Haven't been doing as much reading as I like to lately, but the book I'm currently working my way through is one of this year's big "hyped" fantasies, Richard Morgan's The Steel Remains. My trajectory of interest in this book went up and down prior to it's release: at first I was absolutely stoked, -- this was going to be the greatest thing since ... well, the last thing that was very cool. Then my enthusiasm waned, as some reviews started echoing one of my only real concerns with the book, specifically that Morgan would lay the grit on too thickly in a zealous effort to drag fantasyland's battered corpse through the mud. Well, more once I've finished it, [I hope], but for what my opinion's worth the first hundred pages are good. In fact, they're very good. Of particular note is how the book can follow several characters, [though admittedly the focus is on one] and still feel very lean. Things happen with punch and at speed without feeling rushed; the grit is integral to the characters, the setting, and the aesthetic rather than being lathered on. Very good so far.
Only other book I've finished recently was Neal Gaiman's new novel, The Graveyard Book, to which I had an interesting reaction. Thing is, I'm one of those people who doesn't always "get" Gaiman. I am quite simply out in the cold in regards to appreciation of some of his work, [such as his Lovecraft short and several of the other pieces collected in his anthology Fragile Things.] People'll be going: "oooh, it's brilliant", and I know they're right, but I just don't see it. But, when I do get Gaiman, I REALLY get Gaiman. I absolutely love American Gods, and was very struck by some of the Fragile Things stories. The Graveyard Book, though it is a novel, evoked both my Gaiman reactions by turns. It is an episodic sort of novel, and some of 'em worked for me and some of 'em didn't. The premise, [boy grows up in graveyard, raised by the dead], is simple but brilliant, -- pure Gaiman, in other words. And yet some episodes, [such as chapter 2, -- why am I referencing chapters when most of us haven't even read the thing?], seemed to me like they were just anecdotes of really striking, cool things, rather than a story in which I could get engaged. I just wasn't that involved. Some other sections, though, do manage to invoke Gaiman's higher magic. The writing ranges from the quite prosaic to the absolutely beautiful to a puzzling degree. I'd read a sentence and think: "Man, why isn't the rest of the book like this?" Overall the thing is great, squeaking by on concept even when the actual presentation isn't quite hacking it, [which, when I think about the book as a whole, isn't very often, -- this is, after all, Neal Gaiman.] Perhaps my expectations were simply a bit high.
One more note: Those who've read The Jungle Book will, of course, recognize a few plot points, as Gaiman's book is an homage to a certain degree, but this is no reason not to read The Graveyard Book. The similarities are significant, but so are the differences.
Oh, and I read Peter S Beagle's The Last Unicorn ...
I have no words. You owe yourself this book.
________
INFANT PRILOSEC
Only other book I've finished recently was Neal Gaiman's new novel, The Graveyard Book, to which I had an interesting reaction. Thing is, I'm one of those people who doesn't always "get" Gaiman. I am quite simply out in the cold in regards to appreciation of some of his work, [such as his Lovecraft short and several of the other pieces collected in his anthology Fragile Things.] People'll be going: "oooh, it's brilliant", and I know they're right, but I just don't see it. But, when I do get Gaiman, I REALLY get Gaiman. I absolutely love American Gods, and was very struck by some of the Fragile Things stories. The Graveyard Book, though it is a novel, evoked both my Gaiman reactions by turns. It is an episodic sort of novel, and some of 'em worked for me and some of 'em didn't. The premise, [boy grows up in graveyard, raised by the dead], is simple but brilliant, -- pure Gaiman, in other words. And yet some episodes, [such as chapter 2, -- why am I referencing chapters when most of us haven't even read the thing?], seemed to me like they were just anecdotes of really striking, cool things, rather than a story in which I could get engaged. I just wasn't that involved. Some other sections, though, do manage to invoke Gaiman's higher magic. The writing ranges from the quite prosaic to the absolutely beautiful to a puzzling degree. I'd read a sentence and think: "Man, why isn't the rest of the book like this?" Overall the thing is great, squeaking by on concept even when the actual presentation isn't quite hacking it, [which, when I think about the book as a whole, isn't very often, -- this is, after all, Neal Gaiman.] Perhaps my expectations were simply a bit high.
One more note: Those who've read The Jungle Book will, of course, recognize a few plot points, as Gaiman's book is an homage to a certain degree, but this is no reason not to read The Graveyard Book. The similarities are significant, but so are the differences.
Oh, and I read Peter S Beagle's The Last Unicorn ...
I have no words. You owe yourself this book.
________
INFANT PRILOSEC
Last edited:
