that deal exclusively with nature, but they are a more recent development. Still, if Logan's Run is placed alongside Fahrenheit 451, for instance, this extremely negative natural depiction becomes more striking. I wonder if this negatively viewed environment is part of youth (perhaps the environment can't be seen or understood until one is older than 21) or merely a symptom of a societal separation from nature. At any rate, it's a curious depiction.
I'd recommend this novel to anyone interested in the intense glorification of youth because Logan's Run has much to say about age and maturity. I'll warn that there is sex, but not too detailed, and there is drug use. There are also violent scenes (and sexually violent scenes) and questionable depictions of women. Nevertheless, Logan's Run is an interesting dystopia, fast paced and intriguing. It's definitely a product of its era, but it's still fairly relevant. And it's way better than the movie, so don't be turned off from the novel if all you know about it is the film. The book is more interesting and the film leaves a lot of the most thought-provoking parts out.
-Benvolia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)