Signor Finzione

I should be getting it at some point in the next few weeks, so maybe we could read it together in the future if you feel like it?

I love it when one genre incorporates features of another. I really like how Blindsight sounds like a cross between SF and horror (and how the prologue begins with a quote by a serial killer ). I also love it when books are organised in a non-standard way, i.e. without conventional chapters (like Pratchett, whose books don't have any chapters at all). What's the meaning of Theseus, Rorschach and Charybdis? (Rorschach just makes me think of Watchmen ). It's a bit freaky how you casually mention that Siri had half of his brain cut out. Though the way you describe him - as a thinking, yet unfeeling, alien-type narrator reminds me of the book I'm reading now (Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie). The narrator is an AI and similarly lacks feelings, and I'm also finding it hard to care about her/him/it. Looking at the website I notice there's a short section written in second person. Does the author return to this throughout, and is it not a bit disorienting? Where is the review?

Was it Vicious? The one about the superheroes? That's on my birthday list. I'd say that, given your current apathy towards fantasy, WtHF isn't Erikson-like enough to win you over. Don't get me wrong, it's really enjoyable - I'm just not 100% sure you'd love it as much as I did. Then again I could be wrong. I'll let you know when the next one comes out.

Exactly, and I kind of feel like it's my duty to have a go at doing this a bit more in the future. Really appreciate your points, Raven. As a shamelessly die-hard fantasy fan I'm not complaining. But, I can totally understand where Steve's coming from. If it were the other way around I'd be majorly unhappy about it too.

The Sword, Diamond Head and Metallica at the MEN. Best gig I've ever been to.

^^ I saw them live when they supported Metallica. They were great!

I didn't mean *those* people - I meant the bloggers currently discussing the topic on the internet. I'm not advocating *anything* the so-called Sad Puppies are saying. I was simply summarising their main argument, and bringing up the point of the Gemmell vs. Hugo shortlisting to highlight the point that no matter what happens, there's always someone who's not happy. ETA: And yes, I agree that they're just bitter that they didn't win, and the fact that they're attempting to skew the awards in the other direction just goes to show what massive hypocrites they are.

That can be your lounging shirt, for wearing at home with leggings, or at bedtime without leggings. Or, you could leave the bottom half unbuttoned, then sort of hike it up and tie it in a knot at the waist?

Review: 'A Darker Shade of Magic' by V.E. Schwab Kell is one of the last travellers — magicians with a rare ability to travel between parallel universes connected by one magical city. There’s Grey London, without magic and ruled by the mad King George III. Red London – where magic is revered, and where Kell was raised alongside the heir to the empire. White London – where people fight to control the remaining magic and magic fights back. And once there was Black London . . . Officially, Kell is the Red traveller, carrying letters between the monarchs of each London. Unofficially he is a smuggler, a defiant hobby with dangerous consequences. His escape to Grey London leads to a run-in with Delilah, a cutpurse with lofty aspirations, who forces Kell to take her on a proper adventure. But perilous magic is afoot, treachery lurks at every turn, and an adventure becomes a mission to save all of the worlds. I’m a little bit embarrassed to admit that I bought this book solely because of its strikingly awesome cover. I knew little about the actual story and even less about the author, but who cares? That is one damn gorgeous cover. Luckily there’s an equally gorgeous story lying behind it. A Darker Shade of Magic is filled with beautiful settings and bloody magic, cross-dressing thieves and nefarious villains, magical utopias and fearsome dystopias, not to mention fun adventures and several heroic attempts to save the world. Or I should say worlds, of which there are four. Each of the four worlds – closed off from one another after terrible past events – are completely different, yet all have a single common point: the city of London. Each of these Londons (not all of which are actually called London) is vastly different from the others: Red London is a magic-infused paradise, Grey London is akin to early 19th century England, White London is dangerous and filled with half-starved cannibals, and the less said about Black London the better. A Darker Shade of Magic focuses on two incredibly likeable characters: Kell, a powerful magician and adopted member of the Red London royal family; and Lila, a dirt-poor thief from Grey London who dreams of adventure. An unlikely pairing, but one which must work together to travel between Londons and thwart those trying to bring doom upon both their worlds. The relationship between Kell and Lila forms a large part of the story, and much of the novel’s humour arises from their interactions and the dry way in which they antagonise one another. However, their relationship is not the sole focus of the story – much to the author’s credit. A romance storyline between the two could easily have taken centre stage, and yet this particular element is remarkably downplayed and subtle. Instead it’s more about how Kell and Lila gradually come to trust one another, and how their initially antagonistic relationship becomes something stronger through their mutual desire to put things right and save the worlds. There’s just a hint or two that there may be more than just friendship on the horizon, which is both realistic and lovely at the same time. No, the true focus of the novel is on its plot rather than its characters; and while I would have liked to have been given more insight into each of the characters as individuals, the author nonetheless does a credible job of developing them both whilst remaining focused on the events. The plot itself is relatively straightforward, but with enough twists and turns thrown in to keep the reader guessing; and the writing is flowing and engaging. In fact, certain parts of the prose – not to mention the setting, as well as the somewhat nebulous nature of the magic itself – put me in mind of Susanna Clarke’s excellent novel Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. Schwab’s novel is not as accomplished nor as ambitious as Clarke’s behemoth – indeed, A Darker Shade of Magic’s strength is in its fast pacing and tightly-focused plot – but its spirit is much the same, as is its focus on magic’s darker, subtler side and its potential to bring out both the best and the worst in people. While many aspects of the novel are somewhat dark and sinister (as the title suggests), the story itself is a whole lot of fun. The strong pacing and short chapters – as well as the likeable characters and compelling plot – conspired to make me finish the book in just two sittings, and I’m really happy to have discovered a new author as a result of my shallow over-appreciation of fine cover art. Even better, a look at the author’s website tells me that there’s a sequel due out next year. I’m confident it will be just as good, if not better, than book one . . . I can only cross my fingers and hope it looks just as pretty on my shelf. 4/5

I love this idea that all our reading mojos elope together. I don't think they actually read at all when they're on holiday. I reckon they do Sudoku puzzles and wordsearches, or maybe just use colouring books. ETA: Maybe they go away to get their reading mojos back?

It does stink! I really like the idea of everyone publishing under a gender neutral pseudonym (like the people in Claire's article), yet at the same time rail against the necessity of having to think like this at all. I too seem to (overwhelmingly) favour male writers, but the only reason I can think of is that their books and series have been brought to my attention the most frequently. I'll keep my eye out for how direct they are in future though!

Sorry to hear you're not feeling great. I totally understand, and hope you feel better soon! Thanks for weighing in anyway. Isn't it funny how it's the exact opposite in this genre to those authors in Claire's thread? I still find it bizarre that, in this day and age, it's necessary for people to pretend they're something they're not because consumers judge art in terms of something as arbitrary as the creator's gender. It's good to know that your reading in this genre has been slightly uneven too, and that regardless of this you don't judge a book by the gender of the person who writes it. I think this is one of the overriding concerns of those taking part in this debate: that reading so many books by white male authors is something that we do without even realising it. It's not suggesting that us readers are sexist (at least, most of us aren't!), it's more that the established hegemony (is that the right word?) of what is 'popular' is dangerously ingrained and needs to change.

This is exactly what people are talking about. Many people, either new to the genre or unwilling to look any further into it, will read only these books, and then recommend them to others, who will also only read these kinds of books . . . It just seems unfair that others aren't even being given a fighting chance to get their names out there. I think the Sad Puppies' main 'concern' was that the most recent Hugo shortlists were deliberately skewed in favour of women, in the interests of pushing gender equality instead of focusing on the quality of writing. Whereas the Gemmells have been criticised for the exact opposite . . .

As do I. But it was more the fact that these conservative writers appeared to be lobbying against fair representation in the genre, and claiming 'anti-majority' politicking when in fact there was none, that really made me sit back and re-assess my own reading habits, and also wonder why this particular genre is struggling so much with this sort of thing in this day and age.

I like to think the same thing, which is why I'm not weighing in on this debate too heavily. But one of the main arguments that seems to be circulated by others isn't always that readers are making these sorts of decisions, but the people responsible for putting the books out there in the first place. Of course there are tonnes of excellent female writers in the genre, but it could be said that we as readers don't have the opportunity to discover them because the market focuses too much on works by males. I think, rather than suggesting people pick up a book exclusively because it's written by a woman (which is essentially just as discriminatory as the opposite, and is exactly the sort of thing the 'Sad Puppies' were supposedly arguing against), I'd just suggest that maybe people take a little more time to look at what's on offer. Like Gaia said, a lot of the 'highly recommended' texts online and in bookshops do very frequently 'happen' to be written by white males; so perhaps, in addition to looking at these, maybe if people shopped around a little bit more then 'other' writers would get the widespread publicity they deserve, and the divide wouldn't be quite so noticeable.

Splatter painting!!

Very apt indeed! When my cousins and sisters-in-law are popping out babies every year and then complaining about how tired they are and how they don't get any time to themselves . . . I feel like I'm the only rational mind around for miles! Ha! Well said! Yeah, I have nothing against childbearing in general (that would just be daft!), I just know it's not for me and wish others would accept that. Another thing people always say is that if I don't have kids now then I'll regret it when I'm older. Sorry, but I don't think "I might regret not doing this one day" is a good enough reason to force myself into such a life-altering decision! Thanks for the positive reinforcement, Cate. It gets very frustrating being in a minority of one amongst friends and family - it's VERY comforting to know that you guys feel the same way!

Probably. Papyrus would be a bit advanced for me - I'd probably never have got past cave painting.

Following the recent announcement of the 2015 David Gemmell Legend Award winners I thought I'd bring up a topic that's been circulating hotly around the internet for the last few months. Is the fantasy/science fiction genre really dominated by white males? Why? There are of course plenty of arguments both for and against; but the majority of the internet seems to be clamouring for a fairer representation of gender and race in awards such as the DGLAs. These awards - along with many 'recommended' lists by both authors and bloggers - do seem to be dominated by this single demographic. The debate was sparked earlier this year, when the Hugo Awards were surrounded by a controversy that came to be dubbed 'Puppygate'. I don't claim to know all the finer details, but it boils down to the fact that a couple of authors who had been previously nominated for the award believed that the only reason they didn't win was because the voting was stacked in favour of minority authors. They started a campaign, calling themselves the 'Sad Puppies', claiming that the 'true spirit' of the Hugos (i.e. celebrating 'fun and traditional' science fiction) was being taken over by women, LGBTQ and people of colour, and that these people were only getting the votes because of their gender, race or sexual preference. This campaign encouraged people who sympathised with this view to vote only for authors the Sad Puppies told them to, which of course excluded most of the minorities mentioned above. The Gemmell Awards have also been criticised because all but one of this year's shortlisted authors falls into the 'white male' category. I found it interesting that, when reviewing my own reading so far in 2015, 33 of the books I've read were indeed written by (white) men, while 5 were written by (white) women. Although I never actually consider the gender or race of an author before reading a book, I've come to realise that maybe I should; and that maybe I should make more of an effort to balance out the kinds of authors I read, particularly since I also publicise my reviews on my own personal blog (which, looking at my review archive since starting the blog in 2013, does lean heavily and embarrassingly in favour of white male authors). With this in mind, I'm interested to know what people's opinions are about the following: The Hugo Awards/'Sad Puppies' controversy? The Gemmell Award shortlisting? How different genders/races/sexualities influence and/or are represented in your own reading? The SFF genre and how certain authors are 'pushed' on readers (e.g. Amazon recommendations, prominent displays in Waterstones, etc.)? Anything else you may have come across relating to other issues in this genre? There's a really good article here on Fantasy Faction summing up the Hugo stuff, along with several others elsewhere on the site for those who are interested. I look forward to hearing people's thoughts!

Ooh maybe I'll try Mistborn soon too, then we can compare thoughts. It would be interesting to see your 'top 10' authors for each genre. Maybe at the end of the year you should do your own awards.

SPEND IT NOW

I'm sure Steve will weigh in soon with his own opinions on GRRM.

High five!!

You're not going to be very happy . . . The winners are: RAVENHEART AWARD (Best cover art) Sam Green for Words of Radiance by Brandon Sanderson (Gollancz) MORNINGSTAR AWARD (Best debut) The Emperor's Blades by Brian Staveley (Pan Macmillan/Tor UK) LEGEND AWARD (Best novel) Words of Radiance by Brandon Sanderson (Gollancz) This is the second time Sanderson has won the Legend award: he also won in 2011 for The Way of Kings. I still haven't read anything by Sanderson, but Staveley totally deserves the award for Best Debut. The Emperor's Blades was great.

It is! I feel like I'm losing interest, especially as the TV show will end up being ahead of the books. I think it will make it seem like there's not much point in reading the books any more! There's been another delay on the new Scott Lynch book, The Thorn of Emberlain. His last book was delayed by several years too, but in this case the author has a legitimate reason (he suffers from crippling depression and anxiety which not only affects his writing but also impairs his ability to attend meetings and make public appearances). In his case I won't gripe about it, as his own health and wellbeing is the main priority. GRRM has no such reason for taking so long. He has so many other projects on the go - editing anthologies, writing blurbs for other books, publishing other ASoIaF stuff - that I wonder why he doesn't just get on with it!!! Whoops, there goes yet another rant.