[Abyss]

I’m too classy for that.

[Maark Abbott]

worry, on 11 December 2018 - 10:43 PM, said:

Dang, I don't wanna count my chickens before they're hatched, but I think I'm gonna lose this one.

Protip: Quick has an unreactable frame 1 grab with meter, so don't do anything negative on block when you debate with him or he'll have you. And it'll be a super cute cuddle and we will all take pictures and you will be shipped.

[Morgoth]

worry, on 11 December 2018 - 10:04 PM, said:

QT, I wasn't aware of that. Thank you! It appears to be an (initially ironic) reappropriation of the derogatory "chick ____" label you see in phrases like "chick flick", which makes a lot of sense. Fair enough to point it out in response to my blanket statement (especially a literal reading of it), and I'll read up more on all that history. Any authors you like in particular?


That said, as you know, 'Science Fiction' wasn't coined to be derogatory, nor does it have to be anything more than a handy arrow pointed at a literary niche, but I know you also understand quite well that when Margaret Atwood says it, it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as when you say it. You're keen to the ways language can ghetto-ize literary niches, in addition to and separate from making helpful distinctions, even when the vocabulary is the same. I can definitely understand why a proud (and proudly defiant) cast of "Chick Lit" writers would adopt the phrase, in response and reaction to the previously dismissive connotations attached to "chick ____", and even develop in some circles a 'for us by us' mentality around it, but surely that latter connotation still commonly exists (and is something the genre champions continue to challenge or defy). So your post has me curious! It's aimed at me alone, not me and Gabriele who dropped a book because it was "chick lit", so I wonder: should I infer that you believe I was wrongheadedly responding to someone referencing the formal Chick Lit literary school, as derived from a post-feminist short story compilation and the movement it spawned? Or were we using a more common, informal, often dismissive meaning of the phrase?

(To be clear, because this is text, none of the above should be read as prickly or abrasive, just engaged, even where it's argumentative with you, QT, or where it references Gabriele's post. My original post wasn't suuuper serious and I figured she was just mostly stating a style preference. So like where I'm asking rhetorical-ish questions towards the end, it's to make a point that I hope is getting across, not to be snippy or even presume too much about Gabriele. I did mostly find your post informative, but you know, posting is its own reward, and I've already written this out, so right or wrong I'm clicking that Post button.)

I don't think there's anything wrong with passing over a book because it's chick lit. I generally skip crime for instance, because I've never been much of a fan of the tropes in that genre. Sure there are crime that I enjoy too, but they're rare and far between.

[Puck]

Morgoth, on 12 December 2018 - 08:54 AM, said:

worry, on 11 December 2018 - 10:04 PM, said:

QT, I wasn't aware of that. Thank you! It appears to be an (initially ironic) reappropriation of the derogatory "chick ____" label you see in phrases like "chick flick", which makes a lot of sense. Fair enough to point it out in response to my blanket statement (especially a literal reading of it), and I'll read up more on all that history. Any authors you like in particular?


That said, as you know, 'Science Fiction' wasn't coined to be derogatory, nor does it have to be anything more than a handy arrow pointed at a literary niche, but I know you also understand quite well that when Margaret Atwood says it, it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as when you say it. You're keen to the ways language can ghetto-ize literary niches, in addition to and separate from making helpful distinctions, even when the vocabulary is the same. I can definitely understand why a proud (and proudly defiant) cast of "Chick Lit" writers would adopt the phrase, in response and reaction to the previously dismissive connotations attached to "chick ____", and even develop in some circles a 'for us by us' mentality around it, but surely that latter connotation still commonly exists (and is something the genre champions continue to challenge or defy). So your post has me curious! It's aimed at me alone, not me and Gabriele who dropped a book because it was "chick lit", so I wonder: should I infer that you believe I was wrongheadedly responding to someone referencing the formal Chick Lit literary school, as derived from a post-feminist short story compilation and the movement it spawned? Or were we using a more common, informal, often dismissive meaning of the phrase?

(To be clear, because this is text, none of the above should be read as prickly or abrasive, just engaged, even where it's argumentative with you, QT, or where it references Gabriele's post. My original post wasn't suuuper serious and I figured she was just mostly stating a style preference. So like where I'm asking rhetorical-ish questions towards the end, it's to make a point that I hope is getting across, not to be snippy or even presume too much about Gabriele. I did mostly find your post informative, but you know, posting is its own reward, and I've already written this out, so right or wrong I'm clicking that Post button.)

I don't think there's anything wrong with passing over a book because it's chick lit. I generally skip crime for instance, because I've never been much of a fan of the tropes in that genre. Sure there are crime that I enjoy too, but they're rare and far between.

Agreed. It's a matter of spending one's time on what one knows one like to read. If I know that I don't generally like the tropes common in a genre, there's no point in making myself read it anyway on the off chance there might be something I like. I for one don't have enough time to read the stuff I KNOW I will like already.

This post has been edited by Puck: 12 December 2018 - 02:23 PM

[Mentalist]

I generally stay away from romance-type stuff. That being said, I read the Inheritance omnibus. Gave it a 3/5. Interesting ideas, but it was tedious at parts.

[End of Disc One]

So far I've read the first Inheritance book. Loved it for a while and couldn't put it down at first. Then the romance stuff became more prominent and more weird. Still a good book overall.

[RACHEL]

I read the Inheritance omnibus and it was just ok. I actually got rid of it because I have no interest in a re-read since I had to push myself to finish it in the first place. That said I am still going to get the Broken Earth books at some point.

[Andorion]

I think I am one of those few people who really liked Inheritance.

I absolutely loved books 1 and 2 and was ok about book 3.

[Mentalist]

Andorion, on 12 December 2018 - 05:35 PM, said:

I think I am one of those few people who really liked Inheritance.

I absolutely loved books 1 and 2 and was ok about book 3.

Book 2 was really good. Books 1 and 3 had their unique weaknesses.

[Gabriele]

Morgoth, on 12 December 2018 - 08:54 AM, said:

worry, on 11 December 2018 - 10:04 PM, said:

QT, I wasn't aware of that. Thank you! It appears to be an (initially ironic) reappropriation of the derogatory "chick ____" label you see in phrases like "chick flick", which makes a lot of sense. Fair enough to point it out in response to my blanket statement (especially a literal reading of it), and I'll read up more on all that history. Any authors you like in particular?


That said, as you know, 'Science Fiction' wasn't coined to be derogatory, nor does it have to be anything more than a handy arrow pointed at a literary niche, but I know you also understand quite well that when Margaret Atwood says it, it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as when you say it. You're keen to the ways language can ghetto-ize literary niches, in addition to and separate from making helpful distinctions, even when the vocabulary is the same. I can definitely understand why a proud (and proudly defiant) cast of "Chick Lit" writers would adopt the phrase, in response and reaction to the previously dismissive connotations attached to "chick ____", and even develop in some circles a 'for us by us' mentality around it, but surely that latter connotation still commonly exists (and is something the genre champions continue to challenge or defy). So your post has me curious! It's aimed at me alone, not me and Gabriele who dropped a book because it was "chick lit", so I wonder: should I infer that you believe I was wrongheadedly responding to someone referencing the formal Chick Lit literary school, as derived from a post-feminist short story compilation and the movement it spawned? Or were we using a more common, informal, often dismissive meaning of the phrase?

(To be clear, because this is text, none of the above should be read as prickly or abrasive, just engaged, even where it's argumentative with you, QT, or where it references Gabriele's post. My original post wasn't suuuper serious and I figured she was just mostly stating a style preference. So like where I'm asking rhetorical-ish questions towards the end, it's to make a point that I hope is getting across, not to be snippy or even presume too much about Gabriele. I did mostly find your post informative, but you know, posting is its own reward, and I've already written this out, so right or wrong I'm clicking that Post button.)

I don't think there's anything wrong with passing over a book because it's chick lit. I generally skip crime for instance, because I've never been much of a fan of the tropes in that genre. Sure there are crime that I enjoy too, but they're rare and far between.

Yeah, I didn't mean it derogatory. I'm not even sure Jemisin's book IS chick lit, but it felt like that to me, therefore I gave up after a few chapters. The narrative voice just didn't work for me. I'm not big on Romance, but I've read some books with important romance subplots or layers which I enjoyed, like Outlander or the first Kushiel trilogy, so it wasn't the romance per se ... Calling the book 'chick lit' was the first reaction I had in order to explain why it didn't work, because the narrative voice sounded like that.

And with all those books out there waiting to be read, I won't force myself through something I don't enjoy. Did that at school, but never after.

[Gabriele]

Puck, on 12 December 2018 - 02:20 PM, said:

Agreed. It's a matter of spending one's time on what one knows one like to read. If I know that I don't generally like the tropes common in a genre, there's no point in making myself read it anyway on the off chance there might be something I like. I for one don't have enough time to read the stuff I KNOW I will like already.

Indeed. My TBR pile is a scary sight already. And I spend some of my free time trying to write books I like, which cuts into the reading time as well.

[QuickTidal]

Re-read of HoC going exceedingly well. Man, I just LOVE the whole introduction of the Bonehunters, from inception of the 14th, to the omen, to the naming ect. It's such a tidy section of the whole Malazan series.

[Morgoth]

Briar King, on 12 December 2018 - 04:46 PM, said:

Well now I'm not in a rush to go out and get it after I finish BE. Shame because BE has been absolutely phenomenal and had me craving more N.K.

Will hopefully finish bk 2 today and make a small bit of bk 3.

Give it a go. I for one loved it.

[polishgenius]

The first book in the Inheritance series had a bit too much breathless romance for my taste but I still enjoyed it and books 2 and 3 have much less of it (they're still love stories in part, but they're less flustered about it), and generally get better as they go along anyway. Definitely worth a read, though they're nothing like Broken Earth anyway.


Also Jemisin has me blocked on twitter and I haven't the foggiest idea why.

[worry]

I'm halfway into NKJ's short stories, and a lot of them have been pretty good (a few didn't hit me really, but no full on clunkers). But friggin A, the one called The Evaluators is so good. Top of the heap so far!

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 12 December 2018 - 11:22 PM, said:

The first book in the Inheritance series had a bit too much breathless romance for my taste but I still enjoyed it and books 2 and 3 have much less of it (they're still love stories in part, but they're less flustered about it), and generally get better as they go along anyway. Definitely worth a read, though they're nothing like Broken Earth anyway.


Also Jemisin has me blocked on twitter and I haven't the foggiest idea why.

She said a few years back that if she’s blocked you on twitter and she’s not interacted with you directly...it’s becuase one of her 13k friends on there have you blocked...she says she’s fickle like that and blocks the same people.

I think it’s arrgoant as fuck..and not conducive to selling her brand as an author...but then I’ve never cared much for her online persona anyways.

[amphibian]

Arthur Chu and that crowd have me blocked because I dared tell Asymbina/Sapphixy (after she wrote to me first) that the Gator Tweet that her friend wrote was really bad. Asymbina blocked me and that put me on a big block list that Chu and several others use.

I am glad to be shut of that crowd, but the usefulness of big block lists like that is very minimal.

I found out later that Asymbina is one of the crowd who used to be big fans of RequiresOnlyHate (Beejanun Sriduangkaew). That crowd is full of toxic, toxic people who started to try a little bit to be better after RequiresOnlyHate's real identity was exposed.

I don't think Jemisin uses that block list or hangs out with that crowd, but it's useful to know what crowd writers and very vocal fans are congregating in. Any crowd with Chu in it is probably not one you want to stay in.

[worry]

Yah I was a little slow on the uptake with Chu, given my soft spot for all things Jeopardy and his early anti-GG stances. And for obvious reasons, the blocklist thing a few years back was probably good and necessary throughout (for lack of a better term) the online nerd community. But clearly it had no shortage of wack Twitter wannabe thought leaders building in-groups and out-groups via these lists. I don't really blame people who could or would have been targets of harassment using these lists, though. It wasn't really a time (and kinda still isn't) where sifting through thousands of potentially hostile strangers is productive. Just one more good thing these toxic personalities have tainted for everyone else.

[acesn8s]

I finished The Last Wish yesterday. I enjoyed it more than Blood of Elves. I'll have to pick up The Sword of Destiny at some point.

Today, I'll be starting The Library at Mount Char, based on the strong recommendations in this thread.

[Abyss]

Briar King, on 15 December 2018 - 06:47 AM, said:

Managed a whopping 4 pgs today.

*sobs

That’s it. You’re done. Hand over your eyes.