Seeming as the snowpocalypse and a burgeoning chest infection have got me trapped indoors, how about an end of the year round-up post!
It’s been a very odd year. I started 2010 feeling unusually optimistic, convinced it was going to be a good year. I was writing, which always makes me happy. It seemed like a sign that the depression which I’d lived with for sixteen years – and which had crippled me for the last seven of those – was finally lifting. I had my mind back. This would be the year when I found out who I really was, without depression.
And I am finding it out. A year’s too short to find out completely, but I am starting to feel like a person, not an illness. Free of that awful sludge, I can begin to feel the shape of my mind – what I really like, or dislike; what I’m really capable of; my real moods; my strengths and weaknesses. I’ve explored myself a little through writing; I’ve discovered how far (not very) my talent will stretch. I’ve started to read outside of that nice, comforting, escapism fiction which has been a friend and companion to me for so long. I’ve discovered that I’m strong enough now to read about dark stuff without feeling dark myself (although I doubt I’ll ever enjoy it. Some things are only enjoyable when viewed from the outside.).
Events of this year have also meant I’ve had to step up, and grow up. I’m glad I was well enough to do so. And I hope that for the first time I was able to offer strength to others, rather than vice versa. I have many years to repay.
Hmm. Well, that was a little bit of a diversion in a post that was meant to be some lists of books I’d read this year. But I guess as that’s what came out, I needed to write it.
OK: books!
Back in June I did my top five of the year so far. I’m going to break things down into a few more categories this time:
Most enjoyable reads
I guess the books I’ve read this year have been a bit more sober than usual – in previous years this would probably be a list of page-turning fun. I think I’ll treat myself to a few more of those next year.
1. Neal Stephenson - Snow Crash
2. Thomas de Quincey - Confessions of an English Opium Eater
3. Jack Kerouac - On the Road
Books that have taught me the most about writing – style and content [AKA: “I’d quite happily sell my right knee-cap to be able to write a book like this”]
This is actually a really hard list to choose – I’d be delirious with glee at writing something half as good as anything I’ve read this year.
1. James Baldwin - Giovanni's Room
2. Ernest Hemingway - A Farewell to Arms
3. A L Kennedy - Day
Books that have been the most embarrassing to read on the train with someone looking over my shoulder (but enjoyable nontheless!)
1. Charles Bukowski - Factotum
2. William Burroughs - Cities of the Red Night
Books I’d like everyone to read
Not in a preachy way – just because I thought they were fantastic.
1. James Baldwin - Giovanni's Room
2. Anthony Swofford - Jarhead
3. Kim Stanley Robinson – Red Mars (haven’t actually posted about this one yet, but I will do when I get time!)
OK, so that’s it for “best of”s! If I had to choose just one, it’d be … James Baldwin - Giovanni's Room. I’ve never read a book which has had such a profound affect on me.
I’m not going to do a “worst of” list. If I don’t like a book, I don’t tend to finish it. Life’s too short to soldier on with a book that’s doing nothing for you. And I don’t feel like I can properly criticise books that I haven’t read. But just out of interest, here are the ones that didn’t make it:
Mark Charan Newton - Cities of Ruin
Mark Charan Newton - Nights of Villjamur
M D Lachlan - Wolfsangel
Reason: I didn’t think the writing was up to scratch, which made it impossible to relax into the story. I had probably over-hyped them in my mind, too.
China Miéville – Kraken
Reason: This was actually the first Miéville book I’d ever tried. In all honesty, I’d never heard of him until I started reading SF&F blogs. Yes, I know: gasp, horror: I’m some sort of cretin. I started to read this when I was coming down with a bad cold, and my fuzzy brain just wasn’t up to his style of writing. I’ll try it again some time.
Geoff Ryman (ed.) – When It Changed (short story collection)
Reason: I think I’ve mentioned before that I struggle with short stories. I read a few out of the collection, but I hardly ever read collections from start to finish. These stories were OK, but I think it was apparent that the authors had no true love of the particular science they’d been tasked to write about.
Gustave Flaubert – Madame Bovary
Reason: I just really wasn’t in the mood. It’s one I’ll try again in future.
Tad Williams – The Dragonbone Chair
Reason: Dull. Apparently it gets better after the first several hundred pages. I couldn’t be bothered finding out if that was true.
Joshua Ferris – And Then We Came to the End
Reason: If Ferris had come to the end around 150 pages sooner, this might have been reasonably enjoyable, but there’s no reason why this book needed to be so long.
Thomas Pynchon – Vineland
Reason: The writing was superb, but I never connected with any of the characters. I also wasn’t entirely happy with the depiction of women.
James Ellroy – LA Confidential
Reason: I like the film. The book was kinda nasty. I know that’s the point, but Ellroy seems like a misogynist in real life and it comes through in the writing. I did quite like the writing style though.
That list is longer than I thought! And, there’s much more SF&F in it than in the lists above. Hmm. Does this mean I don’t like SF&F?
No. I don’t think so. This is the first year I’ve really started to read outside of the genre, meaning pretty much the whole of non-SF&F fiction is open to me for the first time. And there’s a lot more of it. It’s easier to find a great non-genre book that I haven’t read than a genre one.
OK, enough rambling. How about you: any reading surprises this year? What would be your book of 2010?
So, I wrote this thing with Peter V. Brett…
5 hours ago
Posts
4 comments:
Am I glad you posted this!
The thing that really surprised me this year was how few novels I actually read. Partly it was my being digitised, partly Snow Event and all his buddies. I got through more biographies and memoirs than I'd have believed possible, and the usual poetry, but very little else.
Of the novels, I also read On the Road this year for the first time and started to understand the magic. It's a world within the world and not so far from speculative.
Red Mars I'd back. I got to Green once then gave up, and have a habit of flunking trilogies first time. I'm taking the other recommendations seriously - since that post on natural selection, I trust your insight.
With Miéville and Ellroy I'm also in the same boat.
This year I did some re-reading of children's books and this brought surpises. I loved The Secret Garden for the way the perspective opens up. Alice in Wonderland has plenty of depth and I went back largely for the idea it's really about maths. The BFG reminded me books have power. The approach to space probably had a big impact on my thinking as a child.
Wuthering Heights I'd never picked up, and I finally did this year thinking I'd love it. This is my Bovary. I'll struggle to finish ever, even though I keep half a dozen books on the go at once, sometimes over months.
I read Pratchett for the first time too and was quietly impressed, always having thought Discworld was a Harry Potter in disguise. It's a mixed bag, but the man comes across as a good friend, and every so often there's a moment of genius.
Anyway, that's plenty for the time being. Now you've held out the prospect of a review of Red Mars, this audience will certainly be back..!
Thanks, I'm glad you found my feverish and cold medication-touched ramblings of worth :)
I think reading goes in trends. Mine does anyway. I read more biography type books this year than I ever have - normally my non-fiction reading is just pop science books, but I finally discovered that a good biography can be just as absorbing and moving as a good novel. I guess it's a sign of growing up a little; having more experience of living - of the power of reality and what it can do to people.
I like your point about On the Road being almost speculative. I've never thought of that, but I totally get what you mean. You are so deep inside Kerouac's head, and everything is so heavily coloured by his particular style of prose, that it does feel like a different world. His other book I read, Big Sur, is the same - especially as so much of it is told through the haze of his delirium tremens.
It's a bit of a cliche, but I do think writing for children is harder than for adults. I was thinking about it this morning and wondered whether it's because, when writing for adults, authors can more easily use the text for other things than to tell a story: they might be trying to be clever, or to live vicariously through their characters, or they might rely on extremes as short hand ways of producing an emotional response (e.g. graphic violence). Whereas, perhaps it could be argued that a children's author writes only to entertain children and is therefore a lover of stories first and a "writer" second (not that children's authors don't write with a point in mind ... e.g. CS Lewis, perhaps). So I don't actually know what my point is here, but anyway, I agree with you - good children's books and very, very good. And the Secret Garden is one of my favourites :)
I don't like Wuthering Heights. I read it for the first time last year after many years of feeling I ought to read it. I find it hard to enjoy a book with no sympathetic characters. I do like the other Brontes' books though: Tenant of Wildfell Hall is very good; Jane Eyre of course - but I found myself enjoying Agnes Grey last time I read it after not really enjoying it much first time round.
Oh dear, I hope you don't expect much from me about Red Mars. I read it some time ago and the reason I haven't posted about it yet is because I've been struggling to think of anything intelligent enough to say about it to do it justice!
Anyway, thanks for reading! And Merry Christmas!
Feverish ramblings are great!
I agree on biography - the more you learn of living, the more you can understand other lives.
I'm still pondering children's literature. I think the hardest thing for me is shrinking my view of the world back to what it was and reducing stories and ideas to their essence. I probably overcomplicate things at any given stage.
I read Agnes Grey a while back and loved it too, for the simplicity and the picture of a society within boundaries I could feel as real.
With Red Mars, I'd say look at what it was for you and what you saw in it. That's a starting point that can be developed. I'm mostly joking about holding out for a review though. I know that having someone expecting something, even if it's only you, may motivate, but can reduce the creativity and fun. For something as short as a blog post I think you need the zest of wanting to do it in the moment. I have in mind a long series of posts on realism and aliens and so far only have three up. When the inspiration comes, it's usually in that initial essential idea and I work on and out from there; this is a trunk that develops branches, but the core of the post is linear.
The poem you wrote is good and right, but I'm out of kilter. There's more tragedy in what's going on than I can deal with. We're not two, or two and a half, or even a hundred. I see the problem as a Venn diagram with many dimensions. I feel the passion you obviously do fuelled by a long-distilled sense of harmony offended, but to act causes another part to react and the approach can't be broad or subtle enough. It has to include and understand or we go nowhere. I read everything with pleasure even when I don't post.
Merry Christmas to you too! I hope you get plenty of rest and feel stronger for it.
Yes, I was having a rather bah-humbug rant at the Coalition's actions. It's the underhandedness of it - them forcing through their ideology whilst telling us it's for our own good. I'd also just received a reply from my local MP in which he tried to tell me that removing DLA mobility component was necessary, for the good of the country as a whole, and then tried to tell me that it was OK though as they were only removing it from the people who have no money at all (i.e. those who can not afford to pay a penny towards their own care) whilst those who have the disposable income to fully fund their care will continue to have it paid. I thought I'd misread, but no, Leonard Cheshire have confirmed that is really what they intend to do. I should stop. I feel another rant coming on. ;)
Post a Comment