Sci-Fi Book: Off Armageddon Reef

David Weber is one of my favorite authors, and this is an excellent series. I’ve put a discount on this that has it at $7.98, below the price at the moment, but that may not last, so if you’re price shopping, go take a look there.

Note: I intend to place more short notes about books and series I like on this blog. I don’t post that much, so a book or so a week should be manageable.

What is a Classic?

I’ve posted before on the idea of what is great literature and what is not, and particularly on the tendency of some people to become gatekeepers over the distinction. I personally reject the very idea of reading lists. If people think my reading is eccentric (it is), or that I have not read certain pieces of supposedly classic literature (in many cases, they’re right), that’s fine with me.

Sam Sacks enters this debate (not with me on my tiny blog, but with the heavies) with a post Canon Fodder: Denouncing the Classics on The New Yorker site. I call attention to it because I think it’s interesting, but I also think it tends to miss the point. This is because it falls into the trap of thinking that a word must have one referent. There are at least two senses of “classic,” at least as I would use them. First, there is the classic that is so great (in my opinion), that it deserves to be read widely. Thus I will use the term “classic” of literature that might not be old enough to be considered a classic by more normal people. (The question is, which is to be master–that’s all!) The second use is illustrated by my parenthetical quote. A classic is something that has worked its way so far into the way we think about things that it would be helpful for you to have read it in order to understand your own culture. But in my view you won’t make it through any good sized list without neglecting something anyhow. So I make no apologies for leaning my literature reading a bit more to the contemporary than “true literati” would find acceptable. I’m not a “true literati.” I’m just a publisher. (Note the use of scare quotes, or in this case, perhaps, disdain quotes.)

In any case, I remain convinced that choice in reading is personal, and that you can objectively determine if literature is popular or influential, but not whether it is good or not. That’s a matter of taste. Mostly.


Reading Fiction and Good Fiction

I found the post Reading Fiction: Russell Moore by Scot McKnight to be interesting. So many Christians act as if reading fiction was a waste of time that could better be spent doing “useful” things. I think that misunderstands how our minds work.

Of course, in the comments we encounter the usual question of what is “good” fiction. That one’s harder to answer. Moore refers to a number of works that would be considered “good” or “great” by literature professors. I tend to be more eclectic. I wrote about that here, not to mention my post On Reading Bad Books and What They Are.

Not WHAT You Read but HOW

Occasionally one of my Christian acquaintances will question my taste in reading, movies, TV programs, or even games, though having attained 50 years of age, video and other online games are less a part of my life than they used to be. I don’t think their question is inappropriate, but I do very often disagree with their suggested choices.

But I was thinking about this today, and it occurred to me that we have a much bigger problem with how we read than with what, and this problem not only applies to fiction and other entertainment, but also to our informational reading. No matter what we read, we have two choices: 1) We can be led along by the author wherever he leads, or even to places he may not have intended, or 2) We can read with an active mind, discernment, and will.

  1. By an active mind I mean one that is tuned to what one is reading or viewing, and is considering and evaluating it.
  2. By discernment I mean use of whatever moral standards one has chosen to evaluate or judge actions or statements.
  3. By will I mean the ability to put one’s evaluations into action.

For my wife and I, TV programs in the evening often result in ethical, political, or religious discussions. We watch characters and ask questions like these:

  • Is that realistic? Would a person like the one portrayed do that?
  • What would I do in those circumstances?
  • Can I understand and excuse, if not approve, what the character did?
  • What if the world really was like that?

. . . and there are often many more.

When I listen to a news story, I’m asking questions like these:

  • How was that statistic derived? What questions were asked in a survey, or what data was collected in order to accomplish that?
  • Is there more context to this story?
  • On what basis does that pundit make his predictions?
  • Can I find a reference for that information and check it out?

Now I’m not some sort of paragon of virtue who checks every single fact he reads or hears. But before I make something my own, I do check references and determine whether it is well-supported or not.

Finally, I will also ask just how much of my time I want to spend watching that particular kind of show, or reading that particular kind of book. Is it constructive for me at this point in my life? Is the time I spend with it balanced?

Many times, people will spend hours watching a disaster or true crime story on TV, and feel superior to a person who watches a violent show or plays a violent video game. But were the folks who watched O.J.’s odyssey in the white Bronco using their time any more wisely than the most addicted teenage video game fanatic? Were they improving their minds or their bodies? Were the truly engaged in recreation?

Despite the title, I think there are things that are better left unread or unviewed. But I think that is a much less important issue than your decision to live your life with mind engaged. It may not all be in how you read, but much of it is.

I’ll take the risk that you may decide my blog is not the best way to spend your reading time!

Defining Good Literature (Or Not)

Note: This is a long post with me bloviating on what I regard as good literature and how I come up with my ratings in book notes. This is fair warning for those who expect shorter, lighter material on this blog.

I have been a reader for as long as I can remember. As soon as I discovered what reading could do for me, I fell in love with books. My parents knew what they could get me for a birthday or Christmas present—a book would always be well received.

My parents were opposed to fiction. Not just certain types of fiction—all fiction. I got my first introduction to fiction in 9th grade English by correspondence. I was permitted to read the fiction in the course because it was required, but I was not to read anything that was not assigned. I ate it up. Then I left home, and went a long ways. My parents were still in South America and I was in the states to go on to school. At my brother-in-law’s house I was introduced to science fiction starting with Robert Heinlein. I read Stranger in a Strange Land, Methuselah’s Children, and Starship Troopers. I’m not at all certain which was first. I couldn’t stop. Heinlein didn’t remain my favorite science fiction writer, though he remained on my list of favorites.

After that I pursued popular fiction, but I’ve always had a special place in my reading for science fiction. Frequently over the years I’ve been informed that my tastes in literature are not very refined or sophisticated. I have to admit that I found reading Dostoevsky of no interest whatsoever, and even Les Miserables only came out a little above medium interest. (I read it initially in French.)

This experience has reinforced my initial tendency to ignore the literary tastes of those around me. Personally I find “lists of books that every educated person must have read” to be exercises in intellectual snobbery. If someone likes a book they can explain to me why I would find it interesting or worthwhile to read.

All of that verbiage leads me to my actual subject. What is the purpose of my book notes on this blog, and just how to I rate the books that I read? Let me tell you that my motivation is not money. I do get some referral fees from, but I have never been able to identify purchases that came from the notes here. Generally, it’s my recommendations in Bible translations or books on Biblical studies, which are areas in which I work professionally that generate links.

My primary motivation is simply the discipline of thinking a bit about a book, why I liked it or didn’t, and recording the fact that I read it and how I felt. I believe that a good book is one you either enjoy or that helps you accomplish whatever you intended by reading it. A good story entertains and/or challenges me. A good non-fiction book informs me in a particular area or challenges my thinking about a subject. A bad book fails to do any of those things.

That means that there’s no objective “good book” and “bad book” for the most part. There are books that will entertain nobody, inform nobody, and challenge nobody. But there are also books that don’t entertain me, but are just the thing for somebody else. What I mean here by a great book is one that manages to make a great combination of entertaining and challenging me. Contrary to the title of this post, I don’t believe there is an objective definition of good literature.

For those few folks who read my book notes on this blog, I want to note what I like and don’t like in literature.

  • Integrity – I like my literature to be what it is and to be consistent with its own assumptions. I see this violated mostly in popular literature that contrives special rules to move the plot along. If a story is set in the real world, it should live with real world laws of physics and so forth. An adventure story that pretends the impossible can happen needs to have a reason that should be so. There are categories of adventure stories that are based on massive improbabilities or technically improbable stuff, but that’s just part of the story.

    It’s really hard for me to define a line here. Generally I will like it if it’s obvious that the author or producer intends the audience to be in on the joke, it works for me. If it appears that he or she is trying to slip one over, I won’t.

  • Characters that are logical within the story background. I like characters that are multi-dimensional. I really like writers who can characterize someone with a few lines and nonetheless make them substantial and interesting. I particularly like to be able to predict a character’s attitude based on earlier portions of the book, but it’s even better if I can’t predict the action, but on thinking about it, I realize that it was a logical move for that character.
  • Stories that take place within a substantial and interesting world/universe. This includes contemporary fiction, in which I like a substantial sphere in which the story takes place. In science fiction and fantasy I like the universe to be well enough defined so that one can guess what can and cannot happen. New rules need to be introduced for a logical reason (bigger wizard, more advanced aliens) and shouldn’t be the main way the story is carried forward.
  • I don’t really like stories of unrelieved darkness and nastiness. I should make it especially clear that this is a preference. I don’t think such stories are “bad.” They just don’t do anything for me.
  • I don’t like time travel, except in a few cases where it’s handled with considerable skill (usually in short stories playing with the difficulty) or the rest of the story is good. For example, in Anne McCaffrey’s Pern series, I don’t like the time travel, and don’t think it is well handled, but the story telling is so wonderful, the characters so exceptionally interesting, and the world so much fun, that I hardly notice the time travel problem.
  • I like stories that vary from extremely light to very heavy and serious. I read them at different times. Most of the time I read before I go to sleep, and I usually choose lighter reading, because I want to be able to put it down and go to sleep. Series like Lillian Jackson Braun’s “Cat Who” books are great evening reading. They’re interesting enough to keep me reading, but they don’t force a great deal of thinking.
  • I like a balance of action and explanation. I will generally not like a book that is all intense action without any exploration of the thinking of the major characters or description of the background, but such explanations need to be scattered around.
  • I don’t like grammatical eccentricities, but I usually put up with them. William C. Dietz has a habit of using incomplete sentences. Like this one. It gets on my nerves, but Dietz is such an exceptionally good storyteller otherwise, that I’ll live with it.
  • Religion should have a role only as it has a role in the characters’ lives. If I detect that a story is being told for the purpose of presenting me with a moral rather than to entertain, I’ll drop it in a hurry. Christian fiction that in which I can identify the folks who will get converted (or are major targets) within the first couple of pages just annoy me. On the other hand, if one has Christian characters, one of the things they do is witness, and as it fits the story, that’s fine.
  • I like there to be right and wrong in the story, though they don’t have to agree with what I would regard as right and wrong. In fact, I find it more interesting if characters have moral standards, but those standards disagree with mine. I also like to see subtlety and shades of moral gray. Some books get by with a serious binary good-evil battle, such as Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings, but in general I don’t see that as a plus.
  • Those are the major things I notice in books. I hope this will help one or two readers with understanding my notes.

Reading and Viewing – 9/13/06

I’ve been reading a viewing a variety of things over the last couple of weeks and I thought I’d comment on a few of them and provide “buy” links.

First on my list is a mystery by a new author (for me), Donna Andrews, titled Access Denied. This is one of a series, the Turing Hopper mysteries, featuring a sentient, or near sentient, artificial intelligence. I found the characters interesting, but not fascinating, and the artificial intelligence is an interesting concept, though I don’t think a great deal was done with it. I rate this book a 3 of 5 (My Book Ratings).

To keep my hand in with reading I can count on for enjoyment, I also read two books by Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies and Men at Arms. Pratchett can always be counted on for good fun, and I rate the discworld novels a 4 pushing a 5. I have to be honest and admit that there are others books that I will pick up first, so the most honest rating is 4.

I did try a new book, Joanne Fluke’s Cherry Cheesecake Murder, subtitled A Hannah Swensen Mystery with Recipes. If I were to rate this one myself, I would be forced to give it a rating of one, but I also loaned it to my wife. Her tastes and mine overlap but are not identical. The average rating should probably be about a 3 or 4. The problem is that I have little patience for a book that spends too much time building the characters while leaving me without any action. I prefer characterization that happens more as the story moves. Further, the recipes don’t interest me, which I knew when I picked up the book. In other words, this isn’t a bad book; it’s just not a book for me. Jody thought it was pretty good.

To round out my reading I picked up a couple by Ngaio Marsh, Light Thickens and When in Rome. Marsh is regular reading for me. There’s some similarity to Agatha Christie, but though that comparison originally attracted me, as I’ve read Marsh I don’t see them as all that similar. One major difference is that Marsh’s lead characters appear to be more official than Christie’s.

Now for viewing, I have to admit to indulging my love for British comedy, I watched a number of episodes of Jeeves and Wooster, which I find quite amusing in a light sort of way, and a few more of Yes, Minister/Yes Prime Minister.

In terms of full length movies I watched Creator, which is somewhat humorous but doesn’t attain to greatness (I waver between a 2 and a 3). Next was Mr. Holland’s Opus, which I rate as a 4. That’s not really all, but I didn’t really keep a list.

Of the current crop of TV programs, the only one I’m following with diligence is The Closer (First Season). This is one of the several shows (CSI and West Wing are others) that my wife and I both follow with diligence, even extending to recording them when we’re out, a truly rare accolade on our part.

Well, that’s it. Perhaps you’ll find some reading or viewing ideas in the list. I’ll continue to write fuller reviews of materials that are new to me, and that I realy find attractive.

This Weeks Reading – 8/29/06

I’ve decided that putting a single entry for each book I decide to write a paragraph or so about is too scattered. I think I’ll just try to make weekly entries on my reading. Where applicable, I’ll do something similar for what I watch as well, though I watch less than I read.

This week I read three very different books, though all were enjoyable. When I rate these for my Bookstore I use a scale from 1 to 5. This scale means:

  1. I didn’t finish reading it.
    I’m such a determined reader that this only applies to two books that I can remember
  2. I don’t plan to look at this author again
  3. Normal reading level; I liked it and will read this author again on occasion.
  4. I liked it, and will keep my eye open for this author’s work
  5. I truly adored it, and will read everything this author writes.

My first item this week was the final book in Timothy Zahn’s Blackcollar trilogy, Zahn, Timothy, Blackcollar: The Judas Solution. Timothy Zahn is one of my favorite writers, and so you should not be surprised that I give this a five; I have to just based on my definition. If Zahn writes, I’ll read. In this case, I find the ending to the trilogy quite interesting and creative, and I enjoyed the background of this series. There’s lots of action and suspense, and a few twists and turns, but it mostly hangs together. There are some interesting logical questions, but they don’t overwhelm the story.

Then I read John Pilkington’s medieval mystery, The Maiden Bell. This was my first book by Pilkington and though I enjoyed it, I must give it a mere 3. I have already visited the library again and completely failed to look for another book by this author. On the other hand, I expect I will read something more by him at some point. I found the story just a little bit slow, and the history was pretty far in the background.

Finally, I read a book by one of my wife’s favorite authors, J. D. Robb (Nora Roberts). The book is Memory in Death, and I truly enjoy reading any of the books in this series featuring Eve Dallas as a detective. Robb concentrates on the human element a great deal, but the mystery is good, and the action and suspense are adequate to keep your attention. Since I read a good deal of Robb, but haven’t set out to read everything she writes (who could?) I’ll call this a 4.

Of course I’m only including fiction and literary reading in this listing. A good use of comments might be to mention good books you’ve read recently. I enjoy updating this blog and its good for me whether anyone’s reading it or not, but it might be fun to have some feedback here.