LA Times Review of a Steamy Subject
The LA Times has published my review of a history of steampower by William Rosen. They asked me to integrate some aspects of Steampunk perspective on it, so I did. Not sure if it’s a chemical or physical reaction, but go check it out.
A young Steampunk’s dream, William Rosen’s “The Most Powerful Idea in the World” manages to make sense of the many threads that together tell the story of the origins and applications of steam power. The book has a crackling energy to it, often as riveting as it is educational. Rosen, in pursuit of evidence, makes interesting, even exciting, such subjects as patent law from the Roman Tiberius on, technological innovation in ancient China and the role of practice in separating out accomplished performers from the “merely good.” If Rosen at times seems too hell-bent on single-minded pursuit of his enthusiasms, at least that’s better than a dull book.
In other news, SF Site published a review of Finch that makes no sense to me. Maybe my head is just too cotton-candy-and-nails from this damned cold, but just a couple of points. (1) Somebody pretty clearly skimmed parts of the book to come up with this sentence: “The problem is that by the time the book lets us in on the hows and whys, they have become largely academic.” Um, not true. Like, not true in any objective way. And, um, the inclusion of same is a powerful counter-example anyway to the thin characterization claim, which I’m not going to bother with anyway. I can’t get any closer in on a character’s thoughts, inside of their head, than in Finch, so phhhpt. And (2) I’m going to have to do a blog post on the idea of “constraint” when it comes to characterization, because the problem isn’t that John Finch is too constrained–and, indeed, despite his constraints, he *does* plenty of things–but that characters in most fantasy novels are *not constrained enough*. Plot devices and authorial intervention tend to smooth the path. Thus endeth the rant. I’m going back to bed. Heh. Maybe I’m the third bear. Yes, I’m sure that’s it. Good night all.
July 1, 2010 at 12:47 pm
[...] back to bed. Heh. Maybe I’m the third bear. Yes, I’m sure that’s it. Good night all. [from http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2010/07/01/la-times-review-of-a-steamy-subject/ [...]
July 1, 2010 at 1:20 pm
When the vast majority of the paragraphs in a review are two lines and none surpass three, even before I begin reading the review I begin to wonder if what I’ll read will be an examination of the story or just the recapitalization of the press kit, Harriet Klausner style. Therefore, I wasn’t surprised that over half of the review read like excerpts from the back cover and that the rest were just declarations with no textual evidence supplied.
What’s the best-written negative review that you’ve received for Finch, Jeff?
July 1, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Good question. Probably the one on Bookslut, which was mixed. They were suckered in by the use of noir tropes and didn’t believe I’d subverted them. I believe I did, but the review at least made sense. I don’t know if there have been any totally negative reviews. Most have been quite positive, and I haven’t commented on any of the mixed ones because I thought they were all pretty much fair. You can’t please everyone. But I draw the line at what I consider factual errors that do not reflect a close reading of the book. But probably wouldn’t have commented if I wasn’t already grumpy. :)
July 1, 2010 at 1:32 pm
I sometimes wonder if the majority of well-written/argued reviews that criticize elements of a novel end up being labeled as “mixed” because the reviewer also examines at length the positive aspects to set up exploring the perceived failures. I do recall reading that Bookslut review and it did cover both elements.
I haven’t been paying much attention lately, but is it me, or have the overall quality of SF Site reviews gone downhill recently? I don’t recall reading such a poorly-constructed review there in the past, or at least not frequently, but now the few times I do get linked to them, the reviews seemed to be less and less substantive.
July 1, 2010 at 1:33 pm
I love the guys who run that site, but they’ve got so much competition now that, yes, their reviews are running shorter, and I think that they’re having trouble finding reviewers. I could be mistaken, however.
July 1, 2010 at 1:51 pm
That might explain it. Thanks.