Week of May 28-June 3

[mrissa]

Four rejections this week. They all came between midnight and noon on Wednesday: quick! So we can say we replied in May! or something like that.

I have a problem with my library list. Specifically, it is five closely handwritten pages, and it is not sorted. (And that five-page figure does not include, for example, the two yhlee-recommended books I just added to the file of things to look up on the library's online catalog when I get the chance.) So when I'm in the mood for something specific -- mysteries, say, or YA mainstream, or popular science writing -- there's absolutely no telling where on the list the relevant listings will be. And somehow, sitting down and organizing the library list -- and rewriting it, uff da -- has not made the priority list recently. (Complaining about the problem on lj, apparently, is of a much higher priority.)

Also -- and this is a problem that goes beyond my immediate laziness -- there are some books whose category is not clear to me, or possibly never was. I wrote, "G.K. Chesterton -- The Man Who Was Thursday -- Hilary -- Mys C42," very clearly. Did I write it down as a mystery or as some other category of thing? I don't know. It's good to know whether mechaieh or wshaffer was the source of a recommendation, but it's not always as informative a tag as I would like.

(What I really want, now that I've gone through all the Dorothy Dunnetts and also all the Patrick O'Brians and also all the Sharon Kay Penmans, is historical novels -- preferably chewy juicy thick ones -- wherein the author has done a ton of research, and I can't pick out what specific books the author has or, more to the point, hasn't read, and also wherein the author does not think that the period and location are exotic. Interesting, sure. Exciting, sure. But exotic, no, no thank you. And that's not just about Chinoiserie and its related diseases, either -- it also applies to the historical writers who are just breathless about the idea that someone might have a farthingale, my goodness, imagine!)

Also -- this part isn't a problem at all -- I can tell how long some things have been on my library list, because there's a line beyond which the tag stops being rysmiel and starts being [rysmiel's real first name], and one when mkille stops being "M.Kille" and starts being "O.Mark" (short for "Other Mark," when he became definitively the other Mark I would refer to and any other other Marks would require additional tags). "P.Dean" means that pameladean mentioned something positively in her lj or one of her books, before she was just the Pamela to me. This is fine as a personal historical artifact, but then I look at it and think, gosh, I really have a lot of reading I haven't gotten to. I did get to the former oldest item on the list, which I could date precisely because skzbrust only came to do a reading at my college once, and then I didn't speak to him again until the Minicon after we moved home. Now I don't know what the oldest item on the library list is. But it's less recent than the fall of '98, I do know that much!

Maybe I should have gone to the library before it closed.

Comments

[marykaykare.livejournal.com]

I like Ceclia Holland's historical novels and Steven Saylor has a good mystery series set in ancient Rome. I like his a lot better than Lindsay's.

MKK

[pameladean]

I have to second the recommendation of Mary Renault, although my personal favorite is The Mask of Apollo, which is about Greek theater, in loving detail, and also contains the most stupendous structural fireworks I have ever seen in my life. You have no idea that they are there until the end, and then the ENTIRE BOOK rearranges itself under your eyes.

The Chesterton is subtitled "A Nightmare," and is more a spy story than anything else. With anarchists. But Chesterton is not really categorizable.

P.

Re: rec-4-U

[pameladean]

I adore Mary Renault. The Last of the Wine is about Socrates, but really it's about the decline and fall of Athenian civilization. It's lovely, but so sad.

P.

[mkille.livejournal.com]

Let me organize your library list please please! I can index by author, title and subject headings. Please let me! Oh, the siren call of a library project!

[wshaffer.livejournal.com]

I kind of think that you must have read some of these, but a quick brainstorming session between me and Daniel produced:
* Bernard Cornwell's stuff. His Sharpe books (Napoleonic wars) are not really thick and chewy, but are certainly well researched, and I love 'em. He has some other historicals set in other periods that I have not read yet.
* Colleen McCullough's Roman series. I think the first one is titled _First Man in Rome_. They're written in a bit of a doorstopper bestseller kind of style that I occasionally find tiresome, but, oh, they are thick and juicy and well-researched.
* Iain Pears' _An Instance of the Fingerpost_.
* If you can stand more Romans after the McCullough, there's always _I, Claudius_. (Actually, if I had to read only one, I'd choose _I, Claudius_.)

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I hope I'm not being too mainstream, but let me put in a word for Michener. I read one of his tomes every few years or so. My favorite (so far) is The Source. Chilling to read right after 9/11.

[ellarien]

I think The man who was Thursday is a mystery in the same kind of sense that Alice in Wonderland is a travelogue.

Then again, it's been a very, very long day and I may be making even less sense than I think I am.

[gwyneira.livejournal.com]

I forget whether you've read any Gillian Bradshaw or not, but if not, I highly recommend a lot of her historical novels, particularly The Beacon at Alexandria, Island of Ghosts, and The Sand-Reckoner (which is about Archimedes).

Re: rec-4-U

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yah, I have your name next to Mary Renault on my library list from some months or possibly years ago.

Re: rec-4-U

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

The Charioteer reminds me a bit in description of the Pat Barker trilogy, which is so very very good.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Lindsay Davis, is that? Because I tried one of her Roman mysteries and was underwhelmed, so liking something better than it makes good sense as a data point.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Spy story with anarchists, oh, oh! This is like nobody telling me Patrick O'Brian is funny! Now I must.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

You really mean this, don't you.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I do like that Iain Pears (others varying amounts), and I believe I, Claudius is already on the list. Otherwise, I am scribbling.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

My problem with Hawaii is the same problem I had with Years of Rice and Salt: I don't want to read about recurring generational types, I want to read about characters. Does Michener do this other places, or no?

I am not the kind of person who thinks that books are bad for being mainstream popular. I also don't think they're good for being mainstream popular. The two aren't entirely orthogonal, but largely they might be.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Are they like her Arthurians? because that's what I've read, just that trilogy.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

My problem with Hawaii is the same problem I had with Years of Rice and Salt: I don't want to read about recurring generational types, I want to read about characters. Does Michener do this other places, or no?

You probably don't like James Clavell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clavell) either, though I think his first few books are really good. King Rat is okay, Tai-Pan and Shogun are great ((and interrelate, but probably not so much as would bother you)) but somewhere in the middle of Noble House the royalty checks start coming in from the Shogun mini-series and he stops trying. He gets really self-referential, to appeal to his tv audience.

I didn't like Hawaii as much as some; I think much of the fondness derives from the terrific ending. Personally, I preferred Alaska, but that also relies on multi-generational relationships. Most of those relationships added to the story, though I could have done without it. I would still recommend The Source, which is the story of an archaeological dig in Israel in 1963. The chapters are hundreds if not thousands of years apart, and while some families and peoples reappear, the stories chronicle the development of religious thought and the lives of people in different circumstances.

Digression: Hawaii was the book I brought along on my Antarctica trip last year. I figured it would be a break from icebergs and penguins. The first section of the book was fine, building the geography of the islands. The second section was fine, telling how the Polynesia people got to the islands. The third section starts off in Massachusetts, but to get to Hawaii they have to sail around Tierra del Fuego where I was at the time. *sigh* Can't escape the Antarctic anywhere.

[marykaykare.livejournal.com]

Errr. Lindsay Davis, that's right. I just couldn't wrap my hands around the name. Damn nouns are SO slippery.

MKK

[mkille.livejournal.com]

Yep.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Communication existed: I knew who you meant, and that's what counts.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

while some families and peoples reappear, the stories chronicle the development of religious thought and the lives of people in different circumstances.

Hmmmmmm.

See, for me -- and this is all in terms of my taste, not some absolute good -- those things are very good things to have as sidelights in a novel, but characters are not really optional. Characters, I mean, as opposed to types. I can find a novel without them interesting, even thought-provoking, but I will almost never love or recommend it.