![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Today is one of my favorite days of the month -- Early Word Galley Chat. It's the one thing I really love about twitter. Basically, for an hour, a bunch of librarians and book professionals hop online to chat about their favorite upcoming reads. I am, for sure, going to be touting Adrian Tchaikovsky's The Doors of Eden (out later this month as an ebook but September in physical form). How can you not love a book that features, among other things, an parallel universe where trilobites because the dominant sentient life form and became space faring body modders?
On the other hand, some of the books getting touted make me shake my head. One of the recent chats' favorites was The Exiles by Christina Baker Kline. It's historical fiction about the prisoners forcibly transported to Australia and, of course, deals with gender inequality. That will make it popular right off. But really, as librarians, why aren't we concerned with the Aboriginal character? You're going to include a native Australian as a viewpoint character and then... just kind of discard her in favor of the white lady? Then give her a tiny coda to show she's become a depressed drunk? I get, maybe, the author is trying to make a point about how some of the lousy characters saw her, but, to me, seems to uphold modern harmful stereotypes about drunkenness. (even if the character was educated and shown to be intelligent and not "primitive" as colonists felt her to be) I don't think it was a respectful way to handle the character and immediately makes me think of the "Nice White Lady" syndrome -- where a group of authors in privileged positions (white, cisgendered, heteronormative, generally) take up space that should be given to authors of color and allow racist underpinnings to persist because they don't see it. I think I'd have had a very different feeling on this novel if she hadn't included an Aboriginal point of view character. If she'd been a background character that the main characters noticed was being treated poorly, some of it can be more excused. But by giving the character protagonist status, I expect an equally nuanced storyline.
I can't say tons of exciting things are happening lately. Mostly, I'm just working and reading, though I've actually been making myself take more tv time. It might sound weird, but I feel like I'm getting less and less able to enjoy visual storylines the less I watch tv and movies. And, of course, I haven't been able to go to a movie theater in forever. (I tend to get most of my movie watching that way) So, I recently saw Palm Springs (funny, weird, a bit crude -- but good for sure), Witch: the Subversion (a little Bourne Identity, a little Battle Royale, very Korean), Attack the Block (started off in an off-putting way, ended up awesome, cheesy aliens though), and I started watching the Avatar cartoon because I keep being told I am crazy for enjoying the live action movie way back when. I kind of want to watch the movie again, now that I've completed the first season. So far I'm wondering if I just missed some sort of window to love the show. Like, maybe for some cultural touch points you need to be part of the dialogue? Or just need more dialogue, so being home watching it alone after everyone else has already seen it isn't giving me the right feedback loop to appreciate it? All I feel about it so far is that it's very... young. Very silly, very slapstick. There's some cool world building, but it's mostly sketched in as the show favors scenes of Sokka getting bopped on the head or whatever. I'd been told that the movie just didn't have enough emotional depth, but I'm not getting much of that from the cartoon so far either. Since the episodes are so short and the silly hijinks are a major focus, every emotional event takes place in seconds. Minutes at the very most (as a whole romance and tragedy arc took place over two episodes where a whole lot of other things were happening too... such as the Waterbenders showing they aren't very good at tactics). I don't hate it. I've started season two. But... thus far, it isn't going to be something I count as a favorite. Oh, and my buddy is making me watch some of Canada's Drag Race, since I hadn't really ever seen much of the series at all. It can be interesting, but there is so much I don't get and don't have the vocabulary for. I like it when it's highlighting creativity and not when people are being mean/catty so he's said it's a good thing we're watching the Canadian one because they are a LOT nicer than the American ones. I'm a terrible gay, I guess. haha We did watch an episode of a different show that deals with ball culture/houses and voguing -- Legendary -- and I liked that much more. Those folks have amazing talent and it was interesting to see how that compared to that "lip synch for your life" thing in drag race. You can see where it came from, but also what happens when you focus on it so much more.
Today, I'm reading GL Carriger's latest gay werewolf romance. I adore this series. It's got a lot of depth, but also a lot of fluff. Plus it's fun to see the little nods to the Parasol Protectorate novels. (the author says she can't make them official connections because of contractual reasons, but she'll skirt the line for her fans and her imagination -- basically, if she made them official then she has to let the publishing house get first dibs on them and they aren't going to want these types of novels so it's just going to delay the release. Whereas, currently, she just self publishes them and can do things like release it months early because she feels like many of her fans could use a treat. (we definitely can!) I'm excited about her upcoming nonfiction book, as well -- The Heroine's Journey. It's a book that explores the shape of women's hero stories and how they don't work the same as Campbell's Hero's journey. It'll be interesting to see how her nonfiction reads, particularly as she used to be an archaeologist.
On the other hand, some of the books getting touted make me shake my head. One of the recent chats' favorites was The Exiles by Christina Baker Kline. It's historical fiction about the prisoners forcibly transported to Australia and, of course, deals with gender inequality. That will make it popular right off. But really, as librarians, why aren't we concerned with the Aboriginal character? You're going to include a native Australian as a viewpoint character and then... just kind of discard her in favor of the white lady? Then give her a tiny coda to show she's become a depressed drunk? I get, maybe, the author is trying to make a point about how some of the lousy characters saw her, but, to me, seems to uphold modern harmful stereotypes about drunkenness. (even if the character was educated and shown to be intelligent and not "primitive" as colonists felt her to be) I don't think it was a respectful way to handle the character and immediately makes me think of the "Nice White Lady" syndrome -- where a group of authors in privileged positions (white, cisgendered, heteronormative, generally) take up space that should be given to authors of color and allow racist underpinnings to persist because they don't see it. I think I'd have had a very different feeling on this novel if she hadn't included an Aboriginal point of view character. If she'd been a background character that the main characters noticed was being treated poorly, some of it can be more excused. But by giving the character protagonist status, I expect an equally nuanced storyline.
I can't say tons of exciting things are happening lately. Mostly, I'm just working and reading, though I've actually been making myself take more tv time. It might sound weird, but I feel like I'm getting less and less able to enjoy visual storylines the less I watch tv and movies. And, of course, I haven't been able to go to a movie theater in forever. (I tend to get most of my movie watching that way) So, I recently saw Palm Springs (funny, weird, a bit crude -- but good for sure), Witch: the Subversion (a little Bourne Identity, a little Battle Royale, very Korean), Attack the Block (started off in an off-putting way, ended up awesome, cheesy aliens though), and I started watching the Avatar cartoon because I keep being told I am crazy for enjoying the live action movie way back when. I kind of want to watch the movie again, now that I've completed the first season. So far I'm wondering if I just missed some sort of window to love the show. Like, maybe for some cultural touch points you need to be part of the dialogue? Or just need more dialogue, so being home watching it alone after everyone else has already seen it isn't giving me the right feedback loop to appreciate it? All I feel about it so far is that it's very... young. Very silly, very slapstick. There's some cool world building, but it's mostly sketched in as the show favors scenes of Sokka getting bopped on the head or whatever. I'd been told that the movie just didn't have enough emotional depth, but I'm not getting much of that from the cartoon so far either. Since the episodes are so short and the silly hijinks are a major focus, every emotional event takes place in seconds. Minutes at the very most (as a whole romance and tragedy arc took place over two episodes where a whole lot of other things were happening too... such as the Waterbenders showing they aren't very good at tactics). I don't hate it. I've started season two. But... thus far, it isn't going to be something I count as a favorite. Oh, and my buddy is making me watch some of Canada's Drag Race, since I hadn't really ever seen much of the series at all. It can be interesting, but there is so much I don't get and don't have the vocabulary for. I like it when it's highlighting creativity and not when people are being mean/catty so he's said it's a good thing we're watching the Canadian one because they are a LOT nicer than the American ones. I'm a terrible gay, I guess. haha We did watch an episode of a different show that deals with ball culture/houses and voguing -- Legendary -- and I liked that much more. Those folks have amazing talent and it was interesting to see how that compared to that "lip synch for your life" thing in drag race. You can see where it came from, but also what happens when you focus on it so much more.
Today, I'm reading GL Carriger's latest gay werewolf romance. I adore this series. It's got a lot of depth, but also a lot of fluff. Plus it's fun to see the little nods to the Parasol Protectorate novels. (the author says she can't make them official connections because of contractual reasons, but she'll skirt the line for her fans and her imagination -- basically, if she made them official then she has to let the publishing house get first dibs on them and they aren't going to want these types of novels so it's just going to delay the release. Whereas, currently, she just self publishes them and can do things like release it months early because she feels like many of her fans could use a treat. (we definitely can!) I'm excited about her upcoming nonfiction book, as well -- The Heroine's Journey. It's a book that explores the shape of women's hero stories and how they don't work the same as Campbell's Hero's journey. It'll be interesting to see how her nonfiction reads, particularly as she used to be an archaeologist.
no subject
Date: 2020-08-06 08:06 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2020-08-07 04:20 pm (UTC)From: